Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Livni: "'your national solution lies elsewhere."

Livni: "'your national solution lies elsewhere." (Page 3)
Thread Tools
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2008, 12:34 PM
 
@Big Mac
Talesin's reaction is exactly what I've predicted in my posts (not the content, just the fact that his interpretation is different from yours). And no, I'm not talking about a `correct' interpretation of religious texts, just the trivial fact that there are different interpretations.

So even though you (from your (Jewish) perspective) may have interpreted everything in accordance with Jewish rhetoric, Jews don't have any privilege of interpretation over how muslims are supposed to read and interpret their texts (and vice versa, of course).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2008, 12:38 PM
 
Muslims can interpret their texts as they wish to do so, but I'm just pointing out Koranic fact versus Muslim preacher rhetoric. He can dispute that if he wishes, but I've already done the research and am confident in my opinion. When a text says something plainly, I take it at its plain word. When Mohammed says that the Koran is confirmed by the "Torat" and "Injeel" that came before it, that means that he respects the record of those texts as validation of his claims. That essentially nullifies the Islamic fundamentalist claim of scriptural corruption, which they use as justification to rewrite the Hebrew Scriptures and reject the verses that undeniably conflict with the Koranic version. Mohammed only at most made the claim that Jews concealed the truth of their texts, not that the text themselves were corrupt. Taliesin and other Muslims attempt to talk about the correct interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which are completely at variance with the plain meanings of the verses in question. The classic example is the dispute over which son Abraham prepared to sacrifice: Ishmael or Isaac. They don't like that the Torah says it was Isaac because the Koran claims it was Ishmael. When that's brought up, they make the "Jews corrupted their scriptures" claim, which wasn't even taught by Mohammed. it may not be clear to those who aren't familiar with the controversies, but there's a substantial difference between what I'm doing and what they're doing.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Dec 23, 2008 at 12:44 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2008, 12:44 PM
 
The original argument of yours was that Jerusalem and the area surrounding it is not a very important part of muslim faith. You used your own interpretation of things `to show' that this is not the case -- instead of respecting other peoples' religion and their liturgy. Obviously, it's not a problem of interpretation, but a problem of lack of (mutual) respect.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2008, 12:46 PM
 
No, I made an argument backed up by textual and historical proofs. And you may have noticed that Taliesin did not dispute my argument that indeed, the land of Israel is not important to the core of Islam. The conversation then expanded because Taliesin brought up his Islamic interpretation of prophecies contained in the Hebrew Scriptures, an interpretation which I showed to be defective in multiple ways.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Dec 23, 2008 at 04:04 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2008, 08:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
What I've always taken issue with about Israel is *how* the country defends itself. It seems to use tactics designed to *encourage" violence rather than to end the conflict while at the same time participating in peace discussions.
The discussions of peace are almost always important for one reason or another.

I'm left to believe what you take issue with the most is your feelings. It seems to use tactics designed to encourage violence? That's kind of a serious indictment after saying earlier that they live in a region where they're surrounded by age-old enemies. Can you give me perhaps a short list of reasons why designing tactics to encourage violence in a region the size of New Jersey, flanked by hostility would be in their best interest? Why they're not interested in ending the conflict?

Let's say you're vying against Livni; what would you do to end the conflict and how would you defend Israel?

I think there are some people in Israel who either benefit from the conflict or are just as hateful as some Palestinians and either don't want the conflict to end or want to obliterate the Palestinians and seek to aggravate the conflict to suit their goals.
Do you really think that? See, I think this is the degree of pessimism that exacerbates the struggle and why conspiracy theories have a long shelf-life. I think Palestinians will simply do what its leadership would like for it to do and Israelis would simply do what its leadership wants. I believe most people want to work, make a little, get a little, play games, drink a little, pray a little, and go to bed. The only conflicting nature is greed. There are winners and losers as we discussed. At some point one of the two bickering children must relent. Insanity is when neither will. The Jewish culture in Israel simply has too much to lose as it cannot enjoy this degree of freedom anywhere else in the Middle East.

In addition; there are some ideals that just work more effectively than others. By any standard, Israel has a more effective model of governance than do its neighbors. It's just logical, natural as day and night. Entities that want nothing more than conflict and prolonged struggle will experience little else. That is not what you have in Israel. This is unmistakable. I'm just sayin'. If the Arabs among Jews cannot live in peace, acknowledging the natural facts cited above and relent to the sensibility in it, there will never be peace. Period. If Israeli-Arabs cannot live among their Arab brethren elsewhere in the Middle East peaceably, you have to ask yourself if Israel truly owns the lions-share of blame in this.

I'm curious though; what are "their" goals and how does aggravating the conflict achieve those goals?
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2008, 11:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It seems to use tactics designed to encourage violence? That's kind of a serious indictment after saying earlier that they live in a region where they're surrounded by age-old enemies. Can you give me perhaps a short list of reasons why designing tactics to encourage violence in a region the size of New Jersey, flanked by hostility would be in their best interest?
I'll give you one reason: the world's most powerful military has their back unconditionally.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I believe most people want to work, make a little, get a little, play games, drink a little, pray a little, and go to bed. The only conflicting nature is greed.
Agreed. Most people on both sides probably have little interest in the conflict beyond the propaganda by their leaders.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
In addition; there are some ideals that just work more effectively than others. By any standard, Israel has a more effective model of governance than do its neighbors. It's just logical, natural as day and night. Entities that want nothing more than conflict and prolonged struggle will experience little else. That is not what you have in Israel. This is unmistakable. I'm just sayin'. If the Arabs among Jews cannot live in peace, acknowledging the natural facts cited above and relent to the sensibility in it, there will never be peace. Period. If Israeli-Arabs cannot live among their Arab brethren elsewhere in the Middle East peaceably, you have to ask yourself if Israel truly owns the lions-share of blame in this.

I'm curious though; what are "their" goals and how does aggravating the conflict achieve those goals?
Again, I generally agree with you here. I don't think I'm saying that Israel owns the lions-share of blame, but if they want to claim the moral high-ground, they shouldn't own *any* share of the blame.

There are always people, in every culture, who benefit from conflict. Conflict is a great tool for uniting people against something they might not otherwise oppose. It's also useful for distracting people from other issues. And, of course, there are those who would like to see Arabs erased from the face of the planet for no other reason than they've known this hate all their life (just as there are some Arabs with exactly the goal regarding Jews)

How do I know these people exist? Events such as the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount in 2000.

I would support Israel ramping up their defense to full military action if they first attempted to stick to a cease-fire and resisted retaliatory attacks. If Palestinian attacks continued without Israeli retaliation and provocation, I would support Israel taking an official offensive stance.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2008, 11:37 PM
 
To back up ebuddy's argument and respond to something Wiskedjak said, Israelis almost universally want peace. If you walk up to the average Israeli on the street, as I did early this year, and ask what is the one thing you want the most, the response you'll get 9 times out of 10 is "Shalom." And if you knew about the history of the country, Wiskedjak, you'd know that Israel has bent over backward to try to make peace. The Israeli-left falsely legitimized the pig cretin Arafat, YM"SH, and his illegitimate cause in the early 1990s in an attempt to find a lasting peace, but instead got only a huge increase in terrorism for their efforts. If Israel could obtain true peace with its Arab enemies who are committed to its destruction, the country would retreat and concede in almost every way. They're currently in the process of doing so by giving away Judea and Samaria. No one wants endless terrorism and war. There are, however, many of us who believe that Israel will only be further harmed and backed into an indefensible position by continuing to make one-sided concessions. Wiskedjak, if you knew more about the history of the conflict and the particulars involved, perhaps you'd be less apt to ignorantly blame Israel for a conflict almost entirely perpetuated by its nemeses.

