As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

The Middle East v5: The Fourth Gulf War

[Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubtRegistered User regular
edited November 2014 in Debate and/or Discourse
Welcome back to the Middle East Thread, 5th edition.

This is the thread for talking about the goings on in these countries, including current events, history, travel and general interest. Discussion is pretty wide ranging but usually holds pretty close to whats going on in the region, and with all the revolutions and wars and attacks there is usually no shortage of things to talk about. For discussion of things like Islam please see Ham's thread on the subject. http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/151553/islam-or-holy-shi-ite-it-s-a-thread-about-mohammedans/p1

We all know arguments can be common in this sort of discussion, especially around Israel/Palestine. So far everyone has conducted themselves very well, but we'll keep a reminder to play nice. Cite your sources, avoid attacks on other posters, and generally be willing to let a point drop; people have been debating this for decades, we probably wont be solving much here anyway.

Below is a bit of a primer. It is by no means complete, and as it was assembled mostly through memory it can't be called perfectly accurate or unbiased. Suggestions for more resources are welcome, especially media like photos, videos and maps.




Middle East
What do we mean by this? Well I stole a map from wikipedia which I think does an excellent job:
middle-east.gif

The dark green is the "traditional" Middle east. The lighter green in the North of Africa indicates nations that are mostly Arabic and Muslim; this region is called the Maghreb. Somalia is on there for its proximity to the Arabian Peninsula, and it is also Muslim. The lighter greens in Asia are not Arabic, but are all Muslim. Calling Pakistan or Kazakhstan part of the Middle East is frankly absurd, but current conflicts mean that you hear the term come up. The Caucuses (light green, the small region north of Turkey and Iran, south of Russia) is the only region that has Christian nations, though plenty of Muslims are there as well. Discussion also can include more of Africa.


Sunni and Shia - who are they and why should I care?
ZwGBOrd.jpg
Green is Sunni, red is Shia (also called Shiites or more properly, Shi'i). Too small to see is tiny Bahrain on the coast of Saudi Arabia in the Persian Gulf, which is also majority Shia.
Oman is Ibadi, which I don't know anything about.
The sects in Islam can be thought of as roughly like Catholic and Protestant, except the split in Islam occurred only a few years after its founding. Like in Christianity, the actual beliefs are mostly the same, but minor differences have a way of adding to existing conflicts that makes them bigger and badder.


Oil!
Much of the Middle East is the way it is because oil was discovered there in the early 20th century. The overthrow of Mossadeq in Iran in '53, the very close relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US, the extreme wealth of the Gulf Emirates, and the various Gulf Wars involving Iraq, Iran and the US are all very closely tied with hydrocarbon resources and their huge strategic importance. It is a mistake to believe that every event in the Middle East can be tied to oil, but it is safe to say it is always on the minds of groups and governments in the region and powers all over the world.




Current Events


The Islamic State, new kid on the block
NSFW:
2014%2B24iraq-oneCROP.jpg

ISI, ISIL, ISIS, and now just plain IS. Formed as a Sunni rebel group to the US occupation around 2003 or 04. Rose to fame during the Syrian civil war, by being such assholes that the al-Qeuda franchise al-Nusra told them to fuck off. They were so effective at destroying or absorbing competing rebel groups that Assad mostly left them alone. They apparently get their funding from private entities in Saudi Arabia, though its tough to say for sure. After fighting in both Syria and Iraq for some time, they came to global attention when they seized Iraq's second largest city of Mosul almost without a fight. This was in early June. Since then they've become enemy #1 in the Middle East. They've shown how useless Iraq is as a country, and especially how useless its army is. They've inspired the US, Russia, and Iran to all offer support and troops to fight them, a distinction shared only by the Taliban. Their real power is still largely unknown, as it clearly rests on a rickety alliance of Baath members and assorted Sunni tribes. However they control a swath of land that includes thousands of square km in Syria and Iraq, and millions of people, and so far proved resilient. Hard to say what happens next, but in my mind this is only the start of a very large regional war.

Kurdistan- my map is broken
Kurdish-inhabited_area_by_CIA_%281992%29.jpg

You won't find it on your world map. The Kurds are a people that almost got a state after the Ottoman Empire was cut up by Britian and France. They got screwed though, and like most of the rest didn't get the state they wanted. They've seen been a thorn in the side or Iran and Syria to a small extent, and Iraq and Turkey to a large extent. Saddam attacked his Kurdish region with chemical weapons in the 80s, in retaliation for the rebels fighting on Iran's side during the Iran-Iraq war. After Operation Desert storm, the US and allies imposed a no-fly-zone over northern Iraq, which effectively insulated the Kurds and increased their autonomy. When the country fell apart in the wake of the '03 invasion, the Kurds were already used to going it alone. They've been increasingly powerful for the past few years, and have been running a state within a state. The recent seizure of Mosul by ISIS basically broke the Iraqi state, and with Turkey quietly ok with the issue and the West struggling to find reliable allies, the Kurds may be getting a formal state out of the mix. They shouldn't get their hopes up on that, but despite not existing on paper, the de facto state of Kurdistan is one of the more stable ones in that region right now.


Syrian Civil War- Oh yeah that thing
The terrible bloodbath continues. Hundreds of thousands have been killed with no end in sight. At the start, peaceful protests were met with a violent crackdown, and the resulting rebellion and defection of some of the army rapidly became very messy as foreign fighters (many from the recently concluded conflict in Libya) with outside backing entered the fray. Turkey has provided safe haven for the rebels, Saudi Arabia and Qatar weapons, with the US and other western nations providing "non-lethal" aid and trying to get the rebels to form a cohesive government. There was much talk of an intervention, especially when Assad began using chemical weapons. Obama's (in)famous red line was passed Aug 2013 in Ghouta, where over a thousand people were killed in a chemical attack. The much threatened intervention did not come however, partly because the British government got cold feet. The conflict has since worn on as before; the country is a blasted hulk of its former self, millions have fled, starvation is common, and the conflict has spread to neighbouring Lebanon and Iraq.



Israel/Palestine- their unceasing disputes are sort of like a married couple, with more death
Bethlehem-11176.jpg
The conflict synonymous with the Middle East. Wall to wall coverage, and discussion of this issue is known to turn normal people into frothing animals. The dispute is basically about land and who lives on it, who used to live on it, and who should live on it. There's Israel, Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza. Hamas and Fatah had a violent falling out in 2007, and the occasional attempt at reconciliation has so far gone nowhere.

The West Bank is occupied by Israel and contains many illegal jewish settlements. The settlements were removed from Gaza during the last decade, and the territory was put under siege when Hamas was elected. It seems like basically nobody is happy with the current situation, so expect plenty more conflicts after this one.
settlements.gif

Extra big, extra detailed map made by the UN:
HYnYc7g.jpg




Iran Nuclear- Suddenly a minor problem

After Iraq was invaded by the US and co, it seemed like Iran was next on the list. Member of the "axis of evil", no proven weapons program, lots of muslims and oil, it all seemed to fit. But Iraq was quickly shown to be a Bad Idea, and the plan was sheleved. Israel kept threatening, but they probably can't pull off an attack on their own. About a year ago Iran elected Rouhani, who was a lot less annoying than Ahmadinejad, his predecessor. For reasons I still do not completely understand, cooler heads on both sides suddenly started getting along. Secret negotiations between the US and Iran led to some surprise announcements, then more open talks. All the talk these days is about peace with Iran, the ending of sanctions, and Iran opening its markets. It doesn't feel like empty rhetoric to me either, so even if some wacko like McCain gets elected in the US, I think there is a good chance relations will continue to improve. I think people might have finally realized there are more important things to worry about.

