Israeli forces attack humanitarian convoy in intl. waters

[Darth Yan]

Israel has committed unnesseary acts of douchebaggery in the past, and they definately deserve flak. And Coyote, go to any right wing blog and they will always try to rationalize whatever it does even if it's unjustifiable (in the flotilla raid one american citizen was shot four times in the head and once in the chest, and I highly doubt that 5 soldiers just HAPPEN to hit those parts accidentally.) Yes, Hamas are a bunch of pricks, but one must also acknowledge that Israel's actions helped to make them popular. Just look at the civillians who died in cast lead.

Do I think the entire flotilla was israel's fault? no. But they handled the operation badly (come on they could have easily sent non lethal riot police). All it did was make them look like collassal douchebags. To be honest, they would have lost no matter how they handled the situation.

[eyl]

Israel has committed unnesseary acts of douchebaggery in the past, and they definately deserve flak. And Coyote, go to any right wing blog and they will always try to rationalize whatever it does even if it's unjustifiable (in the flotilla raid one american citizen was shot four times in the head and once in the chest, and I highly doubt that 5 soldiers just HAPPEN to hit those parts accidentally.) Yes, Hamas are a bunch of pricks, but one must also acknowledge that Israel's actions helped to make them popular. Just look at the civillians who died in cast lead.

Do I think the entire flotilla was israel's fault? no. But they handled the operation badly (come on they could have easily sent non lethal riot police). All it did was make them look like collassal douchebags. To be honest, they would have lost no matter how they handled the situation.

I admit to not being an expert on naval ops, but it seems to me to be a tad difficult to establish a police line while boarding a ship. And even if you do have such a line, it seems to me that if one of the policemen gets pulled out of of the line and starts getting swarmed by the rioters, things won't stay non-lethal very long.

[Coyote]

'Ere we go!

Let me get this straight, you seriously believe that enforced mass malnutrition and stunted growth in children is simply making people "uncomfortable"? What would you classify as a situation as more than "uncomfortable"?

You're trying to base an argument on my word choice not being emotional enough? Drawing me out on a tangent of some sort and making me defend it? Won't work. I went back and looked at the post where I first started describing the blockade, and guess what? I also mentioned the purpose of economic blockades was to make a place "an unhappy place to live". Somehow "uncomfortable" is not an emotionally laden enough word to satisfy; but "unhappy" keeps me out of the realm of throughtcrime.

Besides, go back and look at the pretty graphics Shep posted, comparing the food imports from 2009 to 2010. Mass malnutrition? It actually looks like there is more food going in this year than before. As has also been pointed out before in all this, food imports are frequently taken by Hamas and black-marketed, so maybe --once again-- the responsibility for "malnutrition" and "stunted growth" can be more readily attributed to them.

And, "apologist"? Really. You clearly have not been paying attention. But then I guess anyone who levels criticism at the Palestinian side of the conflict for their contribution to the situation, as well as the Israeli side, must be an "apologist" to you. I have criticised both sides equally, but here I do tend to point out the Palestinian side because they do, in fact, bear some responsibility for this. Most of the people here at SDN already do a stellar job of leveling emotional invective at the Israelis, so I kinda feel like that part is covered.

No, I said apologists like to use euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation" instead of torture, or in your case describing an area which has deliberately been turned into a ghetto with mass malnutrition, 80% unemployment, stunted growth in children and a completely destroyed private industry as a merely "uncomfortable" place to live. I can't help it if you happen to fit my description of an apologist. The fact that you criticise both sides is irrelevant.

Whatever. You're basing your entire argument on my word choice not conveying insufficient "impact" or something, which is a pretty damn thin argument to make because really, you're just jumping to an assumption about what I mean, and trying to pigeonhole me into anything that allows you to attack freely. But if it makes people feel better, then "uncomfortable" (remember, I also used "unhappy", too --the horror!) to me means living conditions which are less than adequate but not yet unliveable. Pretty broad range, huh? I'll be honest, I've never had define my thoughts of "uncomfortable" before.

Living in rubble (which is not entirely true for all Gazans, but some), sky-high unemployment, and food shortages are definitely "uncomfortable". Living exposed to the weather? No school? Having to perform physical labor on a daily basis to keep meager supplies coming in? Uncomfortable. Not yet unliveable.