This isn't a full response to your most recent post, but as for sticking to cease fires, Israel does; the other side doesn't. If you don't believe me, just look at the supposed ceasefire Hamas claimed to honor while at the same time continuing the rocket attacks against Sderot. The Arab attacks continuing without Israeli retaliation is a condition that already exists there. There's plenty of evidence of that if you don't believe me. And how long should Israel sit around while those attacks occur? Would you be happy if your government allowed your fellow citizens to be terrorized with attack after attack while failing to retaliate in any way for some period of time simply because the world would prefer it that way? Because the uniformed think it's better that way? Should Israel, according to your scenario, wait for Hamas to ramp up, arm itself, train, operate openly and attack with increasing brazenness until Israel has to fight another war?
( Last edited by Big Mac; Dec 23, 2008 at 11:55 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2008, 12:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
And how long should Israel sit around while those attacks occur?
I'm not sure. More than a couple of days, less than a couple of months. Long enough to break the cycle of retaliation and give Israel the moral high ground. Sure, Israeli citizens would likely die in terrorist attacks while Israel builds that moral high ground, but really, Israeli citizens would be dying anyways: Israel doesn't defend against terrorist attacks; it seeks to discourage future attacks by retaliating against recent attacks. Unfortunately, this doesn't work as it only sparks retaliatory attacks from the Palestinians resulting in never ending Israeli deaths and retaliatory attacks from both sides.

Prove that Israel isn't complicit in prolonging the conflict and I would unconditionally support offensive military action against the Palestinians.
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2008, 07:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You don't have to subscribe to their belief system or mythology. All you need to do is acknowledge that they have criteria to decide whether or not someone is a Jew (or Muslim or whatnot) or not. It's about consistency within that religious framework. Certainly, Jews are no different than other religious groups in that respect. It's quite common to believe that their group are `the chosen ones.'
They do not seem to have consistent criteria, as far as I can tell.


Since he said it better than me, I am going to give you a quotation from Robert Anton Wilson’s book ‘Quantum Psychology’:

‘Even stranger, “John is a Jew” has at least five different meanings, some of which may change and some remain constant, and only one of which tells us anything about how John will behave in space-time.
Perhaps I’d better enlarge on that last point. “John is a Jew,” according to Rabbinical law, means that John had a Jewish mother. This tells us nothing about John’s politics or religion, and less than nothing about his taste in art, his sexual life, his favorite sports etc.
“John is a Jew” in Nazi Germany, or in anti-Semitic enclaves in the U.S. today, means that John had one known ancestor somewhere who could be classified as “Jewish” by one of these five contradictory definitions. Again, this tells us nothing about how John will behave.
“John is a Jew” in some circles means that John practices the Jewish religion. At least we have learned something about John. He will certainly attend Temple regularly…or fairly regularly. (But we still don’t know how strictly he will follow kosher laws…)
“John is a Jew” in some other circles means that, while John rejects the Jewish religion, he identifies with “the Jewish community” and (if he becomes famous) might speak “as a Jew” at a political rally. (We still don’t know, e.g., whether he will support or criticize current Israeli policies.)
“John is a Jew” can also mean that John lives in a society where, for any one of the above reasons, people regard him as a Jew, and he perforce has to recognize this “Jewishness” as something - even if only a spook - that people usually “see” when they think they see him.
Literary critics, usually considered careful and analytical readers, or more careful and analytical than most, referred to Leopold Bloom, the hero of James Joyce’s Ulysses, as a “Jew” for over 40 years. Only in the last decade or so have Jewish scholars begun arguing about whether Bloom “is” a Jew or not. (Bloom qualifies as Jewish in only two of the five meanings above and appears not-Jewish in three. Does that make him “40% Jewish” or 60% “not-Jewish”? Or both?) The emerging consensus of Joycean studies now appears to recognize that Joyce gave Bloom a very tangled genetic/cultural background just to create this ambiguity and thereby satirize anti-Semitism more sharply.
I may seem eccentric to suggest that, without formulating E-Prime explicitly, Joyce, like his great contemporary, Bohr, wished us to see beyond the fallacy contained in “isness” statements. Just like Schroedinger’s cat (“dead” in some eigenstates, “alive” in others) Bloom does not make sense as a man in an environment until we recognize that both his “Jewishness” and his “non-Jewishness” play roles in his life, at different times, within different environments.
Incidentally, within the structure of Standard English, “Marilyn Monroe was a Jew” qualifies as correct, although dated, even though she had no known Jewish ancestors, no Jewish mother, did not show much “community feeling” with other Jews, and hardly ever got called a Jew in print. Nonetheless, when married to Arthur Miller, Marilyn practiced the Jewish religion and therefore in Standard English “was” more of a Jew than some of my atheist friends of Jewish ancestry.’
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2008, 09:55 AM
 
Honestly, that doesn't sound terribly different from other religions. When I was a child, I was considered to be a Christian, simply by virtue of the fact that I was born from Christian parents. My parents still consider me to be a Christian, even though I don't follow any Christian rituals. It may not be official doctrine, but it would appear that at least some Christians believe that you are a Christian by birth.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2008, 09:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I'll give you one reason: the world's most powerful military has their back unconditionally.
This isn't a reason to perpetuate violence though. I asked you for reasons why designing tactics to encourage violence in a region the size of New Jersey, flanked by hostility would be in their best interest? Why they're not interested in ending the conflict? All you've said is because the US backs them.

This is like saying you're flushing money down the toilet because you've got a larger toilet on standby. This doesn't make sense.

Again, I generally agree with you here. I don't think I'm saying that Israel owns the lions-share of blame, but if they want to claim the moral high-ground, they shouldn't own *any* share of the blame.
Your request is impossible in the perceptions game. There is no reason to claim the moral high-ground at this point because it is not serving any useful purpose. it doesn't work because regardless of situations on the ground, there will never be agreement on who has the moral high ground. Suffice it to say at this point they have the military high-ground. We've already discussed this. Does the US have the moral high-ground with regard to its treatment of Native Americans? Does it really need one at this point? No. At some point one of the two parties must relent to sensibility. If for example the Native Americans insisted on building up military might and felt strongly that New Jersey belonged to them, using their resources to engage hostilities with neighboring States to achieve this goal; there would certainly never be peace. Concessions have been made by both parties and they've been respected to the degree that peace was achieved, but ultimately it was the Native Americans who relented. They realized that while unfortunate, it is the way of things from the Cherokee having taken land from the Creeks who took land from the Chocktaw who took land from the...

There are always people, in every culture, who benefit from conflict.
Right. Like I said, greed is the only conflicting nature to the general nature of peace. For the indictment of Israeli greed though, there must be an end game, a goal. I asked you what that goal is and how perpetuating violence helps them achieve it. I'm still curious.

