Opinion of this quote
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:57:39 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Opinion of this quote
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Poll
Question: Well?
#1
Freedom Quote
 
#2
Horrible Quote
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 69

Author Topic: Opinion of this quote  (Read 8066 times)
MalaspinaGold
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 987


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: July 27, 2014, 01:52:03 PM »

This is where the US might consider holding hostage arms expenditures to Israel until a satisfactory peace occurs.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: July 27, 2014, 02:01:36 PM »

This is where the US might consider holding hostage arms expenditures to Israel until a satisfactory peace occurs.

Ted Cruz is accusing the White House of launching an economic boycott of Israel all because the FAA halted US airline flights to Tel Aviv for two days for security reasons.

You really think stopping arms sales to Israel is a realistic course of action?
Logged
MalaspinaGold
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 987


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: July 27, 2014, 02:14:35 PM »

Umm... yes?

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/07/world/israel-ignoring-bush-presses-for-loan-guarantees.html

No one cares about Ted Cruz. We've got a two-year lame duck session coming up, plenty of things can happen.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: July 27, 2014, 02:18:35 PM »

George H. W. Bush and his foreign policy team (James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Thomas R. Pickering) were probably the closest any administration came to a truly balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

And Bush got hell for that decision, the Christian Right started looking for people to primary him, and AIPAC got firmly in the Clinton camp.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: July 27, 2014, 02:33:01 PM »

The United States certainly can't be proud of our treatment of the Indians.  Should we allow Sioux people to fire rockets at Rapid City to make up for that?

The comparison that Israeli apologists make to our own colonization and settlement of North America is a monstrous misrepresentation.

What was acceptable in the 1600s is not necessarily acceptable in the 20th century or today. If Israel wanted to enact chattel slavery, would you be saying, "Well WE did it prior to the 1860s. If you don't allow them to, you're a raving anti-semite who wants them all to die in Hitler's ovens you Nazi!"

How convenient for you (and the rest of us Americans) that the US's occupation of Native American land occured before this arbitrary line you drew to separate "acceptable" and "unacceptable" kinds of land occupation. Ha, we got grandfathered in, suckers!

I'm sure you arrived at this specific dividing line through a fair and rational thought process, and not at all through your own self interest.
Logged
MalaspinaGold
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 987


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: July 27, 2014, 02:38:09 PM »

I didn't say it would be easy, just that it's possible.

It's not a secret that Netanyahu and Obama hate each other. Kerry's shown he's fed up with Likud's bridge-busting campaign. And it's not like Obama HASN'T gotten hell for anything he's done.

And arms would probably be less polarizing (and more effective), than withholding loans for refugee Jews.

And if all else fails, blame it on the deficit.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: July 27, 2014, 03:38:24 PM »

Well, that's certainly wrong on many levels as it pertains to Native Americans.  But, more to the point, I didn't imply that anything that happened to Palestinians is justified.  I meant, just because your group of people legitimately suffered, you don't get to fire missiles at innocent civilians and blatantly violate rules of war.  Hamas is clearly the villain here and there's nothing that could justify their tactics and ideological program.  The cause of Palestinian statehood and human rights is kind of irrelevant to this current situation.  It could be the best cause, most righteous cause in the world, if you're pursuing using Hamas's tactics, you're at fault for both your attacks and the response. 

This is what would happen if Hamas stopped shooting rockets: Israel would end their military operation, the troops would go home, the settlement construction in the West Bank/Judaea and Samaria/Cisjordan would continue and nothing would change.

So what incentive do they have to do that? At this point, the general sense among Hamas seems to be that Israel is never going to seriously negotiate anything and isn't going anywhere, but if they're going to be there then Hamas is going to ensure that their existence is as miserable as possible. And Israel has more or less taken the same stance - they can't eliminate the Palestinians or send them all to Jordan, so they're going to make their lives as unpleasant as they can for the time being.

The goal in both cases is to get the other side to "self deport" to borrow a Mittism.

That's another silly argument.  Not shooting rockets at civilians won't immediately solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, I agree.  That's hardly a test for whether you should continue an action though.  Nothing, by itself, will lead to peace.  But, observing basic conventions of human decency would be a good start, and that goes for both sides.  Both sides need to start taking steps towards peace, even if there's no guarantee the other side will reciprocate.  However, the thing that locks the situation in place though is the mass scale violence.  Hamas is clearly the driving force behind that and they need to stop.

