Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Israeli Lobby and the Overuse of the Anti-Semite Card

15791011

Posts

  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I don't think most Israelis want to wipe out the Palestinians; I think they just want all the land, and don't mind so much if all the Palestinians have to die in order for them to get it.

    I definitely don't think that's the case either. Israel has already offered the Palestinians a significant amount of land (Gaza and most of the West Bank) and they turned it down.

    Now, I agree that the settlements need to go. In fact, I think that a two state solution should require all settlements, not just the little ones, to be dismantled. But to say that Israel wants all of the land is just not true. A small, vocal minority (the settlers, about 10% of Israel's population) believes that, but the mainstream does not.

    Also, your last statement is not true at all. Many members of the Israeli government are willing to give up Gaza and the West Bank provided that Hamas use the West Bank to send in waves of suicide bombers and rockets aimed at Ben Gurion (which would cripple the Israeli economy). In fact, I was just talking to a member of the consulate here in Chicago who, after a few drinks, had some rather uncomplimentary statements to make about Lieberman and the right wingers in general. He, like many other moderate Israelis, have nothing but contempt for the settlers and support stronger action against them.

    Edit: Also, how would you explain the amount of aid that Israel sends in to Gaza and the West Bank, even during Cast Lead? Or the fact that Israeli hospitals admit Palestinian patients?

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2009
    I think Israel definitely wanted the land. Not anymore, after the realization that they would it would no longer be a Jewish state with the explosive growth of the people living there, so now Israel just wants as much land as it can get.

  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2009
    sanstodo wrote: »
    How would you explain the amount of aid that Israel sends in to Gaza and the West Bank, even during Cast Lead? Or the fact that Israeli hospitals admit Palestinian patients?

    PR dressing on savagery.

  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Elki wrote: »
    I think Israel definitely wanted the land. Not anymore, after the realization that they would it would no longer be a Jewish state with the explosive growth of the people living there, so now Israel just wants as much land as it can get.

    The only war that could be construed as a land grab would be the 1967 War (Six-Day War) but that's not how I would characterize it. Anyway, they'd be willing to give back the vast majority of that land anyway (Gaza and the West Bank, possibly East Jerusalem, although they'd keep the Golan Heights).

    So no, I don't think expansionism was the driving concern either. As for wanting as much land as they can get........well, who doesn't? You could easily level the same charge at the Palestinians, especially when they have repeatedly rejected offers that were, based on current circumstances, pretty generous.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Elki wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    How would you explain the amount of aid that Israel sends in to Gaza and the West Bank, even during Cast Lead? Or the fact that Israeli hospitals admit Palestinian patients?

    PR dressing on savagery.

    Hardly. If a stable, peaceful Palestinian state emerged, one of the major beneficiaries would be Israel. The settlers are definitely douchebags but they're largely hated by other Israelis and only make up roughly 10% of the population. There are some hardliners out there but remember that the centrist party won the last election (failure to put together a coalition and the general suckiness of the Israeli political system aside).

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2009
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    I think Israel definitely wanted the land. Not anymore, after the realization that they would it would no longer be a Jewish state with the explosive growth of the people living there, so now Israel just wants as much land as it can get.

    The only war that could be construed as a land grab would be the 1967 War (Six-Day War) but that's not how I would characterize it. Anyway, they'd be willing to give back the vast majority of that land anyway (Gaza and the West Bank, possibly East Jerusalem, although they'd keep the Golan Heights).

    So no, I don't think expansionism was the driving concern either. As for wanting as much land as they can get........well, who doesn't? You could easily level the same charge at the Palestinians, especially when they have repeatedly rejected offers that were, based on current circumstances, pretty generous.

    No, it hasn't been generous if you want to actually build a state that makes any sense and doesn't suck to live in, and I'll go look in a minute for something to illustrate what I mean. And I'm not talking about expansionist wars, I am saying once they had the land, the idea of keeping it wasn't an unpopular one, and only became so when the consequences became clear.

  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2009
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    How would you explain the amount of aid that Israel sends in to Gaza and the West Bank, even during Cast Lead? Or the fact that Israeli hospitals admit Palestinian patients?

    PR dressing on savagery.

    Hardly. If a stable, peaceful Palestinian state emerged, one of the major beneficiaries would be Israel. The settlers are definitely douchebags but they're largely hated by other Israelis and only make up roughly 10% of the population. There are some hardliners out there but remember that the centrist party won the last election (failure to put together a coalition and the general suckiness of the Israeli political system aside).

    Yes, a stable peaceful Palestinian state is good for Israel. But, somehow, that doesn't invalidate what I said.

  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Elki wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    I think Israel definitely wanted the land. Not anymore, after the realization that they would it would no longer be a Jewish state with the explosive growth of the people living there, so now Israel just wants as much land as it can get.