Libya- What's a Benghazi?
As of early August 2014, Libya is a very dangerous place. This isn't very different from any point since Gadaffi was overthrown, which was around 3 years ago now. The various militias that were fighting in the civil war (some with NATO support, some without) are still fighting it out. Libya has had a "government" in Tripoli, however it controlled little of the country and indeed couldn't stop street fighting in the capital, or indeed protect government offices. The Prime Minister fled the country in March 2014. The east of the country around Benghazi, where the rebellion started, has its shit together a bit more solidly, but doesn't listen to Tripoli at all. It got in trouble trying to export its own oil- Tripoli protested, and US navy SEALS ended up seizing the tanker that carried the oil. In the past few weeks diplomatic staff from the US and other countries have been withdrawn. Libya, in my view, has been a "failed state" since the revolution and is only getting worse. Outside military intervention (again) is pretty likely, especially if an islamist group ends up with too much power. Watch the actions of Egypt especially here.


Afghanistan and Pakistan: still terrible
Remember these places? Well, not getting better. The US and NATO has been withdrawing its forces from Afghanistan; Obama said that combat operations end in December of this year and that around 10 000 troops will be left in the country by that time. To absoltely nobodies surprise, Afghanistan is not being left as a beacon of freedom and democracy. Yet another fraudulent election is being disputed right now, and violence has been on a steady upswing this year. Not that the foreign troops or Kabul ever really controlled the country, but lots of groups were simply waiting for this occupation thing to die down before making their move. A safe bet is civil war, again, and for Karzai to retire to Maimi. If the Taliban winds up back in power basically depends on how much Pakistan continues to support them (those good, loyal allies of the US). Speaking of Pakistan, they're currently fighting their own version of the Taliban (who they don't support) in their northern provinces. Something like 400 000 people were displaced in the opening weeks of this offensive, good luck finding that mentioned in most media.



Fallout of the Arab Spring
Tunisia, where the Arab Spring was kicked off the by self immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, has been doing pretty ok, relatively speaking. It is still in a period of turmoil and unrest, however the unrest has been almost always of a political nature. However as of summer 2014 this may be changing, as there have now been several ambushes against Tunisian soldiers, killing several. It has closed its border with Libya as a result of growing violence there, but large stretches of desert are difficult to protect. Its probably the most successful of all the revolutions, however the outcome is still uncertain.

In Egypt, on the other hand, the revolution has been thoroughly crushed. The Muslim Brotherhood won elections in the wake of the street protests and the removal of Mubarak, however the military again seized power in a coup about a year agao (july 2013). The country has been effectively led by General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who was eventually elected in a sham election, heartily backed by local media. Over a thousand members of the Brotherhood were gunned down in the streets after mostly-peaceful demonstrations against the coup, and since then hundreds more have been sentenced en masse to the death penalty. Egypts economic woes remain, and since Mubarak fell Bedoin groups in the Sinai have been launching regular attacks on the army there. Lately there has been the occasional bombing and shooting in more urban areas as well. My prediction is that the moderate, non-violent Muslim Brotherhood may come to be missed as more violent islamists become the only groups opposing the military.

Yemen is still a mess. US drone strikes and presumed special forces missions occur their regularly against al-Queda franchise groups (or anyone opposed to the government, who can easily be accused of being al-Quada). A bit of history: the country was until the early 90s split into North and South Yemen, and was frequently the site of violence. Aside from the "al-queda" groups in the east the Houthis in the north of the country are also perpetually rebellious- indeed Saudi Arabia has launched air strikes into the territory even more the Arab Spring took place. The Houthis, being Shia, may or may not get support from Iran in their rebellion. Another "failed state"

Algeria we haven't heard much about, only the hostage taking at that oil refinery seemed to make the news. But Algeria is in much the same position as Egypt. In the early 90s the military-backed regime launched elections. Like in Egypt, the wrong people won, namely Islamist groups. The results were overturned and the Islamists jailed, which sparked off a long running and extremely brutal civil war which killed many thousands in the 90s. This conflict never really ended, only simmered down. With the region in turmoil and armed groups from Libya and elsewhere roaming fairly freely across the region (the refinery attacks being an example here), we could see a revolution, renewed civil war, or outside military action involving Algeria at almost any time.

Mali isn't in the Middle East by most definitions, but it does have arabs and muslims. Violence there, to which the French responded with a military intervention, was believed to have been caused by Liyban groups and weapons moving elsewhere in the region after Gadaffi fell. The Sahel, and indeed most of Northern Africa is looking mighty unstable these days, with more militant groups than usual moving about and making trouble.



Other countries

Lebanon- even more complicated than you thought

Lebanon is a very interesting place. For the time being, it is fighting Syria's civil war on a smaller scale, especially in its northern city of Tripoli (not to be confused with Tripoli, Libya). The Lebanese government is a complicated, poorly functioning beast, probably because the country is composed of a huge host of ethnic and religious groups that have not often seen eye to eye. The most powerful entity in the country right now is the Islamist Shia group Hezbollah. It fought a war with Israel in 2006 in which it did fairly well, though Lebanon itself suffered badly. Hezbollah has turned from what could credibly be called a defense force against Israel into more of a proper army: it has been fighting hard in Syria for years on the side of Assad, and now has fighters in Iraq. The place has been a flash-point since the 80s, hard to say what will happen next.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War_spillover_in_Lebanon

Jordan- keeps its head down
Jordan is right in the middle of the Middle East, and has been remarkably stable despite that. It is home to a few million Palestinian refugees and their descendants, and now is also home to hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees. It also borders Iraq, where last I heard, ISIS controlled the border crossings on the Iraqi side. Jordan is ruled by a pro-West monarch that is good at keeping lots of different people happy. Lots of strain is being put on the country now, and I think ISIS moving in is a real possibility, but for now it remains quiet.


Central Asia - all those 'stans you've never heard of
All those 'stan countries, excluding Afghanistan and Pakistan. They've been pretty quiet lately, but they border the Middle East and have all the same potential for interesting times; decades and centuries old Games of strategy being played by Great Powers for control of a strategic region, enormous wealth in resources, terrible colonial borders, demographic bulges, oppressed muslims and "terrorism". It could take years before anything much happens here, but when it does it will be spoken of in the same breath and Middle Eastern conflicts.

Gulf Emirates (lots of money, no wisdom)
Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates (UAE, including Dubai and Abu Dhabi), Qatar are all stinking rich because of their oil reserves. They spend this money usually in incredibly foolish ways, like by building artificial islands, incredibly tall skyscrapers and ski hills in the desert. Kingdoms built on sand, quite literally. In some of these countries the number of foreign workers (who are paid almost nothing) outnumber the citizens. Their security is assured by the US and their big brother Saudi Arabia. If the energy stops flowing, they're fucked. Qatar in particular has been very active in the region, its (usually pretty good) TV station al-Jazeera mostly backed the Arab Spring protests, and the government has actively aided rebels in Libya and Syria.