On the point of Israel's intentions, I don't think it's clear.  Israel has seriously negotiated with the Palestinians in the past.  If you go back to the time before the second intifada, there were serious negotiations.  Look at the Oslo Peace Accords and the Camp David summit.  Israel has negotiated in good faith when they didn't feel this huge threat to their security.  I think they would again if they had a partner for peace.  If there was a sane, orderly Palestinian government to negotiate with Israel would likely be forced to make serious concessions by the international community.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: July 27, 2014, 03:45:35 PM »

Well, that's certainly wrong on many levels as it pertains to Native Americans.  But, more to the point, I didn't imply that anything that happened to Palestinians is justified.  I meant, just because your group of people legitimately suffered, you don't get to fire missiles at innocent civilians and blatantly violate rules of war.  Hamas is clearly the villain here and there's nothing that could justify their tactics and ideological program.  The cause of Palestinian statehood and human rights is kind of irrelevant to this current situation.  It could be the best cause, most righteous cause in the world, if you're pursuing using Hamas's tactics, you're at fault for both your attacks and the response. 

This is what would happen if Hamas stopped shooting rockets: Israel would end their military operation, the troops would go home, the settlement construction in the West Bank/Judaea and Samaria/Cisjordan would continue and nothing would change.

So what incentive do they have to do that? At this point, the general sense among Hamas seems to be that Israel is never going to seriously negotiate anything and isn't going anywhere, but if they're going to be there then Hamas is going to ensure that their existence is as miserable as possible. And Israel has more or less taken the same stance - they can't eliminate the Palestinians or send them all to Jordan, so they're going to make their lives as unpleasant as they can for the time being.

The goal in both cases is to get the other side to "self deport" to borrow a Mittism.

That's another silly argument.  Not shooting rockets at civilians won't immediately solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, I agree.  That's hardly a test for whether you should continue an action though.  Nothing, by itself, will lead to peace.  But, observing basic conventions of human decency would be a good start, and that goes for both sides.  Both sides need to start taking steps towards peace, even if there's no guarantee the other side will reciprocate.  However, the thing that locks the situation in place though is the mass scale violence.  Hamas is clearly the driving force behind that and they need to stop.

On the point of Israel's intentions, I don't think it's clear.  Israel has seriously negotiated with the Palestinians in the past.  If you go back to the time before the second intifada, there were serious negotiations.  Look at the Oslo Peace Accords and the Camp David summit.  Israel has negotiated in good faith when they didn't feel this huge threat to their security.  I think they would again if they had a partner for peace.  If there was a sane, orderly Palestinian government to negotiate with Israel would likely be forced to make serious concessions by the international community.

When Mahmoud Abbas tried to negotiate with them unilaterally, Israel claimed that wasn't valid because he wasn't representing the entire government. Whenever he tries rapprochement with Hamas, Israel claims they still won't negotiate because now Hamas is involved and they don't like Hamas. What if the Palestinian Authority simply refused to negotiate with an Israeli government that had a right-wing party like Yisrael Beitenu in its coalition? You can't just refuse to talk to someone because you don't like their internal political reality. Hamas's political success in Palestinian elections is Israel's own fault more than anything else.

When the suicide bombings stopped in the mid-2000s, Israel responded by building more settlements. When the rocket attacks from Gaza stop, there are more settlements. When the rocket attacks started up again, there were more settlements.

Why are you so unwilling to acknowledge that the fact that the settlement construction continues is a pretty big red flag that Israel has no interest in negotiating?
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: July 27, 2014, 03:51:28 PM »

How convenient for you (and the rest of us Americans) that the US's occupation of Native American land occured before this arbitrary line you drew to separate "acceptable" and "unacceptable" kinds of land occupation. Ha, we got grandfathered in, suckers!

I'm sure you arrived at this specific dividing line through a fair and rational thought process, and not at all through your own self interest.

It's not arbitrary. The fact is that prior to the early 20th century, it was pretty much accepted as a given that white people were better than everyone else and could do whatever the hell they wanted in any corner of the world. In fact, it was our "duty" to conquer and control those poor lil' darkies so that they could be given the glorious gifts of our civilization. (And give us their rubber/gold/tobacco/etc in the process.)