Unliveable means open pools of toxic substances, complete lack of food and water, and exerting more calories to stay alive than are taken in as a result of your efforts. Life is 100% unsustainable.

So as far as I'm concerned, Gaza appears to be "uncomfortable". It is also "unhappy". Bear in mind that according to the figures Shep posted, there is food coming in so any starvation going on could very well be the fault of the known-to-be-corrupt Hamas cornering it for themselves.

So, now that you actually know what I mean by "uncomfortable", you can quit assigning your own assumptions based on what you want to be true so you can "get" me.

Now, on to embargo comparisons. OK, so I went back to the post where we started comparing the dick sizes of different embargoes, sanctions, and blockades, and this was what I found:

Everything you've mentioned here so far is pretty a typical "embargo" goal. Limiting military production? Making life miserable? You may want to do some research into embargoes, sanctions, and blockades. They are tools for making a rival nation or faction unhappy to live in. For example, the UN sanctions in Iran are in place to make Iran an uncomfortable place to live. The sanctions in place against North Korea are there to make North Korea an uncomfortable place to live.

Sanctions, embargoes, and blockades are there to make the local population go without something. It could be luxury items or it could be basic staples. The British blockade of Germany in World War One made life miserable, for example. It weaken war efforts, it erodes morale and resolve, and it causes the population to question their leadership. That is the whole idea.

Okay, I can see how you would assume that I said the blockade of Gaza was no different from Iranian sanctions or the Cuban trade restrictions in place by the US. I admit a poor choice of words on my part, but please note that I said only that embargoes, sanctions and blockades are "designed to make life difficult in some way" and that I gave a broad range of effects from going without luxury goods to going without basic staple items. The British blockade of Germany in WW1 was part of a long-term strategic goal to undermine Germany entirely, as was the bombing campaigns of the Allies in WW2, where even towns with little military value were hammered. Please note above that I also said that "making life miserable" is a goal, so maybe the word "miserable" more adequately reflects the verbage you want to see.

Now bear in mind, I also said this:

Maybe so, I don't study embargoes much. But again, my general understanding of them is that they are not designed to make life pleasant. I was trying to illustrate how embargoes and sanctions are supposed to work--to varying degrees, they make life unpleasant so as to make a political point. If I gave the impression that I thought these sanctions I exemplified were the same as the Gaza blockade, then I misspoke. They are not as tight, with the possible exception fo the North Korea one, where tight controls are exercized by most nations.

So I already admitted that the comparisons were not direct, and that the Gaza blockade was tighter. I was trying to point out, then as now, that the goals of trade interdiction can vary from minor to extreme, and that they are to make life "unpleasant" (add that to my list of thoughtcrime) to undermine a regime in various ways.

So now I have to ask, how many times do I have to explain this, why aren't you paying attention to what I write if you're so concerned? I admitted the blockade wasn't the same, but so far you're arguments have really boiled down to me using words that don't seem to express sufficient emotional outrage to you. I'm not interested in who can use th emost florid prose to describe the situation, and getting drawn into comparisons based on that is really pointless.

See, here's why I seriously doubt you're serious about this, and why you're not paying attention:

What the hell do you think? Of course it is collective punishment, I never claimed otherwise. Israel claims otherwise because they know, at some level, that it is politically troublesome for them to admit it. You seem to be operating on the assumption that I am in favor of Israel's actions here and that I support the blockades, Settlements, etc. If you really think that, you seriously need to pay more attention before you go shooting from the hip.

My mistake. I apologise.

Now, I appreciate that, really, but let's face it, the reason we had that exchange was because you just assumed I was completely behind Israel. You started chewing me out, just assuming I was going to defend the blockade as something that was not collective punishment.

I understand you're outraged at what is going on and that's fine, but it seems to me that a lot of what has gone on between us is you taking things that I say and jumping to conclusions and assumptions about my motivations on the issue. I am very aware that I do have an emotional blind spot about Israel; I lived there for 4 years and love the place, I've also done academic studies of Arab history and the Arab-Israeli wars, the Palestinian conflicts, and the issues that have come up in all this. So I admit I am invested personally in this, but I am also surprisingly sympathetic to many of the Arab points of view, probably more so than people may realize. I read a lot of literature about this, from Edward Said to Albert Hourani and more, and was lucky enough to have one of my three roommates at Ben-Gurion University be a Bedouin Arab so I could talk informally with him and get alternative points of view on things. I've been able to (briefly) visit the West Bank and see the place for myself.