Saudi Arabia- home of Mecca and Medina
A pretty messed up place, and given their neighbours this takes quite a bit. If you think Iran is repressive (and it frequently is) look up Saudi Arabia a bit to see how much worse it is. They also use their enormous wealth incredibly unwisely, mostly by enriching their huge extended family, ridiculous building projects, fancy weapons by the billion, while using millions of foreign workers who live in slave conditions. Their oil ensures the undying loyalty and protection from the US, despite Saudi Arabia backing groups like the Taliban, most of the 9/11 hijackers being Saudi, Saudi citizens backing ISIS and al-Nusra, and so forth. The place has a significant Shia minority (oppressed, of course) on its eastern coast, which happens to be oil rich. A source of potential friction. It has so far proved immune to popular uprisings.


Turkey- the glorious republic of Ataturk
Home of the Ottoman Empire of old. These days is mostly secular, and is a member of NATO. The current president Erdogan has gotten a lot of flak, which I find odd seeing how comparatively well-off Turkey and its citizens are compared to much of the rest of the region. Erdogans mildly-islamist policies have earned him enemies abroad though, as the US, Israel and others are keen to keep Turkey in the western sphere. Despite the protests against Erdogan (which occurred for good reasons, like consolidating power) he remains quite popular in the country as a whole and his party easily won recent elections. Turkey remains one of the largest and most powerful countries in the region, and that won't be changing anytime soon.

Azerbaijan- Caspian emirate?
A small country on the Caspian Sea. I include it because its a muslim country, and used to be part of Iran. It has access to huge natural gas reserves, and it's been turning into something like a Gulf Emirate due to that wealth. It is potentially interesting because of its resources, AND it sits on a pipeline route to Europe, AND is sandwiched between Russia (controlled it in Soviet days), Turkey (they are ethnically and linguistically Turkic) and Iran (they were part of Iran until the mid-1800s, and Iran currently has a large Azeri population). In short, it is ripe for conflicting outside influences.




Links and stuff

How appalled are you when you think of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, launched by Bush and his Neoconservative pals? Not enough? Well if you want to see how the Neocons got the war machine going, check out this excellent documentary from PBS: FRONTLINE
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

A quirky documentary originally for the BBC. Its also about Neocons, and about ultra-radical islamists, and how they're actually pretty similar in how they view the world and manipulate other through fear:
Power of Nightmares

I don't like this video much, as it encourages people to think of the region in terms of "oh, THOSE PEOPLE have been fighting forever!" implying there is no rhyme nor reason for it. Still, its been popular, does show that these aren't exactly new arguments we're having now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY

Another FRONTLINE documentry from PBS. This is about Egypt after the revolution:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/egypt-in-crisis/

news:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world/middle_east/
http://america.aljazeera.com/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/middleeast/roundup
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/en/sites/almonitor/home.html
http://www.haaretz.com/ (sometimes paywall'd)

mvaYcgc.jpg
[Tycho?] on
«134567100

Posts

  • Options
    MillMill Registered User regular
    Bit surprised that Somalia doesn't get mentioned. Granted it's still a fucking mess of a failed state.

  • Options
    [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    Bah, thats cause I forgot about it. I actually follow Somalia more closely than most the countries on that list. I'll write something.

    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • Options
    ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Western coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderator mod
    Holy shit why do people love red and green so much for maps.

    Is there a version of the Sunni/Shia map with another color, by any chance? I can't get much useful information from it =/

  • Options
    RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Holy shit why do people love red and green so much for maps.

    Is there a version of the Sunni/Shia map with another color, by any chance? I can't get much useful information from it =/

    I think green is used because it has some association with Islam.

    I take it you are r/g colorblind?

    Edit: I hope this helps

    shia-sunni-map.jpg

    Rchanen on
  • Options
    ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Western coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited August 2014
    Rchanen wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Holy shit why do people love red and green so much for maps.

    Is there a version of the Sunni/Shia map with another color, by any chance? I can't get much useful information from it =/

    I think green is used because it has some association with Islam.

    I take it you are r/g colorblind?

    I'm not completely color blind, but it's bad enough that the map is extremely frustrating and I can only really see that Iran is red and Iraq has reddishness.

    I can't tell what Kuwait is.

    So yeah I might as well be rg colorblind for the purposes of that map.

    OH HEY EDIT

    omg you are a saint, thank you so much

    Shivahn on
  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    I don't like this video much, as it encourages people to think of the region in terms of "oh, THOSE PEOPLE have been fighting forever!" implying there is no rhyme nor reason for it. Still, its been popular, does show that these aren't exactly new arguments we're having now.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY

    Perhaps the same could be said of all regions. *throws wineglass* But enough talk! Have at you!

    er, I mean...

    That's what history tends to look like, everywhere. And this part of the world happens to have more of it than most.

    Commander Zoom on
  • Options
    RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    The map I posted above appears to be a bit wrong. Kuwait according to wiki is 70/30 Sunni-Shia. Other than that the map appears to be accurate as the surrounding area is pretty much hardcore Shia.

    Edit: Also the map implies India is Sunni. Which, is like HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    Try extremely Hindu. The map's general point, that Islam is mostly Sunni is correct. I think its a 60-40 or 70/30 split or something.

    Rchanen on
  • Options
    Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    WIkipedia wrote:
    Lehi (Hebrew pronunciation: [ˈleχi]; Hebrew: לח"י – לוחמי חרות ישראל‎ Lohamei Herut Israel – Lehi, "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel – Lehi"), commonly referred to in English as the Stern Gang, was a militant Zionist group founded by Avraham ("Yair") Stern in the British Mandate of Palestine. Its avowed aim was to evict the British authorities from Palestine by resort to force, allowing unrestricted immigration of Jews and the formation of a Jewish state, a 'new totalitarian Hebrew republic'. It was initially called the National Military Organization in Israel, upon being founded in August 1940, but was renamed Lehi one month later.

    Lehi split from the Irgun militant group in 1940 in order to continue fighting the British during World War II. Lehi initially sought an alliance with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, offering to fight alongside them against the British in return for the transfer of all Jews from Nazi-occupied Europe to Palestine. On the belief that Nazi Germany was a lesser enemy of the Jews than Britain, Lehi twice attempted to form an alliance with the Nazis. During World War II it declared that it would establish a Jewish state based upon "nationalist and totalitarian principles".After Stern's death in 1942, the new leadership of Lehi began to move it towards support of Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union.[1] In 1944 Lehi officially declared its support for National Bolshevism.[6] It said that its National Bolshevism involved an amalgamation of left-wing and right-wing political elements – Stern said Lehi incorporated elements of both the left and the right – however this change was unpopular and Lehi began to lose support as a result.