    The only war that could be construed as a land grab would be the 1967 War (Six-Day War) but that's not how I would characterize it. Anyway, they'd be willing to give back the vast majority of that land anyway (Gaza and the West Bank, possibly East Jerusalem, although they'd keep the Golan Heights).

    So no, I don't think expansionism was the driving concern either. As for wanting as much land as they can get........well, who doesn't? You could easily level the same charge at the Palestinians, especially when they have repeatedly rejected offers that were, based on current circumstances, pretty generous.

    No, it hasn't been generous if you want to actually build a state that makes any sense and doesn't suck to live in, and I'll go look in a minute for something to illustrate what I mean. And I'm not talking about expansionist wars, I am saying once they had the land, the idea of keeping it wasn't an unpopular one, and only became so when the consequences became clear.

    Of course giving up land is generally going to be unpopular. How many situations can you name where any nation gave up land unless it absolutely had to?

    Regardless, how would you create a fair resolution to the crisis that actually made sense given the facts on the ground? Israel is not going to allow Hamas to control the West Bank as long as Hamas remains committed to violence. Doing so would be virtual suicide since Hamas could easily cripple Israel's economy from there (closing Ben Gurion, firing rockets at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, etc).

    I agree with you theoretically (my opinion about an actually workable solution calls for a signficant amount of sacrifice and restraint by Israel) but this is an extremely difficult situation to puzzle through. Neither side seems willing to make the sacrifices necessary to make this work, namely Israel giving up Gaza, the West Bank (all of it), and East Jerusalem, dismantling the settlements (all of them), and helping the Palestinians build infrastructure, and on the other side, the Palestinians giving up violence.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Elki wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    How would you explain the amount of aid that Israel sends in to Gaza and the West Bank, even during Cast Lead? Or the fact that Israeli hospitals admit Palestinian patients?

    PR dressing on savagery.

    Hardly. If a stable, peaceful Palestinian state emerged, one of the major beneficiaries would be Israel. The settlers are definitely douchebags but they're largely hated by other Israelis and only make up roughly 10% of the population. There are some hardliners out there but remember that the centrist party won the last election (failure to put together a coalition and the general suckiness of the Israeli political system aside).

    Yes, a stable peaceful Palestinian state is good for Israel. But, somehow, that doesn't invalidate what I said.

    Israel has also built hospitals and schools in Gaza and the West Bank. Yet somehow, you didn't mention those. This isn't a 1-sided affair, with Israel as the horrible, savage monsters oppressing the hapless, defenseless Palestinians.

    Both sides have committed savage, horrible crimes. To accuse one without accusing the other is willful blindness.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2009
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    How would you explain the amount of aid that Israel sends in to Gaza and the West Bank, even during Cast Lead? Or the fact that Israeli hospitals admit Palestinian patients?

    PR dressing on savagery.

    Hardly. If a stable, peaceful Palestinian state emerged, one of the major beneficiaries would be Israel. The settlers are definitely douchebags but they're largely hated by other Israelis and only make up roughly 10% of the population. There are some hardliners out there but remember that the centrist party won the last election (failure to put together a coalition and the general suckiness of the Israeli political system aside).

    Yes, a stable peaceful Palestinian state is good for Israel. But, somehow, that doesn't invalidate what I said.

    Israel has also built hospitals and schools in Gaza and the West Bank. Yet somehow, you didn't mention those. This isn't a 1-sided affair, with Israel as the horrible, savage monsters oppressing the hapless, defenseless Palestinians.

    Both sides have committed savage, horrible crimes. To accuse one without accusing the other is willful blindness.

    Go ahead accuse Hamas of savagery against Israeli civilians, especially during the intifada, and watch me say it wasn't savagery.

  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    How would you explain the amount of aid that Israel sends in to Gaza and the West Bank, even during Cast Lead? Or the fact that Israeli hospitals admit Palestinian patients?

    PR dressing on savagery.

    Hardly. If a stable, peaceful Palestinian state emerged, one of the major beneficiaries would be Israel. The settlers are definitely douchebags but they're largely hated by other Israelis and only make up roughly 10% of the population. There are some hardliners out there but remember that the centrist party won the last election (failure to put together a coalition and the general suckiness of the Israeli political system aside).

    Yes, a stable peaceful Palestinian state is good for Israel. But, somehow, that doesn't invalidate what I said.

    Israel has also built hospitals and schools in Gaza and the West Bank. Yet somehow, you didn't mention those. This isn't a 1-sided affair, with Israel as the horrible, savage monsters oppressing the hapless, defenseless Palestinians.

    Both sides have committed savage, horrible crimes. To accuse one without accusing the other is willful blindness.
    Israel is a state. A modern, western state. They are held to a higher standard.

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • ChopperDaveChopperDave Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    I think Israel definitely wanted the land. Not anymore, after the realization that they would it would no longer be a Jewish state with the explosive growth of the people living there, so now Israel just wants as much land as it can get.