So it is a serious mistake to act as if I am just a 100% Israeli cheerleader out to back everything they are doing. That is why I have said time and again that you are not paying attention to what I'm saying-- you are only seeing the parts where I criticise the Palestinians and defend an Israeli idea (note the word choice: I'll defend the idea that Israel has a right to defend itself, but not defending many of the actions that are currently being undertaken).

Now, I'll apologize for what led to the following:

When have I ever said that Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself? All I am pointing out that that instead using a strict embargo to cripple Hamas's ability to fight Israel is using this blockage to turn Gaza into a ghetto, which goes far beyond what is reasonable self defence.

...I have never said that Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself or portrayed them as evil Nazi's. Please point out where in this thread where I have said that.

...Lets go through this again because I'm honestly confused.
1. You said: "So what's the answer, here, then? How are you going to sell the Israelis on the idea 'but of you lay off of Gaza this time, it'll be fine!' "giving the impression that I was in favour of doing nothing against Hamas.
2. I point out I never in favour of that position and what you were strawmaning my position.
3. You accuse "people" of maximum terrorist apologism and whine about something barely related to my rebuttal.

In this it was my mistake to make the assumption I made about your stance. I admit I was reaching for emotional impact just to try to turn the rhetorical thumbscrews a bit, which is usually one of the first steps towards an Israel-Palestine discussion going down the shitter. So I'll apologize for that one.

The West Bank situation:

Israel never should have invaded and colonized Gaza in the first place. I'm with you there... The Israelis eventually left, and withdrew to the borders they were supposed to. Now, in most situations, that means the Palestinian attacks would stop. But [...] They continued to attack even though the Israelis complied with the demands that were told to them.

You seem to have seem missed the 300,000 "settlers" that are currently squatting elsewhere on Palestinian land. That's like saying that if someone occupied and colonised several states in America and then withdrew from one those States, that particular State should stop fighting.

Honestly, I don't see the two comparisons as properly analogous. You'd have to have a situation where an immensely powerful invader completely subjugated the United States a generation or two ago, but began slowly withdrawing state-by-state because the ongoing guerrilla war was too much for them to handle.

The problem with the Palestinian territories in relation to Israel is that they are already recognized as seperate entities that are being dominated because of a perceived need for "security". The IDF needs to maintain a prescence on the ground because that is the best way to keep an eye on people who may be planning to try something. If you already have light infantry on the ground, then you are that much closer to carrying out a "midnight door knock" type of operation.

Now, at one point Ariel Sharon, as the Israeli Prime Minister, determined that the security risks involved with keeping Gaza outweighed the security benefits they got from it. The Settlements and everything were uprooted and pulled out.

Bear in mind that peace rhetoric has, for decades, centered on the notion of Israel withdrawing to the 1967 borders. There was a UN Resolution calling for exactly that, I think it was UNR-242, but I may be misremembering the exact number. The 2002 Arab Summit also calls for a 1967-based agreement, and the Camp David meeting between Barak and Arafat also worked with 1967 borders as a baseline to work from, and IIRC the Oslo Accords operated on the same assumption although I don't know if it was ever spelled out explicitly.

So --again, from the Israeli perspective-- they rolled the dice. They gave Gaza the 1967 border that has always been ballyhooed as the hallmark of peace, and for once the Israelis actually had the initiative in the whole mess.

BTW, Israel as done a fraction of what was asked of them for over the last 40 years, which is to withdraw from land it conquered and colonised. While it was withdrawing from Gaza it was accelerating construction of settlements in the West Bank. That's why the world (including America to an extent when it comes to settlements) has little sympathy for Israeli crying over how hard it was to give up a fraction of the property they were squatting on.