    Lehi and the Irgun were jointly responsible for the massacre in Deir Yassin. Lehi assassinated Lord Moyne, British Minister Resident in the Middle East, and made many other attacks on the British in Palestine. On May 29, 1948, the government of Israel, having inducted its activists members into the Tzahal, formally disbanded Lehi, though some of its members carried out one more terrorist act, the assassination of Folke Bernadotte some months later, an act condemned by Bernadotte's replacement as mediator, Ralph Bunche. Israel granted a general amnesty to Lehi members on 14 February 1949. In 1980, Israel instituted a military decoration in "award for activity in the struggle for the establishment of Israel," the Lehi ribbon. Former Lehi leader Yitzhak Shamir became Prime Minister of Israel in 1983.

    This is what Israel's PR looks like. The worst thing is that somehow it works.
    When Genocide is Permissible by Yochanan Gordon

    Judging by the numbers of casualties on both sides in this almost one-month old war one would be led to the conclusion that Israel has resorted to disproportionate means in fighting a far less- capable enemy. That is as far as what meets the eye. But, it’s now obvious that the US and the UN are completely out of touch with the nature of this foe and are therefore not qualified to dictate or enforce the rules of this war – because when it comes to terror there is much more than meets the eye.

    I wasn’t aware of this, but it seems that the nature of warfare has undergone a major shift over the years. Where wars were usually waged to defeat the opposing side, today it seems – and judging by the number of foul calls it would indicate – that today’s wars are fought to a draw. I mean, whoever heard of a timeout in war? An NBA Basketball game allows six timeouts for each team during the course of a game, but last I checked this is a war! We are at war with an enemy whose charter calls for the annihilation of our people. Nothing, then, can be considered disproportionate when we are fighting for our very right to live.

    The sad reality is that Israel gets it, but its hands are being tied by world leaders who over the past six years have insisted they are such good friends with the Jewish state, that they know more regarding its interests than even they do. But there’s going to have to come a time where Israel feels threatened enough where it has no other choice but to defy international warnings – because this is life or death.

    Most of the reports coming from Gazan officials and leaders since the start of this operation have been either largely exaggerated or patently false. The truth is, it’s not their fault, falsehood and deceit is part of the very fabric of who they are and that will never change. Still however, despite their propensity to lie, when your enemy tells you that they are bent on your destruction you believe them. Similarly, when Khaled Meshal declares that no physical damage to Gaza will dampen their morale or weaken their resolve – they have to be believed. Our sage Gedalia the son of Achikam was given intelligence that Yishmael Ben Nesanyah was plotting to kill him. However, in his piety or rather naiveté Gedalia dismissed the report as a random act of gossip and paid no attention to it. To this day, the day following Rosh Hashana is commemorated as a fast day in the memory of Gedalia who was killed in cold blood on the second day of Rosh Hashana during the meal. They say the definition of insanity is repeating the same mistakes over and over. History is there to teach us lessons and the lesson here is that when your enemy swears to destroy you – you take him seriously.

    Hamas has stated forthrightly that it idealizes death as much as Israel celebrates life. What other way then is there to deal with an enemy of this nature other than obliterate them completely?

    News anchors such as those from CNN, BBC and Al-Jazeera have not missed an opportunity to point out the majority of innocent civilians who have lost their lives as a result of this war. But anyone who lives with rocket launchers installed or terror tunnels burrowed in or around the vicinity of their home cannot be considered an innocent civilian. If you’ll counter, that Hamas has been seen abusing civilians who have attempted to leave their homes in response to Israeli warnings to leave – well then, your beginning to come to terms with the nature of this enemy which should automatically cause the rules of standard warfare to be suspended.

    Everyone agrees that Israel has the right to defend itself as well as the right to exercise that right. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has declared it, Obama and Kerry have clearly stated that no one could be expected to sit idle as thousands of rockets rain down on the heads of its citizens, placing them in clear and present danger. It seems then that the only point of contention is regarding the measure of punishment meted out in this situation.

    I will conclude with a question for all the humanitarians out there. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clearly stated at the outset of this incursion that his objective is to restore a sustainable quiet for the citizens of Israel. We have already established that it is the responsibility of every government to ensure the safety and security of its people. If political leaders and military experts determine that the only way to achieve its goal of sustaining quiet is through genocide is it then permissible to achieve those responsible goals?


    Just to make it clear. I belief that the state of Israel should be destroyed.

    Edith Upwards on
  • Options
    ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Western coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderator mod
    I mean it may have its problems, but I can actually read it, so that's neat.

  • Options
    Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    Erich Zahn wrote: »
    Just to make it clear. I belief that the state of Israel should be destroyed.

    What do you believe it should be replaced by? I'm sad that they've turned into Nazis, up to and including internal censorship and their own German-American Bund, but I still have faith that if the rest of the world stops letting them get away with shit they can still save themselves.

  • Options
    KanaKana Registered User regular
    A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
  • Options
    CorehealerCorehealer The Apothecary The softer edge of the universe.Registered User regular
    Israel, though in the wrong in a great deal of ways and presently doing it's usual reprehensible shit, and being a state that probably should never been created where it was, still exists now, and we need to work with what we have and what has existed now for over half a century.

    The question is no longer one of destroying Israel but forcing it toward peace and cooperation with the Palestinians and a halt to settlements. Something that is both more doable while still being very difficult to achieve.

    488W936.png
  • Options
    NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    I'm not sure we "need" to work with Israel, there's no actual need for it to exist, and its destruction (depending on method, and what is meant by destruction), could (almost certainly not though) actually bring lot of long term good to the world, or at least be a stabilizing influence (depending what is put in its place) on the region.

  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Well, there has been another shelling of a UNRWA school.

    http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/8/3/gaza-strike-un.html
    In a chaotic scene inside the compound of the U.N. school, several bodies, among them children, were strewn across the ground in puddles of blood. Bloody footprints stained the ground where people had rushed the wounded into ambulances.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/israel-intelligence-eavesdropped-on-phone-calls-by-john-kerry-a-984246.html
    SPIEGEL has learned from reliable sources that Israeli intelligence eavesdropped on US Secretary of State John Kerry during Middle East peace negotiations. In addition to the Israelis, at least one other intelligence service also listened in as Kerry mediated last year between Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab states, several intelligence service sources told SPIEGEL. Revelations of the eavesdropping could further damage already tense relations between the US government and Israel.

    During the peak stage of peace talks last year, Kerry spoke regularly with high-ranking negotiating partners in the Middle East. At the time, some of these calls were not made on encrypted equipment, but instead on normal telephones, with the conversations transmitted by satellite. Intelligence agencies intercepted some of those calls. The government in Jerusalem then used the information obtained in international negotiations aiming to reach a diplomatic solution in the Middle East.

    ...
    This would probably not be surprising as it isn't like Israel hasn't spied on the USA in the past.

    There are still pro-Pollard people out there somehow.
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/israel-intelligence-eavesdropped-on-phone-calls-by-john-kerry-a-984246.html

    Couscous on
  • Options
    TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Well if there is one thing the US absolutely hates it's being spied on in any manner at all.

  • Options
    RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Well if there is one thing the US absolutely hates it's being spied on in any manner at all.

    Yeah bitter irony for the win.

    Also WTF was Kerry thinking. If you are the secretary of state for the United States, you kind of have to assume that you are being monitored. AT ALL TIMES.