Conflict is a great tool for uniting people against something they might not otherwise oppose.
This is generally useful to distract a subordinate from its oppressive government. As I understand it, Jews live in relative peace and prosperity in Israel under arguably the most successful model of governance throughout all the Middle East. What purpose would it serve to turn Jews against Arabs?

It's also useful for distracting people from other issues. And, of course, there are those who would like to see Arabs erased from the face of the planet for no other reason than they've known this hate all their life (just as there are some Arabs with exactly the goal regarding Jews)
What issues? Right now there is likely someone mounting a sheep. This is not indicative of populace desire. Saying some Jews hate Arabs is not answering anything. There is nowhere to go with that foundation for discourse. Again, most would rather make a little, get a little, pray a little, raise a couple of littl'ns and go to bed.

How do I know these people exist? Events such as the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount in 2000.
This is what I mean though. You're claiming Israel should hold the moral high-ground while equating an assassination on the Israeli PM with Jews visiting their most sacred site. Religion is important to these people. You can disagree with this, but this is like disagreeing with rain. What sacred sites are Muslims forbidden from visiting?

I would support Israel ramping up their defense to full military action if they first attempted to stick to a cease-fire and resisted retaliatory attacks. If Palestinian attacks continued without Israeli retaliation and provocation, I would support Israel taking an official offensive stance.
Then one of two things has occurred here; either you've not availed yourself of the history of this region or there will simply never be agreement on what constitutes military restraint and moral high-ground. This leaves us back at square one. One of the two parties must relent to sensibility. I've already explained why one side will not, that it simply cannot, and that it is affirmed by both evolution and common sense. This leaves the other. If the other will not relent to sensibilities, there will never be peace. Period.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2008, 10:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This isn't a reason to perpetuate violence though. I asked you for reasons why designing tactics to encourage violence in a region the size of New Jersey, flanked by hostility would be in their best interest? Why they're not interested in ending the conflict? All you've said is because the US backs them.
Fair enough. Possible reasons could be gaining/maintaining power or exterminating a long hated enemy. It's a tried-and-true, age-old strategy. Of course, I don't even know if such people with such goals exist in Israel, but it does appear to me that there are at least a few, given some of the past moves to sabotage peace efforts. Being in a region the size of New Jersey, flanked by hostility isn't of serious concern when the world's superpower has got your back.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2008, 10:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Then one of two things has occurred here; either you've not availed yourself of the history of this region or there will simply never be agreement on what constitutes military restraint and moral high-ground. This leaves us back at square one. One of the two parties must relent to sensibility. I've already explained why one side will not, that it simply cannot, and that it is affirmed by both evolution and common sense. This leaves the other. If the other will not relent to sensibilities, there will never be peace. Period.
Agreed. It seems likely that there will never be peace.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2008, 10:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Fair enough. Possible reasons could be gaining/maintaining power or exterminating a long hated enemy. It's a tried-and-true, age-old strategy. Of course, I don't even know if such people with such goals exist in Israel, but it does appear to me that there are at least a few, given some of the past moves to sabotage peace efforts. Being in a region the size of New Jersey, flanked by hostility isn't of serious concern when the world's superpower has got your back.
You're being amicable Wiskedjak and I appreciate that, but you seemed to have thrown in the thinking towel. So... you're simply maintaining that Israel is flushing money down the toilet because it has a larger toilet on standby? When so many people have died in this conflict and with so much strife incurred by both sides, I would've hoped for a more informed opinion on the matter.

With no regard for the wealth of talks, calls for restraint from numerous US Presidents hoping to make Israel/Palestine peace part of their legacy, the subsequent well-documented restraint evidenced by the fact that Israel is endowed with the ability to eradicate its nemesis should it choose to do so and hasn't, concessions including pulling settlers from territory they've held their entire lives, and the mere statement of Livni to officially apportion more territory to Arabs inciting only more Arab anger; you maintain that Israel would simply flush money down the toilet because they have a larger toilet on standby and because of the desire to eradicate a segment of their population. You do so after agreeing that most people want to live peaceful lives and ignoring the fact that if Israel truly wanted extermination, it is sufficiently resourced to have done this already. Especially considering it has the "unconditional" support of the US behind it right?

You're right though, as long as we continue to abandon common sense affirmed by substantive data in favor of our mere feelings, we can never hope to make sense of anything and peace will never be achieved.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2008, 11:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You do so after agreeing that most people want to live peaceful lives and ignoring the fact that if Israel truly wanted extermination, it is sufficiently resourced to have done this already. Especially considering it has the "unconditional" support of the US behind it right?
I don't think there's any question that most people in Israel and Palestine just want to live peaceful lives. But, what most people want and what their leaders want, elected or otherwise, are not always the same.

[Conspiracy theory]
*If* there are people in power in Israel who want to exterminate the Palestinians, they can't simply do it without provocation and not be guilty of genocide. The wouldn't even be able to rely on support from the US for such an action. So, what do you do? In the case of the Palestinians, you have an enemy whose buttons are very easily pushed. Keep pushing their buttons long enough, and eventually they might respond with an action that will convince the global community that Israel is justified in all-out military action against the Palestinians.
[/Conspiracy theory]

For my part, both sides look almost equally guilty for the continuing conflict. I'd like to see one side take the moral high ground.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2008, 01:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
For my part, both sides look almost equally guilty for the continuing conflict. I'd like to see one side take the moral high ground.
See above. There is no definition of moral high ground that will suit all parties involved. i.e. I disagree that they haven't already and I don't see both parties as equally culpable. Your proposed moral high ground means unchecked death for Jews and is not a reasonable nor sensible proposal. For anyone. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2008, 01:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Your proposed moral high ground means unchecked death for Jews ...
I realize that. But, I'd wager that the conflict would end sooner and over the long term, *less* Jews would be killed. If the retaliatory defense strategy of the Israeli military ends, one of two things are likely to happen:
1. Palestinian attacks will continue against Israel, clearly identifying Israel as the victim here and offensive military action could be justified, resulting in a swifter end to the conflict.
2. Palestinian attacks will cease when there is nothing to retaliate to, resulting in a swifter end to the conflict. Political issues will be negotiated over tables rather than battlefields.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2008, 07:35 PM
 
Except that your number (1) has already happened repeatedly.
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2008, 11:52 AM
 
Hmm, 48 hours consideration time seem to run down much faster in Israel than in the rest of the world. I guess that is the final proof that the words coming from the leaders of Israel mean nothing. Shameful and pathetic to say the least.

Taliesin
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2008, 06:29 PM
 
It's election time in Israel, so just like in any other democracy, politicians want to show off.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2008, 08:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Taliesin View Post
Hmm, 48 hours consideration time seem to run down much faster in Israel than in the rest of the world. I guess that is the final proof that the words coming from the leaders of Israel mean nothing. Shameful and pathetic to say the least.
Wow. Israel extends an olive branch, the Palestinians blow up the olive branch, and somehow this is all Israel's fault. If the Palestinians had just kept their rockets to themselves, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2008, 08:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Wow. Israel extends an olive branch, the Palestinians blow up the olive branch, and somehow this is all Israel's fault. If the Palestinians had just kept their rockets to themselves, we wouldn't be having this conversation.