That was something that we came to understand over time was completely wrong. And if that conclusion had been reached in, say, the mid-18th century, the right thing to do would have been to compensate the native Americans, return them their lands and confine ourselves to areas that they were willing to voluntarily sell us. And any government that would be set up would be done both with their consent and the colonists' consent.

Some of my ancestors helped settle Jamestown colony in the 17th century. I doubt they thought of the natives as human beings with rights equal to theirs. That was completely outside the scope of human thought at that time.

They didn't know any better. But an Israeli settler who wantonly shoots at Palestinians from his settlement outpost most certainly does know better. He has the benefit of hundreds of years of history and human development that someone 400 years ago didn't have. So yes, I am going to hold him to a higher standard, and yes, what he is doing in the year 2014 is wrong. What my ancestors did in 1650 was wrong by the standards of 2014 but not by the standards of 1650. That is the difference.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: July 27, 2014, 03:53:48 PM »

Well, that's certainly wrong on many levels as it pertains to Native Americans.  But, more to the point, I didn't imply that anything that happened to Palestinians is justified.  I meant, just because your group of people legitimately suffered, you don't get to fire missiles at innocent civilians and blatantly violate rules of war.  Hamas is clearly the villain here and there's nothing that could justify their tactics and ideological program.  The cause of Palestinian statehood and human rights is kind of irrelevant to this current situation.  It could be the best cause, most righteous cause in the world, if you're pursuing using Hamas's tactics, you're at fault for both your attacks and the response. 

This is what would happen if Hamas stopped shooting rockets: Israel would end their military operation, the troops would go home, the settlement construction in the West Bank/Judaea and Samaria/Cisjordan would continue and nothing would change.

So what incentive do they have to do that? At this point, the general sense among Hamas seems to be that Israel is never going to seriously negotiate anything and isn't going anywhere, but if they're going to be there then Hamas is going to ensure that their existence is as miserable as possible. And Israel has more or less taken the same stance - they can't eliminate the Palestinians or send them all to Jordan, so they're going to make their lives as unpleasant as they can for the time being.

The goal in both cases is to get the other side to "self deport" to borrow a Mittism.

That's another silly argument.  Not shooting rockets at civilians won't immediately solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, I agree.  That's hardly a test for whether you should continue an action though.  Nothing, by itself, will lead to peace.  But, observing basic conventions of human decency would be a good start, and that goes for both sides.  Both sides need to start taking steps towards peace, even if there's no guarantee the other side will reciprocate.  However, the thing that locks the situation in place though is the mass scale violence.  Hamas is clearly the driving force behind that and they need to stop.

On the point of Israel's intentions, I don't think it's clear.  Israel has seriously negotiated with the Palestinians in the past.  If you go back to the time before the second intifada, there were serious negotiations.  Look at the Oslo Peace Accords and the Camp David summit.  Israel has negotiated in good faith when they didn't feel this huge threat to their security.  I think they would again if they had a partner for peace.  If there was a sane, orderly Palestinian government to negotiate with Israel would likely be forced to make serious concessions by the international community.

When Mahmoud Abbas tried to negotiate with them unilaterally, Israel claimed that wasn't valid because he wasn't representing the entire government. Whenever he tries rapprochement with Hamas, Israel claims they still won't negotiate because now Hamas is involved and they don't like Hamas. What if the Palestinian Authority simply refused to negotiate with an Israeli government that had a right-wing party like Yisrael Beitenu in its coalition? You can't just refuse to talk to someone because you don't like their internal political reality. Hamas's political success in Palestinian elections is Israel's own fault more than anything else.

When the suicide bombings stopped in the mid-2000s, Israel responded by building more settlements. When the rocket attacks from Gaza stop, there are more settlements. When the rocket attacks started up again, there were more settlements.

Why are you so unwilling to acknowledge that the fact that the settlement construction continues is a pretty big red flag that Israel has no interest in negotiating?

You can't very well negotiate with a government completely divided into ideologically disparate camps.  If you Hamas refuses to keep the Palestinian Authority's promises, that makes things very difficult.  And, yes, the Israeli right wing is increasingly a huge problem and they're terrible people.  I can't argue with that.

But, on the missiles point, if the Palestinians are going to make not attacking civilians a bargaining chip, I don't think there is any reason to negotiate.  And anyway, do you really think Israel is dissuaded from building settlements in the West Bank because of rockets in Gaza?  
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: July 27, 2014, 04:23:31 PM »

My point is that the Palestinians' primary grievance against Israel is the settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Nothing the Palestinians have or haven't done has stopped Israel from doing that.