I think you're missing the goal of what the "reward" is for withdrawing from the territories. Israel holds onto the territories for "security". They do, however, take losses because the Palestinians are angry about the occupation. But the Israeli perception is that they will take much worse losses if they pull out entirely. Some Palestinians and the international community are trying to get them to pull out, which to the Israelis means making them vulnerable. You're basically asking them to bear their throat to the tiger. That is the perception they are working from.

So the "reward" they expect is to pull back and not get killed any more. To have security. I don't know what you think, that Israelis want to be congratulated and back-slapped and invited to parties and be popular and to have the whole West Bank thing just dropped, but that's because you seem to absolutely insist on seeing Israel that way. They really don't give a shit; they want security. Like you yourself said: take a look at how Israel acts now-- do you really think they care about global congratulations and being popular? No. Popularity is not the goal; security is. That is the "reward" they seek.

Now, if Gaza had accepted that gesture and cooperated, Israel would have seen that "security" is not reliant on occupation, and that a lack of occupation could actually be better for security. There would have been no excuse to maintain a presence in the West Bank and the international community could have held their feet to the fire and we could have, now, the beginnings of the two-state solution based on the 1967 borders as most people have been calling for all along.

Please don't rush to the assumption that I'm now saying that "everyone will get up and leave and they'll sing kum-by-yah, and everything will be pink bunnies and unicorns" because I'm not. We'd simply enter the next phase of hard negotiations and certainly there'd be stubborn, bugfuck crazy Settlers who refuse to leave, and stubborn, bugfuck crazy Palestinians who still feel compelled to "push the Jews into the sea". But their justification will erode away and it'll be much easier to get support for peace on the 1967 borders.

I can only suppose that it is part of a multi-pronged approach to continually undermine their economy, making support for Hamas erode and make it more difficult to fund terrorism overall.

Except Hama's support hasn't eroded, in fact it has been strengthened (Much like Germany's morale under massive bombing). It's making a killing off smuggling and has been for some time, which begs the question why persist with attempting to destroy local industry when it only appears to enrich Hamas?

I know, and I agree. I've said before that the blockade causes more problems than it solves just in PR alone. They'd be better off seeking political solutions and drumming support internationally to keep Hamas isolated. Again, please do not make the mistake of assuming that just because I understand Israel's motivations and can explain them, that that means I support the conclusions drawn.

If I were a cynical person I would say it was because Israeli producers are making a killing after destroying local competition.

Maybe. They used to get cheap labor from the Palestinians working in their fields, though, and there's not much wealth in Gaza so I can't see a whole lot of economic benefits. It's not like the Palestinians are rushing out and buying Israeli microchips and Roombas. They're buying foodstuffs, which as a bulk product is rarely as profitable as finished goods. But I admit I don't know much about the economic details of it at that level.

When a Hamas rocket goes into Israel and kills someone, it passes with little comment (unless the news wants to build up the tension about "what Israel will do in retaliation"). But when Israel strikes back, there are loud and vocal rounds of condemnation when the Israeli strike causes civilian casualties. People decry the Palestinian civilian deaths but fail to mention that unlike the initial Hamas strike, which was random and purposefully targeted at a civilian population center, the Israelis make some effort to target Hamas leaders who may actually have had a hand in the attack. But Israel gets condemned constantly when they do this, usually because of the disproportionate amount of casualties.

Do you have any actual evidence for anything of this or do we just take your word?

About which part? The less-intense news coverage of a Palestinian attack on Israel, or the more-intense news coverage of the Israeli counter-strike? Or the claim that Israel was specifically targeting a Hamas leader? I don't think there's any doubt that people are worked up about the disparity of casualties.

The tilted news coverage I think is an observed phenomenon, but my perceptions could be biased. I really don't have the motivation to go seeking out news snippets for the past 5 years or so to do a word count and "how many days on the front page this was, compared to that". I'll just concede the point because I really have no desire to get so down in the weeds.

As for Israel targeting Hamas people specifically, they typically release a comment about "Achmed Q. Jihad was targeted as the bombaker/political officer/chief dogcatcher/whatever/ of Hamas". Although since Operation Cast Lead I don't know if they still do that. Again, I have no desire to sift through news snippets so I'll let this go as well.

No, I don't believe that having a peaceful Gaza would mean a free and un-occupied West Bank or that the Israeli Settlers would just pack up and leave. ( )-- but hey, thanks for putting words in my mouth.*

This is unbelievable. Let me just repost what you actually posted.