    The only war that could be construed as a land grab would be the 1967 War (Six-Day War) but that's not how I would characterize it. Anyway, they'd be willing to give back the vast majority of that land anyway (Gaza and the West Bank, possibly East Jerusalem, although they'd keep the Golan Heights).

    So no, I don't think expansionism was the driving concern either. As for wanting as much land as they can get........well, who doesn't? You could easily level the same charge at the Palestinians, especially when they have repeatedly rejected offers that were, based on current circumstances, pretty generous.

    Wrong and wrong.

    1948 was definitely a large land grab. Just look at a comparison shot of the 1947 partition and the 1948 Israeli state. And that doesn't even include the numerous Palestinian villages that the Hagganah and LHI purged internally.

    In 1956 Israel occupied Sinai in the Suez War, and would probably have held onto it had they not come under diplomatic pressure from the U.S. to return it to Egypt. They did so yet again in 1973, along with making more territorial gains in the Golan Heights.

    And as Elki has said, what Israel offered the Palestinians is pretty much the same as what Netanyahu is offering them now: a bantustan where they lack full sovereign rights and water access. Not terribly generous.

    3DS code: 3007-8077-4055
  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2009
    Or their targeting of certain Palestinian civilians.

    Oh, they built a hospital.

  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2009
    It's the little things that make an occupation

    Those seemingly minor inconveniences that make life hellish
    During 2006, according to B'tselem, an Israeli human-rights group, Israeli forces killed 660 Palestinians, almost half of them innocent bystanders, among them 141 children. In the same period, Palestinians killed 17 Israeli civilians and six soldiers. It is such figures, as well as events like shellings, house demolitions, arrest raids and land expropriations, that make the headlines in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What rarely get into the media but make up the staple of Palestinian daily conversation are the countless little restrictions that slow down most people's lives, strangle the economy and provide constant fuel for extremists.

    Arbitrariness is one of the most crippling features of these rules. No one can predict how a trip will go. Many of the main West Bank roads, for the sake of the security of Israeli settlers in the West Bank, are off-limits to Palestinian vehicles—only one road connecting the north and south West Bank, for instance, is open to them—and these restrictions change frequently. So do the rules on who can pass the checkpoints that in effect divide the West Bank into a number of semi-connected regions (see map).


    CMA961.gif


    A new order due to come into force this week would have banned most West Bankers from riding in cars with Israeli licence plates, and thus from getting lifts from friends and relatives among the 1.6m Palestinians who live as citizens in Israel, as well as from aid workers, journalists and other foreigners. The army decided to suspend the order after protests from human-rights groups that it would give soldiers enormous arbitrary powers—but it has not revoked it.

    Large parts of the population of the northern West Bank, and of individual cities like Nablus and Jericho, simply cannot leave their home areas without special permits, which are not always forthcoming. If they can travel, how long they spend waiting at checkpoints, from minutes to hours, depends on the time of day and the humour of the soldiers. Several checkpoints may punctuate a journey between cities that would otherwise be less than an hour's drive apart. These checkpoints move and shift every day, and army jeeps add to the unpredictability and annoyance by stopping and creating ad hoc mobile checkpoints at various spots.

    According to the UN's Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the number of such obstacles had increased to 534 by mid-December from 376 in August 2005, when OCHA and the Israeli army completed a joint count. When Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, agreed last month to ease restrictions at a few of these checkpoints as a concession to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, human-rights people reported that not only did many of the checkpoints go on working as before; near the ones that had eased up, mobile ones were now operating instead, causing worse disruption and pain.

    It is sometimes hard to fathom the logic of the checkpoint regime. One route from Ramallah, the Palestinian administrative capital, to Jerusalem, involves a careful inspection of documents, while on another the soldiers—if they are at their posts—just glance at cars' occupants to see if they look Arab. Israeli law strictly forbids Israeli citizens from visiting the main Palestinian cities, but they can drive straight into Ramallah and Hebron without being challenged, while other cities, such as Jericho and Nablus, remain impermeable. In many places the barrier that Israel is building through the West Bank for security purposes (though in Palestinian eyes to grab more land) is monitored with all the care of an international border, while around Jerusalem the army turns a blind eye to hundreds of people who slip through cracks in the wall as part of their daily commute.

    Because of the internal travel restrictions, people who want to move from one Palestinian city to another for work or study must register a change of address to make sure they can stay there. But they cannot. Israel's population registry, which issues Palestinian identity cards as well as Israeli ones, has issued almost no new Palestinian cards since the start of the second intifada in 2000. And that means no address changes either. This also makes it virtually impossible for Palestinians from abroad to get residency in the occupied territories, which are supposed to be their future state, never mind in Israel.

    No-through-roads galore

    On top of that, in the past year several thousand Palestinians who had applied for residency in the West Bank and were living there on renewable six-month visitor permits have become illegal residents too, liable to be stopped and deported at any checkpoint, not because of anything they have done but because Israel has stopped renewing permits since Hamas, the Islamist movement, took control of the Palestinian Authority (PA) a year ago. (Israel says it is because the PA isn't handing over the requests.)