It's outrageous to expect Israel to sit around while rockets rain down on its citizens. Hamas officially ended their semi-cease fire (a.k.a. hudna), started attacking Israel brazenly again, and somehow thought there would be no reprisals. The awesome thing was Israel nailing Hamas's terrorist training camp graduation festivities. Too little, but better than nothing.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Dec 28, 2008 at 12:31 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2008, 03:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Wow. Israel extends an olive branch, the Palestinians blow up the olive branch, and somehow this is all Israel's fault. If the Palestinians had just kept their rockets to themselves, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I think Talesin's point was that they didn't even wait for the end of their own deadline.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2008, 03:39 AM
 
Honestly, this isn't me being pro-Israel or whatever. Israel has done some lousy stuff, but the Palestinians were so obviously in the wrong here that I don't see how you can ignore it. I just don't understand how Palestinians can attack Israel and that's OK, but then Israel strikes back and it's horrible and evil. Just because they did it on the wrong timeline? The Palestinians didn't exactly go the full 48 hours without attacking either, did they?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2008, 04:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I just don't understand how Palestinians can attack Israel and that's OK, but then Israel strikes back and it's horrible and evil. Just because they did it on the wrong timeline? The Palestinians didn't exactly go the full 48 hours without attacking either, did they?
I've never said that that this would be ok. Just the rhetoric is very much over the top and completely unnecessary. Israel has retaliated in the past without that. I'm not criticizing that Israel is reacting, I'm criticizing the way (before the deadline and filled with rhetoric) and the degree. And the point of my post was to link that to the upcoming election (I haven't singled out Israel either, it's always the same when there are elections in a modern democracy).

Even worse, it shows that during an election cycle politicians think in even shorter terms than usual.

Of course, the same goes for Hamas that apparently thinks the attacks can put it back to the table as a partner in negotiations. What would really put them under pressure is if Israel and Abbas made progress that shows the people in Gaza that there is an alternative. This would strengthen Abbas' position there, too. Hamas will only be pushed back if Palestinians (the faction represented by Abbas) themselves push it back.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Dec 28, 2008 at 05:04 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2008, 05:11 AM
 
What rhetoric from Israel bothers you so, OC? I haven't heard anything that incendiary. Israel has been tame in its response, as it almost always has. I don't disagree that this reaction is probably politically motivated in large part, but every government on the face of the earth thinks of political expediency during armed conflicts. That's the cynical truth. As for the retaliation itself, any other sovereign country in Israel's position would have long ago liquidated Gaza. And as for the concept of Arabs taking control and pushing back against Hamas - fat chance of that happening. When asked by the FNC anchor whether the Arabs of Gaza blame Hamas for inviting these Israeli strikes, Mike Tobin said they are absolutely not. The only talk on the street is hatred for Israel, rather than the root cause - the terrorism perpetrated by their rulers.

Israeli government, heed my call: Liquidate Gaza and annex Judea and Samaria!
( Last edited by Big Mac; Dec 28, 2008 at 05:27 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2008, 07:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit
I just don't understand how Palestinians can attack Israel and that's OK, but then Israel strikes back and it's horrible and evil.
It is horrible and evil because Israel responded to 70 crappy rockets and 1 dead Jew by dropping over 100 tons of bombs and killing over 200 human beings.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2008, 08:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
It is horrible and evil because Israel responded to 70 crappy rockets and 1 dead Jew by dropping over 100 tons of bombs and killing over 200 human beings.
When Israel is attacked a Jew is killed, but when Palestinians are attacked human beings are killed. Perpetuating stupidity has become an art here it seems.

70 crappy rockets... Notwithstanding there have been some 3000+ rocket attacks launched against Israel; all sloppily aimed at civilian infrastructure. I wonder how pleasant it'd be to live in a city that can experience literally several rocket attacks every day. Especially considering the attacks have increased five-fold since Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Of course, not mentioned is the Palestinian misfire killing two of their own school girls. I'm convinced per the direction of this discussion and numerous instances like we're watching unfold in Israel today, their national solution is nowhere in Israel. Nowhere. They must either relent to peace and sensibility or be transferred, relocated, removed, or eliminated. The half-assed back and forth game of political posturing and appeasement has only brought more death and destruction from both sides. It's time to end it.
( Last edited by ebuddy; Dec 28, 2008 at 09:05 AM. )
ebuddy
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2008, 09:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
It is horrible and evil because Israel responded to 70 crappy rockets and 1 dead Jew by dropping over 100 tons of bombs and killing over 200 human beings.
Why do you unnecessarily distinguish between Jews and human beings? You ruin the point you have by that.
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
70 crappy rockets... Notwithstanding there have been some 3000+ rocket attacks launched against Israel; all sloppily aimed at civilian infrastructure. I wonder how pleasant it'd be to live in a city that can experience literally several rocket attacks every day. Especially considering the attacks have increased five-fold since Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.
Proportionality is the issue I have with the Israeli reaction, especially because I think rather sooner than later it'll bite them in their own rear-end, just like the Second Lebanon War. It's a gut reaction without a larger encompassing strategy behind it. It's always easier to convince people by gut feeling than with their brains, even if it is in their best interest.
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm convinced per the direction of this discussion and numerous instances like we're watching unfold in Israel today, their national solution is nowhere in Israel. Nowhere. They must either relent to peace and sensibility or be transferred, relocated, removed, or eliminated. The half-assed back and forth game of political posturing and appeasement has only brought more death and destruction from both sides. It's time to end it.
The Israelis have no more or less right to live in the area than the Palestinians. What BigMac and you're proposing is forced relocation, a crime against humanity born out fear and the lack of ideas.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2008, 10:10 AM
 
Proportionality is the issue I have with the Israeli reaction, especially because I think rather sooner than later it'll bite them in their own rear-end, just like the Second Lebanon War. It's a gut reaction without a larger encompassing strategy behind it. It's always easier to convince people by gut feeling than with their brains, even if it is in their best interest.
Proportionality is a nebulous concept. What is disproportionate is the number of Palestinian rockets fired at civilian infrastructure (clearly separate geographically from military infrastructure) as opposed to the Israeli strikes against Palestinian military apparatus and personnel (often cramped strategically among civilians). The strategy is to destroy the Palestinians' ability to launch missile attacks. There would be no retaliation, disproportionate or otherwise if it weren't for provocation in the first place. A failure to acknowledge this very basic fact is, but one of the many failures of thought on this issue.

The Israelis have no more or less right to live in the area than the Palestinians. What BigMac and you're proposing is forced relocation, a crime against humanity born out fear and the lack of ideas.
Clearly Israelis have more right to live in the area than Palestinians. They've maintained this tiny piece of land through military conquest, superior governance, and fiscal prowess. If an inhabitant refuses to play by the rules of sensibility, the only option that remains is removal. This is so in every facet of society. The fear is justified by years of multiple, daily rocket attacks. Just as the US can determine who is and is not allowed into our country as a matter of national security, Israel can determine who is and is not allowed among them. While I grant you that there may be a shortage of ideas, the entire affair between Israel and Palestine is a crime against humanity. The only potential means of mitigating this reality is a change in "ideas"; forced relocation.