The Israeli actions are very heavy-handed, but at the same time, what are they supposed to do? What about chastising the Hamas leaders... and actually hammering them for their irresponsibility? If they hadn't been such cocksmokers and dragged their people into a no-win war, they could have invested in Gaza and the West Bank could be negotiating its freedom by now. Good luck convincing Israelis that a free and unoccupied Wast Bank will be a haven of rationality now*.

I don't have to put words into your mouth. It's fucking right there. You posted the implication that if Gaza quietened down, Israel would have seriously considered the possibility of an unoccupied West Bank (when in fact they were accelerating settlement construction in the West Bank while they were withdrawing from the Gaza strip) and the possibly giving the West Bank its "freedom". You have failed to show how this is the case.

*(colors changed in quote to bold text for people observing on low-band)

Jesus H. Fucking Christ on a pogo stick fucking Rosie O'Donnells fatfolds, you honestly believe I was saying that if Gaza quieted down than all the Settlers would just cheerfully pack up and leave?

OK, buster, now I cordially invite you to go find where I said that. I said negotiations could begin, and the chances for West Bank freedom would be more realistic. Once again, once again, you automatically assumed the meaning behind my words. Apprantly I have to spell every. thing. out. slowly. and. carefully.

NOTHING about the peace process is easy. Of course it is not going to be so simple. This is why I seriously think either you are purposefully playing word games with this, or perhaps you really are this ignorant.

Since apparantly I need to draw pictures, I'll say that "with a peacecful Gaza, the next round of intense negotiations for a withdrawal from the West Bank can begin. It will involve a lot of political maneuvering and there will be bargains, payoffs, and in no few cases I am sure there will be violence on both sides as some Palestinians lobby for continued guerrilla war and as some Settlers refuse to leave their ill-gotten lands". And so on. Please let me know if I need to further elaborate on what should be obvious. If you really intend to bog every single thing down, assigning values to things I both said and didn't say based on whatever you think perpetuates an argument longer, then you are not discussing things in good faith at all.

So what if global attention is focused on Gaza instead of the West Bank? Israel hasn't given a shit about world opinion regarding its settlements for 40 years, in fact it has recently announced more settlements in the West Bank in defiance of its most important ally. Please explain how this supposed attention was going to make Israel seriously consider withdrawing from the West Bank or stop expanding their settlements. Please some provide some sort of evidence rather than your say so.

Well, actually, it DID care enough to withdraw from Gaza entirely in 2005, remember? No one saw that coming.

Bear in mind, you're asking me for "proof" based on an alternate timeline of events that could have happened if things had gone another way, so you'll have to bear with me that this is my analysis of the situation. (You realize this would be like me asking you for "proof" of what would have happened if John McCain had been elected in 2008, right?)

But anyhow... Israel pulled out of Gaza, based on political moves of the past few years that centered around Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Olmert. Barak negotiated vigorously with Arafat in his last years to reach a peace deal. Ariel Sharon's position to carry out the physical pull-out of Gaza caused such a rift in his party, the Likud, that he formed a third party, Kadima.

Now, as it happened, Israel pulled out of Gaza, but instead of peace, got war. Security concerns, paranoia, etc, swept Israel and in the elections that followed, they chose Likud (a known hard-line, conservative, hawkish, pro-war, pro-Settlement party) to lead them. They also technically elected Tzipi Livni to be Prime Minister but she would be PM with a minority and the situation was ungovernable (she could not get a coalition together), so the Likud party leader, Bibi Netanyahu, got the PM slot. Netanyahu put Avigdor Lieberman in a key cabinet position (foreign minister and deputy prime minister). Lieberman is probably more of a fascist asshole than Bibi is, which is saying something. These two are against the uniliateral disengagement plan started by Sharon and propogated now by Livni's Kadima Party.

So, I think it is safe to hypothesize that if Gaza had not erupted in violence after the pullout, chances were definitely better that the more moderate Kadima party, the party that was founded precisely to carry out a plan of unilateral disengagement, would have formed a governable coalition and we would be a hell of a lot farther along the peace process than we are now. Kadima is, now, the largest single bloc in the Knesset, but does not have a majority. They still have a lot of support.