    Like Israelis, Palestinians who commit a traffic offence on the West Bank's highways have to pay the fine at an Israeli post office or a police station. But in the West Bank the only post offices and police stations are on Israeli settlements that most West Bank Palestinians cannot visit without a rare permit. If they do not pay, however, they lose their driving licences the next time the police stop them. They also get a criminal record—which then makes an Israeli entry permit quite impossible.

    Some of the regulations stray into the realm of the absurd. A year ago a military order, for no obvious reason, expanded the list of protected wild plants in the West Bank to include za'atar (hyssop), an abundant herb and Palestinian staple. For a while, soldiers at checkpoints confiscated bunches of it from bewildered Palestinians who had merely wanted something to liven up their salads. Lately there have been no reports of za'atar confiscation, but, says Michael Sfard, the legal adviser for Yesh Din, another Israeli human-rights body, the order is still in force. As he tells the story, he cannot help laughing. There is not much else to do.
    And they also built some schools! Ta da!

  • Nova_CNova_C Sniff Sniff Snorf Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Both sides have committed savage, horrible crimes. To accuse one without accusing the other is willful blindness.

    This thread was started over the issue of people being called anti-Semites for making valid criticisms of Israel's policies. This thread is full of examples of this exactly happening.

    I haven't heard anyone being called racist against Arabs once in here. Not once. And people have leveled some pretty harsh criticisms against Hamas and Palestinians in general. So really all you're doing is blowing smoke since the issue is criticism of Israel directly, not a general analysis of Palestinian/Israeli relations.

  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Nova_C wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Both sides have committed savage, horrible crimes. To accuse one without accusing the other is willful blindness.

    This thread was started over the issue of people being called anti-Semites for making valid criticisms of Israel's policies. This thread is full of examples of this exactly happening.

    I haven't heard anyone being called racist against Arabs once in here. Not once. And people have leveled some pretty harsh criticisms against Hamas and Palestinians in general. So really all you're doing is blowing smoke since the issue is criticism of Israel directly, not a general analysis of Palestinian/Israeli relations.

    I explained in my first post in the thread about why some Jews believe that attacks on Israel are attacks on Jews in general. It then morphed into a general discussion of Israel and its occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.

    A lot of the posters here are way out to the left, to a degree that frankly disturbs me. They go on and on about Israel's atrocities (which is fair) but remain practically silent about Palestinian terrorism (which is unfair). You cannot discuss one without discussing the other.

    Take, for example, the details of the occupation that Elki just posted. Then, zoom into the part about the population registry. Taken in a vacuum, it's awful. But one of the reasons for the non-issuance of cards is because lots of foreign fighters were trying to exploit the system. It became practically impossible to screen all of them sufficiently. So while the situation sucks, you can lay blame on foreign terrorists for breaking a system that could have worked, given different circumstances.

    Anyway, we're just recycling old arguments at this point and it's going nowhere. It's nearly impossible to have a rational dialogue on this topic (similar to abortion, imho) because the radicals on both sides are not willing to cede any middle ground. I get blasted here for being too pro-Israel and I get blasted by Jewish and Israeli organizations for being too pro-Palestinian. I get enough of this stuff IRL to need another dose online :P

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2009
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I get blasted here for being too pro-Israel and I get blasted by Jewish and Israeli organizations for being too pro-Palestinian. I get enough of this stuff IRL to need another dose online :P

    Jewish and Israeli organizations don't find your dismissal of enormous Palestinian suffering with references to some meager aid disgusting enough?

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Elki wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I get blasted here for being too pro-Israel and I get blasted by Jewish and Israeli organizations for being too pro-Palestinian. I get enough of this stuff IRL to need another dose online :P

    Jewish and Israeli organizations don't find your dismissal of enormous Palestinian suffering with references to some meager aid disgusting enough?

    You're right, what he should do is make a signature image of Palestinians marching in a show of fake solidarity to illustrate his self-righteousness.

    Or maybe in a debate with someone who is acting in a civil manner and who presents valid points, you could just ignore them all and attack him!

    Take your pick.

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I get blasted here for being too pro-Israel and I get blasted by Jewish and Israeli organizations for being too pro-Palestinian. I get enough of this stuff IRL to need another dose online :P

    Jewish and Israeli organizations don't find your dismissal of enormous Palestinian suffering with references to some meager aid disgusting enough?

    You're right, what he should do is make a signature image of Palestinians marching in a show of fake solidarity to illustrate his self-righteousness.

    Or maybe in a debate with someone who is acting in a civil manner and who presents valid points, you could just ignore them all and attack him!

    Take your pick.

    It was fucking disgusting, and I don't feel like ignoring it.