But their logic is that if Israel is going to do that no matter what, they're going to try to make Israel as miserable as possible. They would rather have a settlement full of stressed-out, PTSD-suffering Israelis than one full of happy, unperturbed Israelis because the former would hopefully go back to Israel proper or pressure their government to change their policies.

That is also the reason they attack civilians (though I'd point out that nearly every Israeli who has died during this operation has been a non-civilian). The rockets, as you know, kill very few people. They're not designed to kill people. They're designed to scare people and make their lives stressful and unpleasant so that they will pressure their government to pursue a different set of policies. Of course it could just as easily have the opposite effect - emboldening them to vote for politicians who will be even more hardline and uncompromising.

When you're dealing with an area that small, civilians are going to be impacted no matter what. I don't know why you're ignoring the fact that Israel has recently killed nearly 700 civilians. Why aren't you asking them to stop doing that?
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: July 27, 2014, 07:40:14 PM »

My point is that the Palestinians' primary grievance against Israel is the settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Nothing the Palestinians have or haven't done has stopped Israel from doing that.

But their logic is that if Israel is going to do that no matter what, they're going to try to make Israel as miserable as possible. They would rather have a settlement full of stressed-out, PTSD-suffering Israelis than one full of happy, unperturbed Israelis because the former would hopefully go back to Israel proper or pressure their government to change their policies.

That is also the reason they attack civilians (though I'd point out that nearly every Israeli who has died during this operation has been a non-civilian). The rockets, as you know, kill very few people. They're not designed to kill people. They're designed to scare people and make their lives stressful and unpleasant so that they will pressure their government to pursue a different set of policies. Of course it could just as easily have the opposite effect - emboldening them to vote for politicians who will be even more hardline and uncompromising.

When you're dealing with an area that small, civilians are going to be impacted no matter what. I don't know why you're ignoring the fact that Israel has recently killed nearly 700 civilians. Why aren't you asking them to stop doing that?

Israel is trying to get rid of the rockets and tunnels used to transport them into Gaza, they're not trying to kill civilians.  What Israel has done is perfectly legal under the rules of war.  Maybe they could be more careful about avoiding civilian casualties, but that's largely impaired by Hamas using the human shield strategy. 

As far as the settlements, I'm kind of confused.  There are no settlements in Gaza or anywhere where the rockets can hit.  And, sure, the rockets don't kill a lot of people.  That's because their range is not highly populated and Israel protects its civilians, instead of using them as human shields.
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: July 27, 2014, 09:22:27 PM »

The rockets, as you know, kill very few people. They're not designed to kill people. They're designed to scare people and make their lives stressful and unpleasant so that they will pressure their government to pursue a different set of policies. Of course it could just as easily have the opposite effect - emboldening them to vote for politicians who will be even more hardline and uncompromising.

The problem, of course, is that it empirically does have that opposite effect, and pushes the Israeli public to the right.

Yet another failure of the strategy of "heighten the contradictions".  Not that I am defending the Israeli right, which is at least as much in the wrong as Hamas is.  (Yeah, yeah, call me a moderate hero.  On this issue, at least, I am willing to wear that cape.)
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: July 27, 2014, 10:53:41 PM »

Why are you so unwilling to acknowledge that the fact that the settlement construction continues is a pretty big red flag that Israel has no interest in negotiating?

You can't very well negotiate with a government completely divided into ideologically disparate camps.  If you Hamas refuses to keep the Palestinian Authority's promises, that makes things very difficult.  And, yes, the Israeli right wing is increasingly a huge problem and they're terrible people.  I can't argue with that.

But, on the missiles point, if the Palestinians are going to make not attacking civilians a bargaining chip, I don't think there is any reason to negotiate.  And anyway, do you really think Israel is dissuaded from building settlements in the West Bank because of rockets in Gaza?  
 
I noticed you didn't answer one question and chose to deflect it with another.  Does not the fact that no matter the reason or the season, Israel continues to build settlements on occupied Palestinian land show it's true interests?  Yes, Hamas' strategy hasn't been effective in changing that fact, but nothing seems to change that.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: July 27, 2014, 11:41:59 PM »

My point is that the Palestinians' primary grievance against Israel is the settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Nothing the Palestinians have or haven't done has stopped Israel from doing that.