Got any better ideas?
ebuddy
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2008, 10:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The Israelis have no more or less right to live in the area than the Palestinians. What BigMac and you're proposing is forced relocation, a crime against humanity born out fear and the lack of ideas.
You just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. The truth is, Jews have an unquestionable, eternal right to exist in the Jewish homeland. The Arabs occupying the land do not because they have demonstrated at least since 1922 that they will continually make war against Jews who try to live peacefully in the land of the patriarchs of Israel, the promised land eternally granted to us by God. The Arabs perpetually make war, just as the Torah promises that foreign populations living there will be a thorn in the side of the Jewish state. It was true 3000 years ago, and it's true today. Israel has tried for 60 years to live in peace, but Arab terrorism and low intensity warfare has always plagued the country, even between the full wars of attempted annihilation fought by the surrounding Arab powers. Through their perpetual warfare, the Arabs (not all, but a vast majority who support killing Jews as official policy) have demonstrated that they will never live in peace with Israel. So either there will be perpetual warfare into the future, or Israel will do the responsible thing and send the culprits away to any of the 52 Islamic countries, 22 of which are Arab. There is only one Jewish country.

You know, perhaps the Jews in Arabia should declare an uprising and start killing Arabs as protest against Arab terrorism against Israel. Seems like what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Wait, there are no Jews of Arabia? 800,000+ of them were dispossessed of their property and sent fleeing, ethnically cleansed in 1948? Who knew?
( Last edited by Big Mac; Dec 28, 2008 at 11:08 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2008, 11:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Proportionality is a nebulous concept. What is disproportionate is the number of Palestinian rockets fired at civilian infrastructure (clearly separate geographically from military infrastructure) as opposed to the Israeli strikes against Palestinian military apparatus and personnel (often cramped strategically among civilians). The strategy is to destroy the Palestinians' ability to launch missile attacks. There would be no retaliation, disproportionate or otherwise if it weren't for provocation in the first place. A failure to acknowledge this very basic fact is, but one of the many failures of thought on this issue.
Proportionality is not a nebulous concept at all, a simple body count reveals quite easily who has been on the receiving end of this conflict. Retaliation has cost the lives of many, many civillians, usually more civillians are killed than actual bad guys. Of course, part of the reason is that there is no clear separation between military and civillian structures.

This is not the same as saying that actions by the IDF have been unprovoked or unwarranted, Hamas has purposely escalated the conflict, because their grip on power in Gaza has been weakened by the sanctions. Now, Israel is playing in their hands and even Abbas (who is a lot of things, but not really a staunch supporter of Hamas) had a few good words to say to them.
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Clearly Israelis have more right to live in the area than Palestinians. They've maintained this tiny piece of land through military conquest, superior governance, and fiscal prowess.
No, they don't. Especially if the IDF prevents the formation of stable governments in that region with half-baked military actions and wars (which, like in Lebanon recently, strengthen the foothold of terrorists rather than weaken it).

All the people who live in that region have the same right to live there, but only people who live in stable countries can coexist peacefully.
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If an inhabitant refuses to play by the rules of sensibility, the only option that remains is removal.
This would mean both, Israelis and Palestinians would have to be vacated immediately. Their relationship is that of a mutually abusive marriage where the two partners can't agree on how to split their belongings. So they keep on pushing each others buttons while feeding each others' fears.

Israelis fear the rocket attacks that indiscriminately hit civillian targets.
Palestinians fear the same (with more sophisticated weaponry, of course).
Israelis have to cater to anyone's interests (huge coalitions in parliament with 50 ministries or more). That includes expanding settlements in areas where the vast majority of people are Palestinians.
The Palestinian government has to integrate moderates and terroristic activity-supporting organizations under one umbrella to control the latter to some degree. They also have to integrate the various different groups within the resistance that have really only one thing in common, but not much else.

The list goes on.
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Got any better ideas?
Yes, sure, very simple: the goal is a confederation of states. Jerusalem becomes a neutral city where both peoples are equally represented. Both have the right to use all roads for free travel and trade between the two is strongly encouraged, but otherwise, financial autonomy is respected.

Practically, this long-term goal will take a lot of time, but there is no other way. As soon as Israel draws its borders, it draws borders of a Palestinian state (or two) and it relinquishes rights and duties it has as an occupying force.

It could work out something like this:
(o) Separate the Westbank and the Gaza strip and accept that both are controlled by different entities. Start cooperation with the government that is more amenable to Israel.
(i) Negotiate with Abbas and work towards the foundation of a `Westbank Palestinian state'. This won't happen in one agreement, but goodwill needs to be built over a period of, 10-30 years. Certainly a lot longer than what people have in mind.
(ii) Foster trade with such a state, after all, if Palestinians are working, they will have less time (and need) to resort to terrorist tactics. Israel should respect the sovereignty of such a Westbank state.
(iii) Have Palestinian authorities take the leading role in quenching terrorism. Palestinians have to enforce their own laws (this should be read as a duty which can be called upon from the Israeli side), although if wanted, there is cooperation from the Israeli side (e. g. secret service).
(iv) Mutual respect of the other's territory. If there are groups of people who decide to stay (e. g. Jewish settlers in Gaza or Palestinians living on what has become Israeli land) are allowed to stay there, are awarded protection by local law enforcement. They become subject to the local laws, too.

There is no real alternative to that anyway, just a question of how much bloodshed we have to see until people start to implement it. There will be setbacks. There will be tough compromises with lots of resistance among sizeable parts of the own population. There will be lots of arguments on how to implement and interpret the agreements and the general strategy.

And no, I don't think Israel even could displace so many people. It's military, which is already very stretched is not strong enough (in terms of man power) to do that job. Plus, it would lose a lot of international support (which it vitally depends on).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2008, 11:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
You just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. The truth is, Jews have an unquestionable, eternal right to exist in the Jewish homeland. ... Jews who try to live peacefully in the land of the patriarchs of Israel, the promised land eternally granted to us by God.
I don't take claims based on fairy tales seriously.* There isn't and can never be any proof to that effect. Plus, this is the most dangerous kind of justification: facts and fiction intertwined to give a story you would like to hear.

People who abuse religion to justify their claims and further political goals are the biggest obstacle and the most dangerous component to the whole conflict. Be it radical islamic terrorist that blame Jews for everything that's wrong with their own society or radical settlers that are oblivious to any sort of reasoning.


*Holds for all religions equally, please don't think I single out Jewish fairy tales here, Muslims who justify their politically motivated actions on their own flavor of fairy tales are equally to blame.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2008, 11:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
So either there will be perpetual warfare into the future, or Israel will do the responsible thing and send the culprits away to any of the 52 Islamic countries, 22 of which are Arab. There is only one Jewish country.
This illustrates Big's point. (and I pointed out before, The term "Arab" was created by the British during WWI)
     
Splinter
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: with stupid
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2008, 01:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Proportionality is not a nebulous concept at all, a simple body count reveals quite easily who has been on the receiving end of this conflict. Retaliation has cost the lives of many, many civilians, usually more civilians are killed than actual bad guys. Of course, part of the reason is that there is no clear separation between military and civilian structures.
Body count? That's a joke. I would have loved to see WWII soldiers stopping in the middle of a battle and saying now wait let me count the people you have killed so I know if we need to catch up or let you kill a few more.