  • SpoonySpoony Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    MikeMan wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    How would you explain the amount of aid that Israel sends in to Gaza and the West Bank, even during Cast Lead? Or the fact that Israeli hospitals admit Palestinian patients?

    PR dressing on savagery.

    Hardly. If a stable, peaceful Palestinian state emerged, one of the major beneficiaries would be Israel. The settlers are definitely douchebags but they're largely hated by other Israelis and only make up roughly 10% of the population. There are some hardliners out there but remember that the centrist party won the last election (failure to put together a coalition and the general suckiness of the Israeli political system aside).

    Yes, a stable peaceful Palestinian state is good for Israel. But, somehow, that doesn't invalidate what I said.

    Israel has also built hospitals and schools in Gaza and the West Bank. Yet somehow, you didn't mention those. This isn't a 1-sided affair, with Israel as the horrible, savage monsters oppressing the hapless, defenseless Palestinians.

    Both sides have committed savage, horrible crimes. To accuse one without accusing the other is willful blindness.
    Israel is a state. A modern, western state. They are held to a higher standard.

    Why should Palestinians not be held to high moral standards when we do so of virtually everybody else, nation or no? We condemn abuses in China as much as we do the Taliban. Why shouldn't we hold both Israelis and Palestinians to higher standards?

  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Spoony wrote: »
    Why should Palestinians not be held to high moral standards when we do so of virtually everybody else, nation or no? We condemn abuses in China as much as we do the Taliban. Why shouldn't we hold both Israelis and Palestinians to higher standards?

    I for one hold them both to the same stanard--and by that standard, the gross asymmetries in power and severity of attacks paint Israel as the aggressor.

  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Elki wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I get blasted here for being too pro-Israel and I get blasted by Jewish and Israeli organizations for being too pro-Palestinian. I get enough of this stuff IRL to need another dose online :P

    Jewish and Israeli organizations don't find your dismissal of enormous Palestinian suffering with references to some meager aid disgusting enough?

    You're right, what he should do is make a signature image of Palestinians marching in a show of fake solidarity to illustrate his self-righteousness.

    Or maybe in a debate with someone who is acting in a civil manner and who presents valid points, you could just ignore them all and attack him!

    Take your pick.

    It was fucking disgusting, and I don't feel like ignoring it.

    Lol, dismissal? Hardly. I never dismissed their suffering, and if you read my posts on the topic, I support full Palestinian statehood complete with aid from Israel to help build a stable, prosperous Palestine. But don't let that get in the way of YOUR self-righteousness.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • NohmanNohman Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Take, for example, the details of the occupation that Elki just posted. Then, zoom into the part about the population registry. Taken in a vacuum, it's awful. But one of the reasons for the non-issuance of cards is because lots of foreign fighters were trying to exploit the system. It became practically impossible to screen all of them sufficiently. So while the situation sucks, you can lay blame on foreign terrorists for breaking a system that could have worked, given different circumstances.

    I can't speak for anyone else, but I think this part is pretty disgusting. Foreigners are making it really hard to sort out real claims of people living their lives, and foreign interventionists? Boo-fucking-hoo, you deal with it, and live with the fact some of them may try and kill you, thats the price you pay for being a supposedly enlightened nation. You don't get to lock down an entire nation and make their lives hell because that whole government bureaucracy thing is harder than you thought.
    sanstodo wrote:
    Lol, dismissal? Hardly. I never dismissed their suffering, and if you read my posts on the topic, I support full Palestinian statehood complete with aid from Israel to help build a stable, prosperous Palestine. But don't let that get in the way of YOUR self-righteousness.

    I think Elkis tone dropped mostly because the bolded part above makes you come across as a massive Israeli apologist, and thus something of a horrible human being.

  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Nohman wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Take, for example, the details of the occupation that Elki just posted. Then, zoom into the part about the population registry. Taken in a vacuum, it's awful. But one of the reasons for the non-issuance of cards is because lots of foreign fighters were trying to exploit the system. It became practically impossible to screen all of them sufficiently. So while the situation sucks, you can lay blame on foreign terrorists for breaking a system that could have worked, given different circumstances.

    I can't speak for anyone else, but I think this part is pretty disgusting. Foreigners are making it really hard to sort out real claims of people living their lives, and foreign interventionists? Boo-fucking-hoo, you deal with it, and live with the fact some of them may try and kill you, thats the price you pay for being a supposedly enlightened nation. You don't get to lock down an entire nation and make their lives hell because that whole government bureaucracy thing is harder than you thought.
    sanstodo wrote:
    Lol, dismissal? Hardly. I never dismissed their suffering, and if you read my posts on the topic, I support full Palestinian statehood complete with aid from Israel to help build a stable, prosperous Palestine. But don't let that get in the way of YOUR self-righteousness.

    I think Elkis tone dropped mostly because the bolded part above makes you come across as a massive Israeli apologist, and thus something of a horrible human being.