But their logic is that if Israel is going to do that no matter what, they're going to try to make Israel as miserable as possible. They would rather have a settlement full of stressed-out, PTSD-suffering Israelis than one full of happy, unperturbed Israelis because the former would hopefully go back to Israel proper or pressure their government to change their policies.

That is also the reason they attack civilians (though I'd point out that nearly every Israeli who has died during this operation has been a non-civilian). The rockets, as you know, kill very few people. They're not designed to kill people. They're designed to scare people and make their lives stressful and unpleasant so that they will pressure their government to pursue a different set of policies. Of course it could just as easily have the opposite effect - emboldening them to vote for politicians who will be even more hardline and uncompromising.

When you're dealing with an area that small, civilians are going to be impacted no matter what. I don't know why you're ignoring the fact that Israel has recently killed nearly 700 civilians. Why aren't you asking them to stop doing that?

Israel is trying to get rid of the rockets and tunnels used to transport them into Gaza, they're not trying to kill civilians.  What Israel has done is perfectly legal under the rules of war.  Maybe they could be more careful about avoiding civilian casualties, but that's largely impaired by Hamas using the human shield strategy. 

As far as the settlements, I'm kind of confused.  There are no settlements in Gaza or anywhere where the rockets can hit.  And, sure, the rockets don't kill a lot of people.  That's because their range is not highly populated and Israel protects its civilians, instead of using them as human shields.

No, but there are settlements all over the West Bank, which is precisely the source of the grievance. Yes, Israel dismantled its Gaza settlements, but that is meaningless considering they then proceeded to construct a number in the West Bank that far exceeded those they dismantled. If you were going to attack Israel, would you do it from the West Bank, which is essentially under de facto IDF control, or would you do it from Gaza, where Israel has no presence? Which would be easier to do?

As for the Gaza civilians, exactly where do you expect them to go so that they won't be harmed by the present Israeli incursion? They're not allowed to leave the Gaza Strip. You can pat the IDF on the back for giving them advance notice of attacks, but when they have no wherewithal to actually go to a safe location, it's totally pointless. Israeli civilians have bomb shelters they can go to when Hamas fires rockets at them. There are no bomb shelters in Gaza - kind of hard to make those when you're barred from importing building materials to make them. You might as well give them no warning and kill them suddenly - at least that way they won't spend their last minutes and hours in a state of panic and terror.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: July 28, 2014, 10:13:25 AM »

Why are you so unwilling to acknowledge that the fact that the settlement construction continues is a pretty big red flag that Israel has no interest in negotiating?

You can't very well negotiate with a government completely divided into ideologically disparate camps.  If you Hamas refuses to keep the Palestinian Authority's promises, that makes things very difficult.  And, yes, the Israeli right wing is increasingly a huge problem and they're terrible people.  I can't argue with that.

But, on the missiles point, if the Palestinians are going to make not attacking civilians a bargaining chip, I don't think there is any reason to negotiate.  And anyway, do you really think Israel is dissuaded from building settlements in the West Bank because of rockets in Gaza?  
 
I noticed you didn't answer one question and chose to deflect it with another.  Does not the fact that no matter the reason or the season, Israel continues to build settlements on occupied Palestinian land show it's true interests?  Yes, Hamas' strategy hasn't been effective in changing that fact, but nothing seems to change that.

By the same logic, does the US invasion and occupation of Iraq mean that the insurgency was justified in every horrible thing they did?  If there's a flaw in a country's policy, terrorism is automatically justified?  I'm dismayed at where Israel has gone in the past 20 years.  That doesn't mean that Israel has lost the basic sovereignty of the right to defend itself.  And, let's not forget that some of the West Bank is disputed territory.  It's not agreed on anywhere that we're ever going to return to 1967 borders. 

My point is that the Palestinians' primary grievance against Israel is the settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Nothing the Palestinians have or haven't done has stopped Israel from doing that.

But their logic is that if Israel is going to do that no matter what, they're going to try to make Israel as miserable as possible. They would rather have a settlement full of stressed-out, PTSD-suffering Israelis than one full of happy, unperturbed Israelis because the former would hopefully go back to Israel proper or pressure their government to change their policies.