This may not be "proof" but I believe this is a very reasonable possible picture of what would be going on in our alternate history where Gazans accepted a peaceful pullout. And once again --since apprantly I have to spell these things out-- that does not mean that the West Bank situiation would be solved in a couple hours over afternoon tea, and end with all the Settlers packing up and leaving as the Palestinian threw flowers.

The West Bank will be a much harder thing to negotiate. But if the Israelis can come to an agreement with the Palestinians that is accepted by the Palestinians as just, then the need for Israel to hold the land (in their mind) can be nullified. They get water from the West Bank, but they did, at one time, have a water deal with Turkey --until, obviously, Israel pissed them off. The Arab Peace Plan of 2002 calls for "a just resolution to the Palestinian situation" and leaves the details to Israel & the Palestinians, but does state that the right of return for refugees has to be addressed somehow, and the Settlement issue as well. All they really say is that it has to be a solution that the Palestinians agree is just.

In exchange, the Arabs offered to sign peace treaties with Israel, recognise their state, and essentially accept them as members of the regional neighborhood. And again, no, that doesn't mean they'll all be best buds and form an EU-like love-in and marry off their daughters to each other the next morning, if at all, it means that the region will have peace treaties and normalization as best as can be hoped for after decades of conflict.

So really, the Arabs are more ready for peace than the Israelis are, unless there are some devils in the details that I am not aware of right now.

[Coyote]

Israel has committed unnesseary acts of douchebaggery in the past, and they definately deserve flak. And Coyote, go to any right wing blog and they will always try to rationalize whatever it does even if it's unjustifiable (in the flotilla raid one american citizen was shot four times in the head and once in the chest, and I highly doubt that 5 soldiers just HAPPEN to hit those parts accidentally.) Yes, Hamas are a bunch of pricks, but one must also acknowledge that Israel's actions helped to make them popular. Just look at the civillians who died in cast lead.

Do I think the entire flotilla was israel's fault? no. But they handled the operation badly (come on they could have easily sent non lethal riot police). All it did was make them look like collassal douchebags. To be honest, they would have lost no matter how they handled the situation.

Oh, I agree with you on this. Right-wing blogs can spin like a top, but we know that doesn't make them correct.

But the thing is, we can list off a detailed manifest of Israel's fuck-ups and outright crimes, but I think people also need to do more to address the other side by doing more than just waving them off and saying, "well, Hamas/etc are pricks too". Hamas --I think it can be argued-- are as purposefully steering their captive population towards an unecessary war as Israel is purposefully shepherding Settlements, and that deserves more attention than just a snippet about them being jerks. Israel's actions do not occur in a vacuum, and giving only rhetorical sanction to Hamas for their role in this is just as enabling as paying lip service to the faults of Israel.

The reason Israel's actions are so easy to criticise is because they are so spectacular in scope, and of course the Palestinians do, indeed, appear to be in much more dire straits. The look more pitiable, and that's currency in the media wars. But they do 5 points of damage to Israel, and Israel hits back with 500 points of damage, so people forget, in the glow of the explosions, that Hamas actually initiated that day's confrontation. And so Israel loses politically much more than they hoped to gain.

[Kanastrous]

But they do 5 points of damage to Israel, and Israel hits back with 500 points of damage, so people forget, in the glow of the explosions, that Hamas actually initiated that day's confrontation. And so Israel loses politically much more than they hoped to gain.

To a great many people I know, that's the long and the short of it right there. They can't move beyond seeing everything as a basic inversion of might-makes-right: if you killed more of them today than they killed on your side yesterday, that makes you the Bad Guy. Period. End of discussion; no further data required and don't bother me with details. One friend bases his entire moral analysis of the conflict on body-count (he used to be quite pro-Israeli, then decided that the disproportionate death toll was enough to transfer his sympathies to the Palestinians instead, which is of course his prerogative).

It does have the appeal of being nice and simple.

[Eleas]

The reason Israel's actions are so easy to criticise is because they are so spectacular in scope, and of course the Palestinians do, indeed, appear to be in much more dire straits. The look more pitiable, and that's currency in the media wars. But they do 5 points of damage to Israel, and Israel hits back with 500 points of damage, so people forget, in the glow of the explosions, that Hamas actually initiated that day's confrontation. And so Israel loses politically much more than they hoped to gain.