    Yeah, I can understand that reading but that's not what I meant at all. It should have been fairly obvious, given my previous posts. In any case, there's a balance here that many on both sides ignore.

    For example: It's terrible that the lives of Palestinians living in Gaza are terrible. The restrictions on movement are onerous and kill their economy. Israel needs to dismantle its settlements in the West Bank. They need to own up to various war crimes and do more to avoid civilian casualties in future conflicts.

    Meanwhile, it's terrible that Hamas fires rockets with the intent to kill civilians. It's terrible that Hamas siphons off aid that goes into Gaza and uses it to buy weapons or support violence. Suicide bombing is a despicable tactic. Hamas also needs to stop intimidating Palestinian opposition and assassinating dissenters.

    There's plenty of blame to go around. But the keys to peace are fairly simple: Israel needs provide the Palestinians with enough usable land (aka not just crappy desert without water) and support to build a stable, safe country for themselves. The Palestinians need to stop firing rockets and sending suicide bombers and instead accept a deal and get to building a country.

    I don't think inflammatory, accusatory rhetoric is constructive. Playing the victim game (history has treated us worse! No, it's treated us worse! and so on) only perpetuates the violence and prevents useful, meaningful discussion of what can be done to stop the fighting and start the building. Unfortunately, if you try to tell an Israel hardliner about all the terrible things Israel needs to stop doing, they call you an apologist for Hamas. And if you try to tell some of the people here about all the terrible things Hamas needs to stop doing, they call you an apologist for Israel.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    The Palestinians utilize terror attacks on civilian targets for their political purposes.
    The Israelis use military attacks on civilian targets, killing far more, for political purposes.

    Israel gets a free pass in this country and to a lesser extent the Western World and as such any criticism seems harsh. But before we go further into it, I suggest:

    Who gives a shit?

    The Israelis have been incredibly harsh, the Palestinians utilize terrorism and there's been significant loss of life on both sides. But why are we so hung up on this particular conflict?

    More people are killed in one year in the Sudan than in the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The same could be said for Rwanda, or Bosnia, or Chechnya or Liberia or the Philippines. More subtle than the unabashed pro-Israeli sentiment that the substantial and disproportionately affluent/educated/influential Jewish population* in the US is derived from is the fact that we give a shit in the first place.

    Why all the focus on one strip of desert? Fuck it, a pox on both their houses.
    Spoiler:

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Because this particular conflict is the result of western colonialism and imperialism(also anti-semitism).

    The Idea that you can travel to a far off place, tell the natives to fuck off and create your own nation is a very western Idea. If you are American you should remember that everything west of the Missisipi river used to belong to different people less then 200 years ago. Where are those peoples now? In tiny little reservations if they are lucky, dead if they are not.

    Israel is continuing the path forge by the brave settlers of the west. Taking land, Harrasing the palestinians and disproportionate vengance when they defend themselves. Treating the Natives as savages, placing heavy restrictions on them or breaking treaties made.

    Remember modern Israel is little over 50 years old and the majority of citizens are decended from latter imigrants. The Palestinians lived there for almost 1500 years before they came. Hell, there are some that claim that the Palestinians are ancient Israelis that converted to Islam.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User
    edited June 2009
    Israel has overused the antisemitism card so much I'm surprised more people arent immune already.

    One of the advantages of having people in my family tree who died in the Holocaust is that I have an invulnerable defense against it.

    No, you fuckers, just because Hitler killed a lot of us doesn't mean you have the right to fuck the Palestinians over in turn. Play nice, give them their own land. And no, saying you were there first (3k years ago) is dumb. By that logic Native Americans have every right to violently and forcefully evict every single non-native American.

    Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Because this particular conflict is the result of western colonialism and imperialism(also anti-semitism).

    The Idea that you can travel to a far off place, tell the natives to fuck off and create your own nation is a very western Idea. If you are American you should remember that everything west of the Missisipi river used to belong to different people less then 200 years ago. Where are those peoples now? In tiny little reservations if they are lucky, dead if they are not.

    Israel is continuing the path forge by the brave settlers of the west. Taking land, Harrasing the palestinians and disproportionate vengance when they defend themselves. Treating the Natives as savages, placing heavy restrictions on them or breaking treaties made.

    Remember modern Israel is little over 50 years old and the majority of citizens are decended from latter imigrants. The Palestinians lived there for almost 1500 years before they came. Hell, there are some that claim that the Palestinians are ancient Israelis that converted to Islam.

    Yeah, but why should America currently care? Seriously, why not just stop sending aid to Israel or the Palestinians, stop vetoing UN amendments, etc. Walk away and if asked, just shrug our shoulders and say "Yeah that's a real mess there."

    Pure isolationism is not a good thing of course. But why is America/The West/The UN/The OAS/OPEC/ AIPAC/etc., responsible for ensuring the set up of a two state solution and that everybody gets along.