That is also the reason they attack civilians (though I'd point out that nearly every Israeli who has died during this operation has been a non-civilian). The rockets, as you know, kill very few people. They're not designed to kill people. They're designed to scare people and make their lives stressful and unpleasant so that they will pressure their government to pursue a different set of policies. Of course it could just as easily have the opposite effect - emboldening them to vote for politicians who will be even more hardline and uncompromising.

When you're dealing with an area that small, civilians are going to be impacted no matter what. I don't know why you're ignoring the fact that Israel has recently killed nearly 700 civilians. Why aren't you asking them to stop doing that?

Israel is trying to get rid of the rockets and tunnels used to transport them into Gaza, they're not trying to kill civilians.  What Israel has done is perfectly legal under the rules of war.  Maybe they could be more careful about avoiding civilian casualties, but that's largely impaired by Hamas using the human shield strategy. 

As far as the settlements, I'm kind of confused.  There are no settlements in Gaza or anywhere where the rockets can hit. And, sure, the rockets don't kill a lot of people.  That's because their range is not highly populated and Israel protects its civilians, instead of using them as human shields.

No, but there are settlements all over the West Bank, which is precisely the source of the grievance. Yes, Israel dismantled its Gaza settlements, but that is meaningless considering they then proceeded to construct a number in the West Bank that far exceeded those they dismantled. If you were going to attack Israel, would you do it from the West Bank, which is essentially under de facto IDF control, or would you do it from Gaza, where Israel has no presence? Which would be easier to do?

As for the Gaza civilians, exactly where do you expect them to go so that they won't be harmed by the present Israeli incursion? They're not allowed to leave the Gaza Strip. You can pat the IDF on the back for giving them advance notice of attacks, but when they have no wherewithal to actually go to a safe location, it's totally pointless. Israeli civilians have bomb shelters they can go to when Hamas fires rockets at them. There are no bomb shelters in Gaza - kind of hard to make those when you're barred from importing building materials to make them. You might as well give them no warning and kill them suddenly - at least that way they won't spend their last minutes and hours in a state of panic and terror.

Hamas puts rockets in schools and international aid buildings, they put rocket launchers next to apartment buildings, they're not just firing from Gaza, they're using Gaza City's inhabitants as human shields. 

My point on the settlements is that the rockets aren't terrorizing settlers, they're hitting Israel.  And, as for the military occupation of Palestinian territory, doesn't Hamas's behavior show that Israel needs that military occupation for its own safety.  Israel pulled out of Gaza and Gaza became a launching pad for people making war on Israel.  Doesn't that play into the hand of the Israeli right wing?
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: July 28, 2014, 11:55:14 AM »

If the Iron Dome has blocked nearly all of Hamas's bottle rockets, why is their response necessary?

And no, Israel will not fully occupy Gaza. They need Hamas to exist as a propaganda tool.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: July 28, 2014, 02:15:48 PM »

Why are you so unwilling to acknowledge that the fact that the settlement construction continues is a pretty big red flag that Israel has no interest in negotiating?

You can't very well negotiate with a government completely divided into ideologically disparate camps.  If you Hamas refuses to keep the Palestinian Authority's promises, that makes things very difficult.  And, yes, the Israeli right wing is increasingly a huge problem and they're terrible people.  I can't argue with that.

But, on the missiles point, if the Palestinians are going to make not attacking civilians a bargaining chip, I don't think there is any reason to negotiate.  And anyway, do you really think Israel is dissuaded from building settlements in the West Bank because of rockets in Gaza?  
 
I noticed you didn't answer one question and chose to deflect it with another.  Does not the fact that no matter the reason or the season, Israel continues to build settlements on occupied Palestinian land show it's true interests?  Yes, Hamas' strategy hasn't been effective in changing that fact, but nothing seems to change that.

By the same logic, does the US invasion and occupation of Iraq mean that the insurgency was justified in every horrible thing they did?  If there's a flaw in a country's policy, terrorism is automatically justified?  I'm dismayed at where Israel has gone in the past 20 years.  That doesn't mean that Israel has lost the basic sovereignty of the right to defend itself.  And, let's not forget that some of the West Bank is disputed territory.  It's not agreed on anywhere that we're ever going to return to 1967 borders. 