    Silly bastard.

  • Options
    notdroidnotdroid Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Erich Zahn wrote: »
    WIkipedia wrote:
    Lehi (Hebrew pronunciation: [ˈleχi]; Hebrew: לח"י – לוחמי חרות ישראל‎ Lohamei Herut Israel – Lehi, "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel – Lehi"), commonly referred to in English as the Stern Gang, was a militant Zionist group founded by Avraham ("Yair") Stern in the British Mandate of Palestine. Its avowed aim was to evict the British authorities from Palestine by resort to force, allowing unrestricted immigration of Jews and the formation of a Jewish state, a 'new totalitarian Hebrew republic'. It was initially called the National Military Organization in Israel, upon being founded in August 1940, but was renamed Lehi one month later.

    Lehi split from the Irgun militant group in 1940 in order to continue fighting the British during World War II. Lehi initially sought an alliance with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, offering to fight alongside them against the British in return for the transfer of all Jews from Nazi-occupied Europe to Palestine. On the belief that Nazi Germany was a lesser enemy of the Jews than Britain, Lehi twice attempted to form an alliance with the Nazis. During World War II it declared that it would establish a Jewish state based upon "nationalist and totalitarian principles".After Stern's death in 1942, the new leadership of Lehi began to move it towards support of Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union.[1] In 1944 Lehi officially declared its support for National Bolshevism.[6] It said that its National Bolshevism involved an amalgamation of left-wing and right-wing political elements – Stern said Lehi incorporated elements of both the left and the right – however this change was unpopular and Lehi began to lose support as a result.

    Lehi and the Irgun were jointly responsible for the massacre in Deir Yassin. Lehi assassinated Lord Moyne, British Minister Resident in the Middle East, and made many other attacks on the British in Palestine. On May 29, 1948, the government of Israel, having inducted its activists members into the Tzahal, formally disbanded Lehi, though some of its members carried out one more terrorist act, the assassination of Folke Bernadotte some months later, an act condemned by Bernadotte's replacement as mediator, Ralph Bunche. Israel granted a general amnesty to Lehi members on 14 February 1949. In 1980, Israel instituted a military decoration in "award for activity in the struggle for the establishment of Israel," the Lehi ribbon. Former Lehi leader Yitzhak Shamir became Prime Minister of Israel in 1983.

    This is what Israel's PR looks like. The worst thing is that somehow it works.
    When Genocide is Permissible by Yochanan Gordon

    Judging by the numbers of casualties on both sides in this almost one-month old war one would be led to the conclusion that Israel has resorted to disproportionate means in fighting a far less- capable enemy. That is as far as what meets the eye. But, it’s now obvious that the US and the UN are completely out of touch with the nature of this foe and are therefore not qualified to dictate or enforce the rules of this war – because when it comes to terror there is much more than meets the eye.

    I wasn’t aware of this, but it seems that the nature of warfare has undergone a major shift over the years. Where wars were usually waged to defeat the opposing side, today it seems – and judging by the number of foul calls it would indicate – that today’s wars are fought to a draw. I mean, whoever heard of a timeout in war? An NBA Basketball game allows six timeouts for each team during the course of a game, but last I checked this is a war! We are at war with an enemy whose charter calls for the annihilation of our people. Nothing, then, can be considered disproportionate when we are fighting for our very right to live.

    The sad reality is that Israel gets it, but its hands are being tied by world leaders who over the past six years have insisted they are such good friends with the Jewish state, that they know more regarding its interests than even they do. But there’s going to have to come a time where Israel feels threatened enough where it has no other choice but to defy international warnings – because this is life or death.

    Most of the reports coming from Gazan officials and leaders since the start of this operation have been either largely exaggerated or patently false. The truth is, it’s not their fault, falsehood and deceit is part of the very fabric of who they are and that will never change. Still however, despite their propensity to lie, when your enemy tells you that they are bent on your destruction you believe them. Similarly, when Khaled Meshal declares that no physical damage to Gaza will dampen their morale or weaken their resolve – they have to be believed. Our sage Gedalia the son of Achikam was given intelligence that Yishmael Ben Nesanyah was plotting to kill him. However, in his piety or rather naiveté Gedalia dismissed the report as a random act of gossip and paid no attention to it. To this day, the day following Rosh Hashana is commemorated as a fast day in the memory of Gedalia who was killed in cold blood on the second day of Rosh Hashana during the meal. They say the definition of insanity is repeating the same mistakes over and over. History is there to teach us lessons and the lesson here is that when your enemy swears to destroy you – you take him seriously.

    Hamas has stated forthrightly that it idealizes death as much as Israel celebrates life. What other way then is there to deal with an enemy of this nature other than obliterate them completely?

    News anchors such as those from CNN, BBC and Al-Jazeera have not missed an opportunity to point out the majority of innocent civilians who have lost their lives as a result of this war. But anyone who lives with rocket launchers installed or terror tunnels burrowed in or around the vicinity of their home cannot be considered an innocent civilian. If you’ll counter, that Hamas has been seen abusing civilians who have attempted to leave their homes in response to Israeli warnings to leave – well then, your beginning to come to terms with the nature of this enemy which should automatically cause the rules of standard warfare to be suspended.

    Everyone agrees that Israel has the right to defend itself as well as the right to exercise that right. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has declared it, Obama and Kerry have clearly stated that no one could be expected to sit idle as thousands of rockets rain down on the heads of its citizens, placing them in clear and present danger. It seems then that the only point of contention is regarding the measure of punishment meted out in this situation.

    I will conclude with a question for all the humanitarians out there. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clearly stated at the outset of this incursion that his objective is to restore a sustainable quiet for the citizens of Israel. We have already established that it is the responsibility of every government to ensure the safety and security of its people. If political leaders and military experts determine that the only way to achieve its goal of sustaining quiet is through genocide is it then permissible to achieve those responsible goals?


    Just to make it clear. I belief that the state of Israel should be destroyed.

    I strongly disagree with your position. The state of Israel is here to stay.

    While they are not currently a majority, there are many people and voices in Israel who oppose Israel's current actions, and while the quotes above are horrible and reprehensible, they do not (yet) represent a majority opinion in Israel, even within the right. I would even go further and state that in a fictitious future scenario where it did become a majority opinion, while a military intervention would become appropriate, the state of Israel would still absolutely retain the right to exist.

    I've made it abundantly clear in my previous posts that I condemn these type of Israeli operations in Palestine, as well as the way the Israeli government treats Palestinians in between these military operations. But people who call for the destruction of Israel should be condemned as hard as the people who made the comments in the article you quoted, because they both imply the death and suffering of thousands of innocent civilians.

    There have been a lot of statements in the last thread about the discussion being overwhelmingly "anti-Israel" and I want to dispute the implications that criticizing Israel's violent actions on Palestinians is somehow equal to being against Israel itself. This is the same kind of bullshit logic people were throwing around during the second Iraq war, where criticizing US intervention in Iraq somehow implied you were an anti-American traitor and a Saddam sympathizer.

    The reason people tend to speak out against Israel more often/louder than they do against Hamas is simple: condemnation of Hamas is the default position in this conflict. It is implied.