    At a certain point I think it is just entagling us in a region where by and large, we just don't have to give a shit. Not our area. Nobody there can drop nukes in our house. If there's going to be a two state solution, then the Israelis and the Palestinians are going to have to work it out for themselves, and they are going to have to feel committed to the solution and want it to work on a daily and personal level. When they say we are going to live in peace, they have to mean it.

    I don't know how America or even any non-regional party is going to be able to do that.

    So why the Kerfluffle?

    EDIT: I am arguing for Governmental non-interference. Personal interference buying Israel Bonds, donating to Palestinian refugee camps, etc is a person's choice. On a government policy level, I am arguing for America to have a big cup of "Mind your own Goddamn business"

    Much like the current Iranian affair. Yes their government is a dick. But the Iranians have the right of self-determination. People should have the right to settle their own lives. Their way.

    The only time that there should ever be a hint of interference is if a) the situation has gotten atrociously bad. Darfur bad, Yugoslavia bad, WWII Germany bad.

    b) The country involved attacks the United States, an ally, etc. Traditional causes for War. (the non- "we want your shit" causes)

    Toldo wrote:
    Preacher wrote:
    Skinny guys fight till their burger. Screw debates lets have Barack Obama and Willard Romney rumble in the mofoing jungle.
    Obama punches Romney.
    "Okay, now wait a minute. You've had your turn. Let me have a turn. Wait a minute," Romney says.
    Obama punches Romney.
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    America should care because America gives 2 billion dollars a year to Israel. And thats not a "Here, buy yourself something nice" money, its "Here, buy yourself the best guns and bombs" money.

    Israel would not be able to afford being such dicks if it wasn't for that fact.

    This also displays a less well-known part of the Israeli/American lobby: The fact that its financed by several large weapons manufacturers. These guys want Israel to continue their rampage and use charges of anti-semitism to deflect critisism

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    America should care because America gives 2 billion dollars a year to Israel. And thats not a "Here, buy yourself something nice" money, its "Here, buy yourself the best guns and bombs" money.

    No, it's more "Here, buy our guns" money. On top of the money going right back in to American companies, it's also a huge incentive for all weapons in Israel to be bought from the US.

    Quite frankly, this is a big thing since there aren't that many people in the world that want to buy American weapons, and while some do, they do not stay exclusive and buy weapons made by other countries or just make their own.

    There's no question that if the US stops funding Israel, Israel would get by just fine but the US will lose quite a lot of business in the process.

    sig_zpsf0994cbd.jpg
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Because this particular conflict is the result of western colonialism and imperialism(also anti-semitism).

    The Idea that you can travel to a far off place, tell the natives to fuck off and create your own nation is a very western Idea.
    PantsB wrote: »
    More people are killed in one year in the Sudan than in the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The same could be said for Rwanda, or Bosnia, or Chechnya or Liberia or the Philippines.

    Which of the above weren't part of Western Imperialism/colonization/meddling again?
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    America should care because America gives 2 billion dollars a year to Israel. And thats not a "Here, buy yourself something nice" money, its "Here, buy yourself the best guns and bombs" money.

    Israel would not be able to afford being such dicks if it wasn't for that fact.

    This also displays a less well-known part of the Israeli/American lobby: The fact that its financed by several large weapons manufacturers. These guys want Israel to continue their rampage and use charges of anti-semitism to deflect critisism

    So we should care because we care enough to give them money. There seems to be a flaw in this logic.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Israelis told the US a few years back that they don't need the money anymore, they can buy all the weapons they need just fine.

    The US sends the money anyway. America is like Israel's Grandmother or something.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    America should care because America gives 2 billion dollars a year to Israel. And thats not a "Here, buy yourself something nice" money, its "Here, buy yourself the best guns and bombs" money.

    No, it's more "Here, buy our guns" money. On top of the money going right back in to American companies, it's also a huge incentive for all weapons in Israel to be bought from the US.

    Quite frankly, this is a big thing since there aren't that many people in the world that want to buy American weapons, and while some do, they do not stay exclusive and buy weapons made by other countries or just make their own.

    There's no question that if the US stops funding Israel, Israel would get by just fine but the US will lose quite a lot of business in the process.

    Well, the buy American tag to the money was implied. And American weapons are fairly popular, its just that the most advanced ones are off-limits to all but America's closes allies(of wich Israel is one). This causes problems when Israel uses "smart-bomb 2.0 USA RULES" to bomb places like Gaza. Everyone sees them doing it and sees them using US weapons to do it. This causes people to not like America much.

    Its a documented fact that America's heavy support for Israel(the weapon sales especialy) is used as a recruitment tool for Middle eastern Terror groups.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Well, the buy American tag to the money was implied. And American weapons are fairly popular, its just that the most advanced ones are off-limits to all but America's closes allies(of wich Israel is one).
    Most of America's closest allies tend to not want to buy the advanced weapons and wold much rather make their own. The only ones that do are ones that are subsidized by the US.
    This causes problems when armies use "smart-bomb 2.0 USA RULES" to bomb places like Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan. Everyone sees them doing it and sees them using US weapons to do it. This causes people to not like America much.