Those are some lovely strawmen you raised, but they did absolutely nothing to answer the question that was raised by Indy TX. I wanted you to answer one simple question, not have you raise more to avoid giving an answer yet again.  Si I'll repeat, does not the fact that no matter the reason or the season, Israel continues to build settlements on occupied Palestinian land show it's true interests?
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: July 28, 2014, 03:48:16 PM »

Why are you so unwilling to acknowledge that the fact that the settlement construction continues is a pretty big red flag that Israel has no interest in negotiating?

You can't very well negotiate with a government completely divided into ideologically disparate camps.  If you Hamas refuses to keep the Palestinian Authority's promises, that makes things very difficult.  And, yes, the Israeli right wing is increasingly a huge problem and they're terrible people.  I can't argue with that.

But, on the missiles point, if the Palestinians are going to make not attacking civilians a bargaining chip, I don't think there is any reason to negotiate.  And anyway, do you really think Israel is dissuaded from building settlements in the West Bank because of rockets in Gaza?  
 
I noticed you didn't answer one question and chose to deflect it with another.  Does not the fact that no matter the reason or the season, Israel continues to build settlements on occupied Palestinian land show it's true interests?  Yes, Hamas' strategy hasn't been effective in changing that fact, but nothing seems to change that.

By the same logic, does the US invasion and occupation of Iraq mean that the insurgency was justified in every horrible thing they did?  If there's a flaw in a country's policy, terrorism is automatically justified?  I'm dismayed at where Israel has gone in the past 20 years.  That doesn't mean that Israel has lost the basic sovereignty of the right to defend itself.  And, let's not forget that some of the West Bank is disputed territory.  It's not agreed on anywhere that we're ever going to return to 1967 borders. 

Those are some lovely strawmen you raised, but they did absolutely nothing to answer the question that was raised by Indy TX. I wanted you to answer one simple question, not have you raise more to avoid giving an answer yet again.  Si I'll repeat, does not the fact that no matter the reason or the season, Israel continues to build settlements on occupied Palestinian land show it's true interests?

Some people in Israel think Judea and Samaria are Jewish land and must be a part of Israel.  I would say that's about 30% of Israel.  The majority though still support a two-state solution built on dismantling some of the settlements.  But, I think Israel's actions in Gaza are unrelated to the settlements.  That's not a dodge, I think that's just a reflection of the facts on the ground.

But, if you look at the negotiation as, Hamas gives up the right to launch rockets at Israel and Israel moves back to the 1967 lines, you're nuts.  That's not negotiation, that's hostage trading and nobody would expect any nation to capitulate under those terms. 
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: July 28, 2014, 04:12:00 PM »

bedstuy, I am not talking at all about the actions currently going on in Gaza.  I am talking only about the settlements and Israel's demonstrated intransigence on that one issue and the degree to which it demonstrates Israel's unwillingness to negotiate on any basis other keeping all the land it wants.

But, if you look at the negotiation as, Hamas gives up the right to launch rockets at Israel and Israel moves back to the 1967 lines, you're nuts.  That's not negotiation, that's hostage trading and nobody would expect any nation to capitulate under those terms. 

I wouldn't call the settlement locations Israel has occupied by the name hostages.  For one thing hostage-taking implies the hostages could be given up.  If an analogy is to human actions is to be used, bride-napping would seems to be a closer parallel, tho even that is too strongly spiced with sage for me to be comfortable with.  Besides, there's no way the father-in-law will ever sanctioned the forced marriage.  Still, I can understand why Israel might be worried it could suffer the same fate as Shechem and his kin when they tried to come to terms with Dinah's brothers.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: July 28, 2014, 07:57:47 PM »

bedstuy, I am not talking at all about the actions currently going on in Gaza.  I am talking only about the settlements and Israel's demonstrated intransigence on that one issue and the degree to which it demonstrates Israel's unwillingness to negotiate on any basis other keeping all the land it wants.

Israel unilaterally left Gaza.  What have the Palestinians done?  I mean, I generally agree that Israel's settlement policy is horrible and illegal.  But, there's no unanimity in Israel over the idea that all the settlements need to stay. 

But, if you look at the negotiation as, Hamas gives up the right to launch rockets at Israel and Israel moves back to the 1967 lines, you're nuts.  That's not negotiation, that's hostage trading and nobody would expect any nation to capitulate under those terms. 