Usually more civilians are killed? really? even if that way true before (it's not) this time it is definitely untrue. The clear separation part is of course a given and is why Israel's military technology comes in handy in doing whatever possible to keep the collateral to a minimum... like in this video taken in the recent fighting in Gaza. Small precision ordinance.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
This is not the same as saying that actions by the IDF have been unprovoked or unwarranted, Hamas has purposely escalated the conflict, because their grip on power in Gaza has been weakened by the sanctions. Now, Israel is playing in their hands and even Abbas (who is a lot of things, but not really a staunch supporter of Hamas) had a few good words to say to them.
Playing into their hands by "Overall the IAF attacked some 30 targets in Gaza on Sunday, bringing the total number of targets hit to approximately 240, in about 250 sorties over the first 24 hours of the operation." and another 40 weapons smuggling tunnels in 4 minuets today? I'm sure they are just giddy.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
No, they don't. Especially if the IDF prevents the formation of stable governments in that region with half-baked military actions and wars (which, like in Lebanon recently, strengthen the foothold of terrorists rather than weaken it).
IDF prevents the formation of stable governments by... protecting it's citizens and targeting terrorists? Yes we all know there are schmucks in every country in the world and in every army there are those assholes who do stupid things and innocent people suffer. But at least when that happens on the Israeli side they send the guy off to prison and don't paste his face on every wall for the children to glorify.

And that is twice you referenced the second Lebanese war like that. I was so shocked to hear that not only in other countries but even in Israel people only knew what the media fed them and they actually believed that the IDF lost.

I want to give you a first hand account of what happened there and then you can decide to believe me or not.

the IDF failed to retrieve it's soldiers and to annihilate the hizzbulah... which no one could expect any army in the world to do to a gorilla organization in such a short time.

Now, before the war you would get 1 or 2 rockets from the hizbullah almost every week. rarely did they hit anything important let alone anyone. but they were there and people were dodging into their bomb shelters every week. Before the war when you would travel along the border and you would see the military outposts in Lebanon they wouldn't be Lebanese army they would be hizbullah a world recognized terrorist organization pointing their weapons at you as you drove by.

After the war there has yet to be rockets. After the war The only forces you see on the border are the UN. oh we spotted plenty of hizbullah guys on surveillance watching and taking notes... but the difference was they were hiding among the civvies. they were no longer in uniform they were dressed like farmers or sheep herders and they couldn't carry weapons or anything because they were afraid. the entire organization was run underground and pleaded for a cease fire. Now after the war they have rebuilt I won't deny that but not alone... mostly with the help of our good pals Iran and Syria. However there is a silver lining that so many people misread as a troublesome event. Hizbullah is now officially part of the Lebanese government. This means that any act by them against Israel is a declaration of war from one sovereign country to another. And ANYONE who has the slightest combat experience will tell you that fighting against a country is infinitely easier than fighting against an organization... especially if you have the upper hand in every possible military consideration.

I mourn for the deaths of the soldiers taken by the hizbullah and the ones that gave their lives in that war. But it was not in vain, far from it.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
All the people who live in that region have the same right to live there, but only people who live in stable countries can coexist peacefully.

This would mean both, Israelis and Palestinians would have to be vacated immediately. Their relationship is that of a mutually abusive marriage where the two partners can't agree on how to split their belongings. So they keep on pushing each others buttons while feeding each others' fears.
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Israelis fear the rocket attacks that indiscriminately hit civilian targets.
Palestinians fear the same (with more sophisticated weaponry, of course).
Israelis have to cater to anyone's interests (huge coalitions in parliament with 50 ministries or more). That includes expanding settlements in areas where the vast majority of people are Palestinians.
The Palestinian government has to integrate moderates and terroristic activity-supporting organizations under one umbrella to control the latter to some degree. They also have to integrate the various different groups within the resistance that have really only one thing in common, but not much else.

The list goes on.
Gosh you can spot people who have never experienced the overwhelming emotional drive you can get when involved with a mob. Palestinians don't fear, they hate. If they feared for their lives why do they try to end them? So many people say desperation in a hopeless situation. But why is it hopeless? Well most people believe it's hopeless because neither side is willing to come to terms with the existence of the other. But here is where most people who have never been to Israel get it really REALLY wrong. Take Gilo for example. it's a neighborhood in Jerusalem with around 40 or 50 thousand people. to get from Gilo into Jerusalem proper you have to drive down the hill it's perched on and viola! your in J-town. On the way down the hill stretching on either side is a little neighborhood or town called beit tzafafa. When you look at this town you notice two things. 1. it is Arab Muslim town. there are about 4 mosques sticking up. 2. there is not an Israeli checkpoint IDF person police officer or even a measly security guard for as far as the eye can see... and this is between Gilo and Jerusalem... 3. They are doing great business. They live in nice houses. they own stores that all the Israelis go to all the time. And they are happy to live there.

These particular Muslim Arabs decided that they weren't going to be stupid like most of people living in Gaza and the West Bank. They decided they wanted to live in peace and accepted what Israel had to offer them in the way of economic growth and free trade etc... So anyone who wants to go ahead and feed themselves lies about how Israel will never accept the Arabs or Muslims or both there is not much more I can do about it.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Yes, sure, very simple: the goal is a confederation of states. Jerusalem becomes a neutral city where both peoples are equally represented. Both have the right to use all roads for free travel and trade between the two is strongly encouraged, but otherwise, financial autonomy is respected.

Practically, this long-term goal will take a lot of time, but there is no other way. As soon as Israel draws its borders, it draws borders of a Palestinian state (or two) and it relinquishes rights and duties it has as an occupying force.

It could work out something like this:
(o) Separate the Westbank and the Gaza strip and accept that both are controlled by different entities. Start cooperation with the government that is more amenable to Israel.
(i) Negotiate with Abbas and work towards the foundation of a `Westbank Palestinian state'. This won't happen in one agreement, but goodwill needs to be built over a period of, 10-30 years. Certainly a lot longer than what people have in mind.
(ii) Foster trade with such a state, after all, if Palestinians are working, they will have less time (and need) to resort to terrorist tactics. Israel should respect the sovereignty of such a Westbank state.
(iii) Have Palestinian authorities take the leading role in quenching terrorism. Palestinians have to enforce their own laws (this should be read as a duty which can be called upon from the Israeli side), although if wanted, there is cooperation from the Israeli side (e. g. secret service).
(iv) Mutual respect of the other's territory. If there are groups of people who decide to stay (e. g. Jewish settlers in Gaza or Palestinians living on what has become Israeli land) are allowed to stay there, are awarded protection by local law enforcement. They become subject to the local laws, too.
This is all well and good but what a huge amount of people from western civilizations don't realize is that what is normal, rational or logical to them might be the opposite for people in the middle east. In theory this could work but that is assuming that somehow the majority of the Palestinian people shift their goals around and their support for the terrorist organizations. Look if there was a popular uprising AGAINST the terrorist organization in the Palestinian government who exactly would stop them? They all just need to decide what their priorities are because I pray Israel isn't stupid enough to give them more land before they get their sh*t together. We all know how well that worked last time. You would thing Israel would look at history and not repeat mistakes.... there is a great banner hanging in Paris Square in Jerusalem it has a picture of a Native American on it and it reads "ask me about land for peace". And in their case the American settlers didn't even have a goal of annihilating the Native Americans.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
There is no real alternative to that anyway, just a question of how much bloodshed we have to see until people start to implement it. There will be setbacks. There will be tough compromises with lots of resistance among sizeable parts of the own population. There will be lots of arguments on how to implement and interpret the agreements and the general strategy.