    Its a documented fact that America's heavy support for Israel(the weapon sales especialy) is used as a recruitment tool for Middle eastern Terror groups.

    somewhat late for that kind of reasoning, I mean the most recent recruitment videos have been claiming that Obama is a secret Jew, so I wouldn't be too worried about fighting that PR war.

    sig_zpsf0994cbd.jpg
  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2009
    UNSC is where America gives Israel support it needs these days, which is appropriate because every horrible-misery-perpetuating-government needs a pimp up there.
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I don't think inflammatory, accusatory rhetoric is constructive. Playing the victim game (history has treated us worse! No, it's treated us worse! and so on) only perpetuates the violence and prevents useful, meaningful discussion of what can be done to stop the fighting and start the building. Unfortunately, if you try to tell an Israel hardliner about all the terrible things Israel needs to stop doing, they call you an apologist for Hamas. And if you try to tell some of the people here about all the terrible things Hamas needs to stop doing, they call you an apologist for Israel.

    I didn't, and wouldn't. But would lead to "accusatory rhetoric, and what is, at best, a really retarded thing to say is that someone isn't giving balance to the situation by ignoring the how Israel is making Palestinian lives not fucking miserable. How anyone could find omission of some look-good aid by Israel to the Palestinians note-worthy is beyond me.

  • MendrianMendrian Registered User
    edited June 2009
    These conversations always sort of confuse me, when it comes to Palestinians and Israel.

    Almost universally - at least at university - it comes down to, "Well, Palestinian terror groups blow up Israeli citizens, so it's okay to fire rockets back at them." Now, not everyone has that point of view, and if you don't, this isn't directed at you. I sort of thought the world was past Hammurabi's Code. Just because the Palestinians blow up parts of Israel does not make it okay for Israel to respond in kind. When we catch a cannibal in this country [the U.S.A], we don't eat them. "But they hurt us!" is not a valid argument in the modern world.

    Granted, I can see the difficulty of trying to fight off militants who hide among innocent civilians, but the answer is not to blow up innocent civilians - for either side. A better solution, frankly, needs to be come to than a military solution, because the military solution isn't working. At least, not until there aren't any more Palestinians. It's not like you can dissolve a non-sovereign nation. There's no capital to hit, just an ideology. Bringing the terrorists to justice is difficult for Israel. I'm sympathetic to that. I just don't approve of their solution. It seems fairly juvenile.

  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Remember modern Israel is little over 50 years old and the majority of citizens are decended from latter imigrants. The Palestinians lived there for almost 1500 years before they came. Hell, there are some that claim that the Palestinians are ancient Israelis that converted to Islam.

    Why do people keep thinking this?

    Both groups are immigrants, the "natives" (Jewish and Palestinian) make up an insignificant minority of the current population.

    sig_zpsf0994cbd.jpg
  • Nova_CNova_C Sniff Sniff Snorf Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Remember modern Israel is little over 50 years old and the majority of citizens are decended from latter imigrants. The Palestinians lived there for almost 1500 years before they came. Hell, there are some that claim that the Palestinians are ancient Israelis that converted to Islam.

    Why do people keep thinking this?

    Both groups are immigrants, the "natives" (Jewish and Palestinian) make up an insignificant minority of the current population.

    That land has changed hands so many times anyway. The whole original settler thing is pointless.

  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    See, the problem with comparing Hamas and Israel is that:

    One is a terrorist wing of a radical political group. Supported by people who throughout their entire lives have been completely fucked over by the powerful country that stole their land. Hamas is the only option for them, because even though they are violent and murderous, at least they cared about them.

    Israel is a democratically elected goverment of a first world nation, representing a nation of seven million people, participating in world discourse as an acknowledged and powerful member, has it's own economy which openly trades with other first world nations, it's own army and is supported by the United States. Israel is not supposed to be doing the same things as Hamas does. Their actions are completely analogous to a scenario where U.S. army would have confirmed intel of Osama Bin Laden hiding in Riyadh somewhere, and they would fly a plane straight to Kingdom Tower to attempt to kill him.

    So whenever you answer a criticism of Israel with "But Hamas are doing the same thing too!", you are not helping your point.

    The goverment of Israel is no better then Hamas, they simply have bigger guns. No other first world nation get's the same pass that they have gotten for years upon years. The Israeli-Jewish lobby in the U.S. IS a reason for this, probably the main one, and pointing it out is not anti-semitism.

  • MidshipmanMidshipman Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I don't think most Israelis want to wipe out the Palestinians; I think they just want all the land, and don't mind so much if all the Palestinians have to die in order for them to get it.

    Not that it matters, but I have lost all respect for Thanatos over the course of this thread.

    midshipman.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.