    Hamas is recognized by pretty much all the Western world, and then some, as a terrorist organization. It is treated as such by all our governments.

    Israel, who's stated rhetoric may be less condemnable than Hamas, but whose concrete actions puts it on the same level, enjoys full diplomatic/economic contact with our countries. There are no sanctions against it, despite its violation of UN resolutions and illegal occupation of Palestinian land, without of course forgetting it's settlement expansion activity, its complete inaction towards settler violence against Palestinians, its humanitarianly reprehensible blockade against Palestinians, and its complete disregard for civilian life during its military operations. We even sell it all the weapons it needs.

    If it wants to keep those "perks", it either needs to be held to a higher standard than Hamas, or treated in the same way we treat other rogue states.

    notdroid on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    notdroid wrote: »
    I've made it abundantly clear in my previous posts that I condemn these type of Israeli operations in Palestine, as well as the way the Israeli government treats Palestinians in between these military operations. But people who call for the destruction of Israel should be condemned as hard as the people who made the comments in the article you quoted, because they both imply the death and suffering of thousands of innocent civilians.

    Does it? Dismantling Israel and replacing it with a single non-ethnic-based state is one solution to this conflict. I'm not sure it's not in fact the best solution.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    Erich Zahn wrote: »

    Just to make it clear. I belief that the state of Israel should be destroyed.

    The forceful removal of people from their homes is amongst the worst things that can be done to a people. Just because Israel does this to others, does not mean the same fate should befall them. Revenge is not justice.

    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • Options
    DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    notdroid wrote: »
    I've made it abundantly clear in my previous posts that I condemn these type of Israeli operations in Palestine, as well as the way the Israeli government treats Palestinians in between these military operations. But people who call for the destruction of Israel should be condemned as hard as the people who made the comments in the article you quoted, because they both imply the death and suffering of thousands of innocent civilians.

    Does it? Dismantling Israel and replacing it with a single non-ethnic-based state is one solution to this conflict. I'm not sure it's not in fact the best solution.

    Oh sure. Let's just dismantle a nuclear state with a modern military. I'm sure that'll happen. /s

    So far as the destruction of Israel being a "stabilizing force"... what a joke. Have you seen the OP? The Middle East is a clusterfuck for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with Israel. From what I can tell, the strongest "stabilizing force" in the Middle East is a disgustingly oppressive dictator.

    Steam and CFN: Enexemander
  • Options
    SealSeal Registered User regular
    The casual calls for Israel's destruction or indifference to its destruction mirror the general attitude of Israelis towards Gaza and the West Bank. We shouldn't be trying to emulate the attitudes and ways of thinking that leads to places where genocide is acceptable or even desirable.

  • Options
    NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Seal wrote: »
    The casual calls for Israel's destruction or indifference to its destruction mirror the general attitude of Israelis towards Gaza and the West Bank. We shouldn't be trying to emulate the attitudes and ways of thinking that leads to places where genocide is acceptable or even desirable.

    Personally, i find nothing wrong in hoping that states that seek to commit genocide be destroyed (either to dissolving them, reforming them as something else, or military conquest).

    Even more so when the state committing genocide is a democracy that keeps electing the leaders committing genocide.

  • Options
    RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    notdroid wrote: »
    Erich Zahn wrote: »
    WIkipedia wrote:
    Lehi (Hebrew pronunciation: [ˈleχi]; Hebrew: לח"י – לוחמי חרות ישראל‎ Lohamei Herut Israel – Lehi, "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel – Lehi"), commonly referred to in English as the Stern Gang, was a militant Zionist group founded by Avraham ("Yair") Stern in the British Mandate of Palestine. Its avowed aim was to evict the British authorities from Palestine by resort to force, allowing unrestricted immigration of Jews and the formation of a Jewish state, a 'new totalitarian Hebrew republic'. It was initially called the National Military Organization in Israel, upon being founded in August 1940, but was renamed Lehi one month later.

    Lehi split from the Irgun militant group in 1940 in order to continue fighting the British during World War II. Lehi initially sought an alliance with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, offering to fight alongside them against the British in return for the transfer of all Jews from Nazi-occupied Europe to Palestine. On the belief that Nazi Germany was a lesser enemy of the Jews than Britain, Lehi twice attempted to form an alliance with the Nazis. During World War II it declared that it would establish a Jewish state based upon "nationalist and totalitarian principles".After Stern's death in 1942, the new leadership of Lehi began to move it towards support of Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union.[1] In 1944 Lehi officially declared its support for National Bolshevism.[6] It said that its National Bolshevism involved an amalgamation of left-wing and right-wing political elements – Stern said Lehi incorporated elements of both the left and the right – however this change was unpopular and Lehi began to lose support as a result.

    Lehi and the Irgun were jointly responsible for the massacre in Deir Yassin. Lehi assassinated Lord Moyne, British Minister Resident in the Middle East, and made many other attacks on the British in Palestine. On May 29, 1948, the government of Israel, having inducted its activists members into the Tzahal, formally disbanded Lehi, though some of its members carried out one more terrorist act, the assassination of Folke Bernadotte some months later, an act condemned by Bernadotte's replacement as mediator, Ralph Bunche. Israel granted a general amnesty to Lehi members on 14 February 1949. In 1980, Israel instituted a military decoration in "award for activity in the struggle for the establishment of Israel," the Lehi ribbon. Former Lehi leader Yitzhak Shamir became Prime Minister of Israel in 1983.

    This is what Israel's PR looks like. The worst thing is that somehow it works.
    When Genocide is Permissible by Yochanan Gordon

    Judging by the numbers of casualties on both sides in this almost one-month old war one would be led to the conclusion that Israel has resorted to disproportionate means in fighting a far less- capable enemy. That is as far as what meets the eye. But, it’s now obvious that the US and the UN are completely out of touch with the nature of this foe and are therefore not qualified to dictate or enforce the rules of this war – because when it comes to terror there is much more than meets the eye.

    I wasn’t aware of this, but it seems that the nature of warfare has undergone a major shift over the years. Where wars were usually waged to defeat the opposing side, today it seems – and judging by the number of foul calls it would indicate – that today’s wars are fought to a draw. I mean, whoever heard of a timeout in war? An NBA Basketball game allows six timeouts for each team during the course of a game, but last I checked this is a war! We are at war with an enemy whose charter calls for the annihilation of our people. Nothing, then, can be considered disproportionate when we are fighting for our very right to live.

    The sad reality is that Israel gets it, but its hands are being tied by world leaders who over the past six years have insisted they are such good friends with the Jewish state, that they know more regarding its interests than even they do. But there’s going to have to come a time where Israel feels threatened enough where it has no other choice but to defy international warnings – because this is life or death.