I wouldn't call the settlement locations Israel has occupied by the name hostages.  For one thing hostage-taking implies the hostages could be given up.  If an analogy is to human actions is to be used, bride-napping would seems to be a closer parallel, tho even that is too strongly spiced with sage for me to be comfortable with.  Besides, there's no way the father-in-law will ever sanctioned the forced marriage.  Still, I can understand why Israel might be worried it could suffer the same fate as Shechem and his kin when they tried to come to terms with Dinah's brothers.

I meant Israel's population in range of the rockets was the hostage in that scenario.  Israel can't give up any significant concessions in exchange for Hamas not firing rockets. 
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: July 29, 2014, 01:36:00 AM »

bedstuy, I am not talking at all about the actions currently going on in Gaza.  I am talking only about the settlements and Israel's demonstrated intransigence on that one issue and the degree to which it demonstrates Israel's unwillingness to negotiate on any basis other keeping all the land it wants.

Israel unilaterally left Gaza.  What have the Palestinians done?  I mean, I generally agree that Israel's settlement policy is horrible and illegal.  But, there's no unanimity in Israel over the idea that all the settlements need to stay. 

And simultaneously built more settlements in the West Bank to house not only those moved out of Gaza but also additional occupiers.  So basically, Israel engaged in a PR stunt giving in hopes that the fact that their "withdrawal" meant an expansion of its activities and then got upset when the Palestinians saw through their prestidigitation.  So long as Israel remains a democracy, unanimity isn't needed to continue expanding settlements, just a solid majority and there's absolutely no indication that there will not continue to be a solid majority for continued expansion indefinitely.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: July 29, 2014, 02:43:59 PM »

bedstuy, I am not talking at all about the actions currently going on in Gaza.  I am talking only about the settlements and Israel's demonstrated intransigence on that one issue and the degree to which it demonstrates Israel's unwillingness to negotiate on any basis other keeping all the land it wants.

Israel unilaterally left Gaza.  What have the Palestinians done?  I mean, I generally agree that Israel's settlement policy is horrible and illegal.  But, there's no unanimity in Israel over the idea that all the settlements need to stay. 

And simultaneously built more settlements in the West Bank to house not only those moved out of Gaza but also additional occupiers.  So basically, Israel engaged in a PR stunt giving in hopes that the fact that their "withdrawal" meant an expansion of its activities and then got upset when the Palestinians saw through their prestidigitation.  So long as Israel remains a democracy, unanimity isn't needed to continue expanding settlements, just a solid majority and there's absolutely no indication that there will not continue to be a solid majority for continued expansion indefinitely.

Most people in Israel do not consider Judea and Samaria to be completely part of Israel.  That's a minority opinion.  If there was an end to Hamas fighting a war on Israel and there was a Palestinian government that could negotiate, they could restart the peace process.  Until that happens, you're right in a sense.  Except that the blame doesn't lie entirely on Israel, it's shared between Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab world that wants to use the Israeli occupation to divert attention from domestic issues.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: July 29, 2014, 03:19:05 PM »

At least you're willing to admit that Israel has a share of the blame.  But I think you're wrong about a majority of Israelis not wanting to keep control of the West Bank.  Certainly a majority oppose integrating it into Israel proper because of the massive increase in Arab citizens that would result if all of the West Bank, including the ghettos the Palestinians have been forced into there, were part of Israel.  Maintaining the bantustans while obtaining the desired lebensraum for Zion appears to be the generally accepted Israeli policy given what has happened over the last four decades since the Yom Kippur War under a wide variety of governments.  (Politically loaded words used on purpose as they are useful shorthands despite not being fully accurate.)
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: July 29, 2014, 04:29:41 PM »

At least you're willing to admit that Israel has a share of the blame.  But I think you're wrong about a majority of Israelis not wanting to keep control of the West Bank.  Certainly a majority oppose integrating it into Israel proper because of the massive increase in Arab citizens that would result if all of the West Bank, including the ghettos the Palestinians have been forced into there, were part of Israel.  Maintaining the bantustans while obtaining the desired lebensraum for Zion appears to be the generally accepted Israeli policy given what has happened over the last four decades since the Yom Kippur War under a wide variety of governments.  (Politically loaded words used on purpose as they are useful shorthands despite not being fully accurate.)

If you're going to compare Israel to Nazi Germany, you don't exactly have your figure on the pulse of Jewish people.  That's really offensive honestly.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.088 seconds with 14 queries.