I'd argue that there's another reason (aside from sheer hatred of Jews, which unfortunately is not always a fantasy) for why people come down extra hard on Israel. That's because Israel seems to pride itself on being a modern, civilized country. I have yet to see the equivalent rhetoric from the Palestinian side. Feel free to correct me on that point, though.

Anyway, claiming to be a democracy while you're manifestly not tends to rile people. South Africa did much the same thing back in the day, and that stigma is (I'd argue) still alive to some extent, even decades after the regime change. As long as Israel claims to be a modern democracy, it will unfortunately be judged by those merits.

But I agree without reservation on your other point: it does not make the horrific behaviour of Hamas any more palatable. Ever since they came to power, I've gotten the disturbing impression that they're actually eager to kill their own population.



Edit: qualified the hatred statement.

[Kanastrous]

Ever since they came to power, I've gotten the disturbing impression that they're actually eager to kill their own population.

A martyrdom-fixation does have the potential to lead people in that direction.

[Eleas]

Ever since they came to power, I've gotten the disturbing impression that they're actually eager to kill their own population.

A martyrdom-fixation does have the potential to lead people in that direction.

I should qualify this: the eagerness doesn't seem to extend so far as to risk or even inconvenience the people in charge.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I'd argue that there's another reason (aside from sheer hatred of Jews, which unfortunately is not always a fantasy) for why people come down extra hard on Israel. That's because Israel seems to pride itself on being a modern, civilized country. I have yet to see the equivalent rhetoric from the Palestinian side. Feel free to correct me on that point, though.

Anyway, claiming to be a democracy while you're manifestly not tends to rile people. South Africa did much the same thing back in the day, and that stigma is (I'd argue) still alive to some extent, even decades after the regime change. As long as Israel claims to be a modern democracy, it will unfortunately be judged by those merits.

But I agree without reservation on your other point: it does not make the horrific behaviour of Hamas any more palatable. Ever since they came to power, I've gotten the disturbing impression that they're actually eager to kill their own population.



Edit: qualified the hatred statement.

Exactly. You call yourself a big boy and demand to sit at the big boys' table, you're expected to act like a big boy, and shouldn't be surprised for being scolded more than a toddler for breaking shit and acting like a little twat.

[Kanastrous]

Given that the USA is - for the purposes of blowing things and people up - the very biggest boy at the table, and that the USA does not get 1/1000 the shit that the Israelis do for fundamentally similar actions, I think the analogy is at best strained.

[Eleas]

Given that the USA is - for the purposes of blowing things and people up - the very biggest boy at the table, and that the USA does not get 1/1000 the shit that the Israelis do for fundamentally similar actions, I think the analogy is at best strained.

Which analogy would that be? Mine, in which I quite clearly talked about democratic values and ethical behaviour as opposed to the exercise of violence ("blowing things and people up", as you put it), perhaps?

EDIT: Ah, stupid of me to post without thinking. For one, he couldn't have been replying to my analogy, partly because I wasn't offering one.

I still don't agree with Kanastrous' post, because the fact is that the US has recently caught enormous amounts of flak for precisely that same reason. Now, the US does a lot of good aside from that, which I'm sure Israel may do too, although I have yet to hear any news of such things. However, the US is also a lot larger than Israel. There's a question of scale to be considered.


Sorry about the multiple edits, everyone. I'm apparently not firing on all cylinders today.

[Kanastrous]

Does the list of attempted or passed UN resolutions censuring the US approach the number attempted or passed, at censuring Israel? That's just one metric, of course, but it was the one uppermost in mind when I posted that.

[Eleas]

Does the list of attempted or passed UN resolutions censuring the US approach the number attempted or passed, at censuring Israel? That's just one metric, of course, but it was the one uppermost in mind when I posted that.

You're right in that it doesn't. I don't think it's the most accurate of measurements to use, though; that whole issue is one in which a whole lot of political maneuvering hinges, and in which criticising Israel automatically means going up against/striking at the US anyway.

Anyway, I'm going to have to bow out of the thread at this point, as I'm not feeling all that well.