    Most of the reports coming from Gazan officials and leaders since the start of this operation have been either largely exaggerated or patently false. The truth is, it’s not their fault, falsehood and deceit is part of the very fabric of who they are and that will never change. Still however, despite their propensity to lie, when your enemy tells you that they are bent on your destruction you believe them. Similarly, when Khaled Meshal declares that no physical damage to Gaza will dampen their morale or weaken their resolve – they have to be believed. Our sage Gedalia the son of Achikam was given intelligence that Yishmael Ben Nesanyah was plotting to kill him. However, in his piety or rather naiveté Gedalia dismissed the report as a random act of gossip and paid no attention to it. To this day, the day following Rosh Hashana is commemorated as a fast day in the memory of Gedalia who was killed in cold blood on the second day of Rosh Hashana during the meal. They say the definition of insanity is repeating the same mistakes over and over. History is there to teach us lessons and the lesson here is that when your enemy swears to destroy you – you take him seriously.

    Hamas has stated forthrightly that it idealizes death as much as Israel celebrates life. What other way then is there to deal with an enemy of this nature other than obliterate them completely?

    News anchors such as those from CNN, BBC and Al-Jazeera have not missed an opportunity to point out the majority of innocent civilians who have lost their lives as a result of this war. But anyone who lives with rocket launchers installed or terror tunnels burrowed in or around the vicinity of their home cannot be considered an innocent civilian. If you’ll counter, that Hamas has been seen abusing civilians who have attempted to leave their homes in response to Israeli warnings to leave – well then, your beginning to come to terms with the nature of this enemy which should automatically cause the rules of standard warfare to be suspended.

    Everyone agrees that Israel has the right to defend itself as well as the right to exercise that right. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has declared it, Obama and Kerry have clearly stated that no one could be expected to sit idle as thousands of rockets rain down on the heads of its citizens, placing them in clear and present danger. It seems then that the only point of contention is regarding the measure of punishment meted out in this situation.

    I will conclude with a question for all the humanitarians out there. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clearly stated at the outset of this incursion that his objective is to restore a sustainable quiet for the citizens of Israel. We have already established that it is the responsibility of every government to ensure the safety and security of its people. If political leaders and military experts determine that the only way to achieve its goal of sustaining quiet is through genocide is it then permissible to achieve those responsible goals?


    Just to make it clear. I belief that the state of Israel should be destroyed.

    I strongly disagree with your position. The state of Israel is here to stay.

    While they are not currently a majority, there are many people and voices in Israel who oppose Israel's current actions, and while the quotes above are horrible and reprehensible, they do not (yet) represent a majority opinion in Israel, even within the right. I would even go further and state that in a fictitious future scenario where it did become a majority opinion, while a military intervention would become appropriate, the state of Israel would still absolutely retain the right to exist.

    I've made it abundantly clear in my previous posts that I condemn these type of Israeli operations in Palestine, as well as the way the Israeli government treats Palestinians in between these military operations. But people who call for the destruction of Israel should be condemned as hard as the people who made the comments in the article you quoted, because they both imply the death and suffering of thousands of innocent civilians.

    There have been a lot of statements in the last thread about the discussion being overwhelmingly "anti-Israel" and I want to dispute the implications that criticizing Israel's violent actions on Palestinians is somehow equal to being against Israel itself. This is the same kind of bullshit logic people were throwing around during the second Iraq war, where criticizing US intervention in Iraq somehow implied you were an anti-American traitor and a Saddam sympathizer.

    The reason people tend to speak out against Israel more often/louder than they do against Hamas is simple: condemnation of Hamas is the default position in this conflict. It is implied.

    Hamas is recognized by pretty much all the Western world, and then some, as a terrorist organization. It is treated as such by all our governments.

    Israel, who's stated rhetoric may be less condemnable than Hamas, but whose concrete actions puts it on the same level, enjoys full diplomatic/economic contact with our countries. There are no sanctions against it, despite its violation of UN resolutions and illegal occupation of Palestinian land, without of course forgetting it's settlement expansion activity, its complete inaction towards settler violence against Palestinians, its humanitarianly reprehensible blockade against Palestinians, and its complete disregard for civilian life during its military operations. We even sell it all the weapons it needs.

    If it wants to keep those "perks", it either needs to be held to a higher standard than Hamas, or treated in the same way we treat other rogue states.

    Yeah. I am seriously starting to see what Morninglord was talking about. Way too reductivist of a label. It ends up lumping me with people who I don't agree with.

  • Options
    GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    http://www.businessinsider.com/netanyahu-to-kerry-second-guess-israel-gaza-hamas-2014-8

    Netanyahu's choice words for the Obama administration:
    "Don't you ever second guess me over Hamas again."
    "You need to keep your mouth shut and trust what I say on this and everything else."

  • Options
    JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    What an ass.

  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    notdroid wrote: »
    I've made it abundantly clear in my previous posts that I condemn these type of Israeli operations in Palestine, as well as the way the Israeli government treats Palestinians in between these military operations. But people who call for the destruction of Israel should be condemned as hard as the people who made the comments in the article you quoted, because they both imply the death and suffering of thousands of innocent civilians.

    Does it? Dismantling Israel and replacing it with a single non-ethnic-based state is one solution to this conflict. I'm not sure it's not in fact the best solution.

    Oh sure. Let's just dismantle a nuclear state with a modern military. I'm sure that'll happen. /s

    So far as the destruction of Israel being a "stabilizing force"... what a joke. Have you seen the OP? The Middle East is a clusterfuck for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with Israel. From what I can tell, the strongest "stabilizing force" in the Middle East is a disgustingly oppressive dictator.

    Wasn't South Africa a nuclear power?

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    They willingly gave up their nukes after the Apartheid ended. Nobody made them.

  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    They willingly gave up their nukes after the Apartheid ended. Nobody made them.

    What I'm saying is that just like international pressure helped bring down apartheid even though South Africa had nukes, it could also be used to force the Israeli government to make changes.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    Glyph wrote: »
    http://www.businessinsider.com/netanyahu-to-kerry-second-guess-israel-gaza-hamas-2014-8

    Netanyahu's choice words for the Obama administration:
    "Don't you ever second guess me over Hamas again."
    "You need to keep your mouth shut and trust what I say on this and everything else."

    That article is bullshit. Wasn't it Israel that violated the cease-fire first?

  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    As far as I know, the precise details of the agreement haven't been publicized, but I remember Al Jazeera said that it didn't say anything about Israel being able to further destroy the tunnels. Given that Israeli soldiers were in an operation to destroy a tunnel when they were attacked, it would depend on if Hamas agreed to allow further tunnel destruction during the cease fire, which I find unlikely but may have happened for all I know.

    Edit:
    Found it:
    http://live.aljazeera.com/Event/Gaza_Blog?Page=34
    Al Jazeera's James Bays, reporting from West Jerusalem, said that the actual text of the agreement released by the UN gave "no details" about what Israel was allowed to do during the ceasefire.
    So there is a good chance each side had its own interpretation of what the cease fire meant.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    notdroidnotdroid Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Seal wrote: »
    The casual calls for Israel's destruction or indifference to its destruction mirror the general attitude of Israelis towards Gaza and the West Bank. We shouldn't be trying to emulate the attitudes and ways of thinking that leads to places where genocide is acceptable or even desirable.

    Personally, i find nothing wrong in hoping that states that seek to commit genocide be destroyed (either to dissolving them, reforming them as something else, or military conquest).

    Even more so when the state committing genocide is a democracy that keeps electing the leaders committing genocide.