And no, I don't think Israel even could displace so many people. It's military, which is already very stretched is not strong enough (in terms of man power) to do that job. Plus, it would lose a lot of international support (which it vitally depends on).
Now that is funny. They can't because they don't want to simply massacre everyone.... but they can't because of man power. That's really funny.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2008, 02:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Proportionality is not a nebulous concept at all, a simple body count reveals quite easily who has been on the receiving end of this conflict.
In terms of survival, it is better to give than to receive.

Retaliation has cost the lives of many, many civillians, usually more civillians are killed than actual bad guys. Of course, part of the reason is that there is no clear separation between military and civillian structures.
Of course.

This is not the same as saying that actions by the IDF have been unprovoked or unwarranted, Hamas has purposely escalated the conflict, because their grip on power in Gaza has been weakened by the sanctions. Now, Israel is playing in their hands and even Abbas (who is a lot of things, but not really a staunch supporter of Hamas) had a few good words to say to them.
The fighting has escalated exponentially because Israel's concession for subsequent disengagement from Gaza led to the loss of their control over the Philadelphi route between the Gaza Strip and Egyptian Sinai. Since then there's been a significant increase in the amount and even the range of the rockets used by Palestinians. Sanctions will cripple you economically to ensure you have fewer resources for such activity. Unfortunately, the escalations in attacks are only proof that they will use whatever resources they have left not to build prosperity for their people, but to perpetuate more aggression. One who repeatedly pokes lions with sticks will be attacked with agility, claws, and teeth until death. While seemingly disproportionate, the lion is doing what lions do. The only option you should take is to immediately stop poking lions with sticks. If however you decide to arm yourselves more effectively against the lions, they will likely do what they can to ensure you're not among them. People who refuse to accept this reality will forever be victimized by it.

No, they don't. Especially if the IDF prevents the formation of stable governments in that region with half-baked military actions and wars (which, like in Lebanon recently, strengthen the foothold of terrorists rather than weaken it).
The Israeli government is among the most stable governments in the Middle East. Instability is not a choice they've made.

All the people who live in that region have the same right to live there, but only people who live in stable countries can coexist peacefully.
Stability comes through concession and prosperity. The problem with this region is its relative size and the unfortunate reality that these two peoples require more distance from one another than this region may ever be able to afford them. They have the same right to live there as long as both parties relent to sensibility. The Native Americans and the US power structure for example, could never have hoped to achieve peace had the Native Americans insisted on fighting over a particular region or State.

This would mean both, Israelis and Palestinians would have to be vacated immediately. Their relationship is that of a mutually abusive marriage where the two partners can't agree on how to split their belongings. So they keep on pushing each others buttons while feeding each others' fears.
Wrong. The Israeli's maintained their right to the land using essentially the same means that have produced the ownership of territory for every governance known to mankind. The marriage continues to be complicated by the adultery and meddling of siblings elsewhere.

Yes, sure, very simple: the goal is a confederation of states. Jerusalem becomes a neutral city where both peoples are equally represented. Both have the right to use all roads for free travel and trade between the two is strongly encouraged, but otherwise, financial autonomy is respected.
There can be no respect built on a foundation of disrespect. How many States shall be forced into a region so small?

Practically, this long-term goal will take a lot of time, but there is no other way. As soon as Israel draws its borders, it draws borders of a Palestinian state (or two) and it relinquishes rights and duties it has as an occupying force.
Why two Palestinian States? Are you saying that there are two differing factions of Palestinians so at odds with one another that there cannot be one larger Palestinian State? If yes, does that not render all your subsequent "solutions" woefully naive?

It could work out something like this:
(o) Separate the Westbank and the Gaza strip and accept that both are controlled by different entities. Start cooperation with the government that is more amenable to Israel.
Which of these governments shall it be and how does one ensure that they are not simply funded by an entity outside of Israel with differing goals?

(i) Negotiate with Abbas and work towards the foundation of a `Westbank Palestinian state'. This won't happen in one agreement, but goodwill needs to be built over a period of, 10-30 years. Certainly a lot longer than what people have in mind.
Negotiate with one who believes among you is a Zionist plot with Nazi Germany to encourage mass extermination? Notwithstanding, his absolute inability to control the terrorist elements within his faction? I appreciate your optimism, but at this stage in the game it is quite frankly naive IMO.

(ii) Foster trade with such a state, after all, if Palestinians are working, they will have less time (and need) to resort to terrorist tactics. Israel should respect the sovereignty of such a Westbank state.
(iii) Have Palestinian authorities take the leading role in quenching terrorism. Palestinians have to enforce their own laws (this should be read as a duty which can be called upon from the Israeli side), although if wanted, there is cooperation from the Israeli side (e. g. secret service).
(iv) Mutual respect of the other's territory. If there are groups of people who decide to stay (e. g. Jewish settlers in Gaza or Palestinians living on what has become Israeli land) are allowed to stay there, are awarded protection by local law enforcement. They become subject to the local laws, too.
... and what if the Palestinians are not in favor of your proposed solutions above? What if there can be no mutual respecting of anything let alone borders? Does common sense and millennia of history have any bearing on your future actions and at what point do we accept the more simple reality?

There is no real alternative to that anyway, just a question of how much bloodshed we have to see until people start to implement it. There will be setbacks. There will be tough compromises with lots of resistance among sizeable parts of the own population. There will be lots of arguments on how to implement and interpret the agreements and the general strategy.
At the end of the day, there must be a relenting to sensibility. If this reality cannot be acknowledged, your intentions as good as they may be will only lead to more unnecessary bloodshed from now to perpetuity.

And no, I don't think Israel even could displace so many people. It's military, which is already very stretched is not strong enough (in terms of man power) to do that job. Plus, it would lose a lot of international support (which it vitally depends on).
This is debatable. What is not debatable is the fallacy of attempting to place the Hatfields and McCoys together in a very small house.
ebuddy
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2008, 07:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
Why do you unnecessarily distinguish between Jews and human beings? You ruin the point you have by that.
I wanted to emphasise the insanity of 200+ humanoids of one type getting killed in retaliation for the death of 1 of another. Clearly, somebody on the Israeli side values the life of non-Jews at around 0.5% the value of a Jewish life, otherwise Israel would not act the way it does.

My sense of ethics tells me this kind of behaviour is inhuman.
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2008, 10:46 AM
 
I still find it extremely strange that Israel started the bombardment of Gaza long before the 48hrs-ultimatum it gave to Hamas was over...

Who is at fault in this latest round of violent exchange between the Gazans and Israel?

The six-month-truce between Israel and Hamas was meant to achieve two things:

1. To stop the rocket-fire by Gazans into Israel.
2. To open the borders of Gaza for deliverements and trade.

Hamas managed to reduce the rocket-fire considerably but not completely while Israel never let off Gaza's siege, to the contrary it even intensified the siege.

The truce obviously improved the situation for southern Israel but only worsened the economic and humanitarian situation for Gaza.

Even during the truce, Israel's army continued to kill any palestinian nearing the border-fence-area.