[Keevan_Colton]

Does the list of attempted or passed UN resolutions censuring the US approach the number attempted or passed, at censuring Israel? That's just one metric, of course, but it was the one uppermost in mind when I posted that.

There is zero point in resolutions against the US since they wont pass. As a permanent member of the security council it's got a veto on anything it doesn't like.

[Kanastrous]

Does the list of attempted or passed UN resolutions censuring the US approach the number attempted or passed, at censuring Israel? That's just one metric, of course, but it was the one uppermost in mind when I posted that.

You're right in that it doesn't. I don't think it's the most accurate of measurements to use, though; that whole issue is one in which a whole lot of political maneuvering hinges, and in which criticising Israel automatically means going up against/striking at the US anyway.

Anyway, I'm going to have to bow out of the thread at this point, as I'm not feeling all that well.

Hope you feel better soon.

[Kanastrous]

Does the list of attempted or passed UN resolutions censuring the US approach the number attempted or passed, at censuring Israel? That's just one metric, of course, but it was the one uppermost in mind when I posted that.

There is zero point in resolutions against the US since they wont pass. As a permanent member of the security council it's got a veto on anything it doesn't like.

That's true. But the same is effectively true of Israel - being the constant endless beneficiary of US SC vetoes - and that doesn't discourage the General Assembly from dinging Israel at every opportunity. Which makes me wonder why the US doesn't get tarred with lots of General Assembly votes, just like Israel does.

[Coyote]

The thing to remember about UN Resolutions against Israel is that, essentially, a bunch of street thugs have lodged a formal complaint about another street thug beating his domestic partner.

[D.Turtle]

At least you admit that Israel is a street thug.

Most Israel-apologists seem to treat Israel as merely a nice, honest homeowner defending his home from those evil street thug trying to trash it, and who is constantly chastised by outsiders for defending himself.

[Coyote]

At least you admit that Israel is a street thug.

Most Israel-apologists seem to treat Israel as merely a nice, honest homeowner defending his home from those evil street thug trying to trash it, and who is constantly chastised by outsiders for defending himself.

As much as I love Israel, I loathe Bibi Netanyahu. That man and his cronies are a fucking cancer on the state of Israel. Anyone who cares about Israel would gleefully look the other way as Bibi and Avigdor Lieberman were run down and eaten by wild dogs. Assholes like them are the reason Israel is perpetually in a state of crisis. They come from that hard right-wing part of the society that still thinks the Palestinians will pack up and leave if they can keep enough pressure on them.

[Kanastrous]

Seems to me that leadership-wise Israel has had Stage III or IV cancer for several decades, now...

That crowd lends credence to the idea that if Israel's external enemies just leave the country alone, it will cheerfully self-destruct on its own.

[CJvR]

Most Israel-apologists seem to treat Israel as merely a nice, honest homeowner defending his home from those evil street thug trying to trash it, and who is constantly chastised by outsiders for defending himself.

Reminded me of a scene in Mississippi Burning:

A: Don't put me on your perch, Mr. Ward.
W: Don't drag me into your gutter, Mr. Anderson!
A: These people are crawling out of the SEWER, MR. WARD! Maybe the gutter's where we outta be!

[eyl]

They come from that hard right-wing part of the society that still thinks the Palestinians will pack up and leave if they can keep enough pressure on them.

I think you're giving them (well, Netanyahu at least) too much credit - from what I've seen I doubt he's thinking that far ahead.

[Kanastrous]

God finally gets fed up with the mess the world is in, and decides to wipe it clean and start over, Great-Flood-style.

He summons Barack Obama, Dmitry Medvedev and Bibi Netanyahu into his Presence, informs them of his decision, and instructs them to go back and tell their respective nations what's going to happen.

Obama convenes a joint session of Congress, and tells them I have good news and bad news: the good news is that in fact, there is a God. The bad news is that He's going to destroy the world.

Medvedev calls a special session of the Duma, and informs them that There is bad news, and worse news. The bad news, is that there is a God. The worse news is that He's going to destroy the world.

Netanyahu summons the Knesset, and tells them that I have good news, and great news. The good news is that there is a God. The great news is that there will never be a Palestinian state.