    I find it abhorrent, as it would simply create an unspeakable amount of violence and suffering. Believing this to be solution that wouldn't result in killing hundreds of thousand of people, the end result being at best a police state, is fantasy.

    If you tried to force Canada and the US into a single country, you'd probably end up having to kill/jail thousands, if not millions of people whose desire for self-determination does not align with yours, with continued civil violence and unrest for generations. And those are two culturally rather similar countries, who are in very good terms with each other. How do you expect things to turn out with Israel/Palestine?

    This "solution" becomes absurdly more horrific when one realizes there are non-violent, diplomatic ways to resolve this situation, which we most likely wouldn't be facing if we weren't giving Israel's government carte blanche when it comes to its treatment of Palestinians. Stopping military aid, as well as the US allowing for international diplomatic and economic pressure to be applied could veer the Israeli government back towards the peace process.

    Hell, Hamas was also elected democratically. Do you believe we should just destroy both sides?

    The goal isn't for one side to "win". The goal is peace, and an end to violence for both Palestinians and Israelis.

    notdroid on
  • Options
    PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Glyph wrote: »
    http://www.businessinsider.com/netanyahu-to-kerry-second-guess-israel-gaza-hamas-2014-8

    Netanyahu's choice words for the Obama administration:
    "Don't you ever second guess me over Hamas again."
    "You need to keep your mouth shut and trust what I say on this and everything else."

    That article is bullshit. Wasn't it Israel that violated the cease-fire first?

    As I understand it, Israel sent its soldiers in to destroy tunnels during the ceasefire. Palestinians attacked them. Israel contends that destroying tunnels is not a violation of the cease fire

    Phyphor on
  • Options
    RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    ISIS is on the move again.

    Even pushed the Kurds back. Crap.

  • Options
    JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    They willingly gave up their nukes after the Apartheid ended. Nobody made them.

    What I'm saying is that just like international pressure helped bring down apartheid even though South Africa had nukes, it could also be used to force the Israeli government to make changes.

    Oh, yeah.

    I misunderstood what you were saying. My bad.

  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    notdroid wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Seal wrote: »
    The casual calls for Israel's destruction or indifference to its destruction mirror the general attitude of Israelis towards Gaza and the West Bank. We shouldn't be trying to emulate the attitudes and ways of thinking that leads to places where genocide is acceptable or even desirable.

    Personally, i find nothing wrong in hoping that states that seek to commit genocide be destroyed (either to dissolving them, reforming them as something else, or military conquest).

    Even more so when the state committing genocide is a democracy that keeps electing the leaders committing genocide.

    I find it abhorrent, as it would simply create an unspeakable amount of violence and suffering. Believing this to be solution that wouldn't result in killing hundreds of thousand of people, the end result being at best a police state, is fantasy.

    If you tried to force Canada and the US into a single country, you'd probably end up having to kill/jail thousands, if not millions of people whose desire for self-determination does not align with yours, with continued civil violence and unrest for generations. And those are two culturally rather similar countries, who are in very good terms with each other. How do you expect things to turn out with Israel/Palestine?

    This "solution" becomes absurdly more horrific when one realizes there are non-violent, diplomatic ways to resolve this situation, which we most likely wouldn't be facing if we weren't giving Israel's government carte blanche when it comes to its treatment of Palestinians. Stopping military aid, as well as the US allowing for international diplomatic and economic pressure to be applied could veer the Israeli government back towards the peace process.

    Hell, Hamas was also elected democratically. Do you believe we should just destroy both sides?

    The goal isn't for one side to "win". The goal is peace, and an end to violence for both Palestinians and Israelis.

    Israel, like everyone else in the world, needs to be told that advocating for a specific ethnic group to be a majority as a matter of public policy is not acceptable. Which should honestly be obvious to any decent human being, because achieving that end is only possible through actions we have seen are wrong time and time again through bitter experience.

    Israel has destroyed the possibility of a two state solution that will result in a fair division of land and resources that will result in a peaceful and successful Palestinian state through a combination of settlement activity, blowing up everything above (and now below) ground, as well as physically destroying or terraforming the land itself, so the solution absolutely should be exactly what we did with South Africa, which is to force the oppressors to give up their special privileges and live alongside others. Yes, there will be an adjustment period, much like even today the US has racist people and institutions, but that's not a problem.

    I want a Palestinian to grow up knowing they might not get their first choice of job because of their traditionally Palestinian name, instead of growing up knowing they could be killed at any moment by hellfire missiles crashing into a UN school, in addition to being treated like an animal even if they do survive. I'm not asking for the world, I'm asking for a realistic, but imperfect solution.
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    http://www.businessinsider.com/netanyahu-to-kerry-second-guess-israel-gaza-hamas-2014-8

    Netanyahu's choice words for the Obama administration:
    "Don't you ever second guess me over Hamas again."
    "You need to keep your mouth shut and trust what I say on this and everything else."

    That article is bullshit. Wasn't it Israel that violated the cease-fire first?

    As I understand it, Israel sent its soldiers in to destroy tunnels during the ceasefire. Palestinians attacked them. Israel contends that destroying tunnels is not a violation of the cease fire

    "We're not firing the explosives, we're emplacing them. That totally doesn't count." The sheer dishonesty and cowardice in that statement blows my mind. Either agree to a ceasefire, or don't.

  • Options
    DynagripDynagrip Break me a million hearts HoustonRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    i woke up really late today. has everything been resolved satisfactorily while I was asleep?

  • Options
    RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    [blatant lies]Oh yeah totally[/blatant lies]

  • Options
    cckerberoscckerberos Registered User regular
    "We're not firing the explosives, we're emplacing them. That totally doesn't count." The sheer dishonesty and cowardice in that statement blows my mind. Either agree to a ceasefire, or don't.

    It was the Israeli position during every ceasefire that led up to that one. Like it or don't, but no one should act surprised about it.

    The people who drafted the agreement should have known better and explicitly laid out what was permissible or not re: the tunnels..

    cckerberos.png
  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    cckerberos wrote: »
    "We're not firing the explosives, we're emplacing them. That totally doesn't count." The sheer dishonesty and cowardice in that statement blows my mind. Either agree to a ceasefire, or don't.

    It was the Israeli position during every ceasefire that led up to that one. Like it or don't, but no one should act surprised about it.

    The people who drafted the agreement should have known better and explicitly laid out what was permissible or not re: the tunnels..

    Ceasefires in which offensive military operations are taken against the enemy are taken as deliberate policy should be referred to the ICC to see if they qualify under Article 37 of the Geneva conventions, because it certainly seems directly comparable to me.

  • Options
    BubbyBubby Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    http://www.businessinsider.com/netanyahu-to-kerry-second-guess-israel-gaza-hamas-2014-8

    Netanyahu's choice words for the Obama administration:
    "Don't you ever second guess me over Hamas again."
    "You need to keep your mouth shut and trust what I say on this and everything else."

    That article is bullshit. Wasn't it Israel that violated the cease-fire first?

    As I understand it, Israel sent its soldiers in to destroy tunnels during the ceasefire. Palestinians attacked them. Israel contends that destroying tunnels is not a violation of the cease fire

    It isn't.

Sign In or Register to comment.