When the truce was over Hamas intensified its rocket-firing and decided to show its abilities to increase the range and to choose between different israeli villages and towns. While these rockets seldomly caused casualities, they have a psychological effect in that it disrupts a normal life as it causes fear.

The populations in fear of course pressurize the government to do something hawkish to end this fear and so espescially because elections are near this pressure multiplies as any moderate response would be seen as showing weakness and therefore playing into the hands of Netanjahu's Likud.

So we have this latest show of force to save Kadima's face before the elections. But what are the goals?

To topple/to get rid of Hamas? Hardly, for that it would need the complete reoccupation of Gaza which Israel doesn't want to do.

The goal is none other than to shoot Hamas into a new and better truce, a longterm-truce that would see that zero rockets get fired into Israel's south.

Hamas certainly was not against a renewment of the truce but insisted on its own key-terms:
1. That Israel opens Gaza's borders for free trade and deliverements.
2. That it stops its military incursions and assassinations in Gaza and Westbank.

Since Israel doesn't want to agree to these terms, Hamas had to be violently convinced to give up these terms.

This is election-campaignining and diplomacy israeli-style, sad but true.

Taliesin
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2008, 11:01 AM
 
“We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us”
Golda Meir
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2008, 10:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Taliesin View Post
This is election-campaignining and diplomacy israeli-style, sad but true.

Taliesin
You presented what I thought was a relatively fair assessment of the issue, then almost entirely retracted it with your conclusion.

The bomb-throwing has got to stop Taliesin. It's as plain and simple as that. It just has to stop. It has been (truce, no truce, Israeli withdrawal, or otherwise) absolutely unrelenting. Action against it is inevitable. It doesn't matter whether or not election time is a contributing factor, the result itself is inevitable. A civilized populace would want nothing less than absolutely 0 missiles deployed among them.
ebuddy
     
Sayf-Allah  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2009, 07:08 AM
 
About 430 Palestinians are dead.

According to the UN a quarter of those are innocent civilians. That's 107 innocent dead.

But that only accounts for the women and children murdered. Because even the UN seems to think every Palestinian man over a certain age are possible terrorists. Sickening.

The United Nations says 320 people have been killed in Gaza, including 62 women and children, and around 1,400 injured.

"[The 62 figure] does not include civilian casualties who are men, even though we know that there have been some civilian men killed as well," UN humanitarian affairs co-ordinator John Holmes said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...30/2456334.htm
Please put pressure on your respective governments to stop this bloodbath. Go to the demonstrations that will be held. Do something other than excuse this.

"Learn to swim"
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2009, 09:45 AM
 
I urge all governments to convince the Palestinians that their hostile elements are essentially holding them hostage by mounting their military aggression from within civilian infrastructure. Israel can no longer afford to play the hostage game.

A civilized populace will accept nothing more than a complete cessation of rocket launching into their cities just as no civilized populace should allow launching them mere feet away from your schools.

To all surrounding Arab nations; when the Palestinians flee for safety, let them in. They are your brothers and sisters.
ebuddy
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2009, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah View Post
About 430 Palestinians are dead.

According to the UN a quarter of those are innocent civilians. That's 107 innocent dead.

Please put pressure on your respective governments to stop this bloodbath. Go to the demonstrations that will be held. Do something other than excuse this.
lol

Yes, please ask your respective governments to remove the militants who have willingly chosen to mix in with the innocent civilians so to use them both as pawns and human shields. I for one am going to go to these demonstrations.... well walk past them on the way to watch the wild card games at a bar. I hope the crowds from the Quebecers looking for sovereignty and the Mexicans wanting to reappropriate Texas don't mix in with the Palestinian demonstrations. It could be quite confusing.
( Last edited by Captain Obvious; Jan 3, 2009 at 01:48 PM. )

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Sayf-Allah  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2009, 04:33 PM
 
Today Israel shelled a mosque full of worshippers during prayer time.

Animals.

In one raid, at least 13 people were killed when a missile struck a crowded mosque in Beit Lahiya, Palestinian medics said.

Witnesses said more than 200 people had been inside the Ibrahim al-Maqadna mosque for evening prayers when it was struck.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7809959.stm
And hopefully more lies like this will be exposed in the future:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7809371.stm

Hospitals, mosques, schools, universities, nothing is safe from the IOF. So again, please ccontact your representatives and tell them to stop this madness. Don't accept "we'll relay our disappointment to the Israeli government". Make them do something.

"Learn to swim"
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2009, 11:03 PM
 
When Hamas stops using the Mosques as munitions depots, the Mosques will cease to be legitimate targets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwP_L...layer_embedded

Watch for the big secondary explosion at about 0:10, indicating the presence of a cache of weapons.

When Hamas stops firing mortars from UN schools, the schools will cease to be legitimate targets.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2009, 11:13 PM
 
Interestingly, Egypt's Mubarak has said that no humanitarian aid would be transferred to Gaza without Israel's approval, and that Israel should control the goods crossings.

Mubarak knows that Hamas will use the crossing against Egypt - Hamas has already shown it has no respect for Egypt's authority in the past when they broke through the crossings in the past.

I wonder if Mubarak isn't remembering what happened when Jordan welcomed Arafat into its country and he set up a Fatah state within Jordan, causing King Hussein to have to wage war against Palestinians in order to protect Jordanians. see Black September, 1970-1971.
     
Sayf-Allah  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2009, 07:42 AM
 
There's a very simple reason for why Mubarak is acting against the interest of Hamas.

It's Hamas' link to the Muslim Brotherhood.

And that's not a secondary explosion. And there is no reason to attack a mosque during prayer hours. That's just barbaric.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7809371.stm

Israel has a history of lying. And they can't even seem to do it well anymore. A junior analyst can point out the fact that they roll the canisters and that the canister are wider than the Grad missiles. You can't roll a missile with wings.

So I hope people don't put too much faith in IOF propaganda put on the internet.

"Learn to swim"
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2009, 09:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah View Post
And that's not a secondary explosion. And there is no reason to attack a mosque during prayer hours. That's just barbaric.
When are prayer hours?

Of course there's a secondary explosion. They're not bombing Mosques to get rid of their own weapons.

Do Palestinians want the bombing to stop? There's been 30 rocket firings today from among them. When will they address the hostile elements within their midst so Israel doesn't have to? After all, you can't expect Israel to be chill with rockets being deployed into their cities can you? Honestly? The whole thing is barbaric.
ebuddy
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2009, 10:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
I wonder if Mubarak isn't remembering what happened when Jordan welcomed Arafat into its country and he set up a Fatah state within Jordan, causing King Hussein to have to wage war against Palestinians in order to protect Jordanians. see Black September, 1970-1971.
I have made this point to SoA more than once. After the PLO was driven out of Jordon , it moved on to Lebanon, resulting in a civil war.
     
Sayf-Allah  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2009, 11:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
When are prayer hours?
http://www.islamicity.com/prayerTimes/
Of course there's a secondary explosion. They're not bombing Mosques to get rid of their own weapons.
No, it's not a secondary explosion. It's way too slow to be an explosion. Just compare the first explosion with the "second explosion". Completely different.

No, they aren't getting rid of their own weapons. They have a completely different reason for it that I won't mention here.

"Learn to swim"
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:03 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,