Middle East: Passion & Protest

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Re: Middle East: Passion & Protest

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:07 pm

Antiochus wrote:
And if Israel doesnt control their own people/colonists, then they can't expect Palestinians to deal with them fairly.

See... this arguments will never lead us anywhere until someone puts on their pants and makes a gesture. My bets should be on the democratic and rich nation over the hardly recognized authority that is constantly undermined... :lol:


Not me. Why should such a government even suffer such a rabble? They are lucky the settlements are illegal. Without international law they would be without recourse. Palestine is in a inferior arguing position. They can't deliver on promises of cease-fires, they can't protect themselves, and they can't even present a united front.



Actually, they are held accountable in more ways than Israel is. They have to face military repression (sometimes through the use of illegal weaponry, mind you). Its weird to, on the one hand, expect the Palestinians to be at least as accountable as the Israelis when, on the other hand, they are denied any form of legitimacy and even the logistics to make their central authority work.


Then they shouldn't work. The onus should not be on the Israelis, who have a functioning and established government to build Palestine for them. The Israelis owe the Palestininians no more than A) Not killing them (For unwarranted reasons) B) not violating international law and C) not interfering with their peace-talks. That is essentially it, in my opinion.



That and I hope my English got better...


Haha, I was younger as well..but I doubt I've become more intelligent :lol:
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4311
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Middle East: Passion & Protest

Unread postby Antiochus » Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:16 pm

Shikanosuke wrote:Not me. Why should such a government even suffer such a rabble? They are lucky the settlements are illegal. Without international law they would be without recourse.


That's like saying that without laws, only criminals have recourse... :lol:

Palestine is in a inferior arguing position. They can't deliver on promises of cease-fires


Well, they had until recently, and that was after the Israeli's had broken their part of the bargain which was to stop the colonisation of Palestinian land.

, they can't protect themselves


When they try, they are called terrorists.

, and they can't even present a united front.


Funny how the Hamas was formed with Israeli money in order to fight the OLP...

Like a cancer patient that complains about testicular cancer after he installed an unprotected nuclear reactor in his bathtub... :lol:


Then they shouldn't work. The onus should not be on the Israelis, who have a functioning and established government to build Palestine for them. The Israelis owe the Palestininians no more than A) Not killing them (For unwarranted reasons) B) not violating international law and C) not interfering with their peace-talks. That is essentially it, in my opinion.


Sad thing is that the Israelis don't even follow rule B and C and sometimes even fail to observe rule A...

This is why I don't even think Israel still has the moral high ground here... Its hard to do so when you use white phosphor weaponry on cities, violate international law on a daily basis and sabotage the peace talks...
If they can abolish fanaticism, let us pray for the advent of the sceptics.

Raymond Aron
The Opium of the Intellectuals
User avatar
Antiochus
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 2573
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 5:29 pm
Location: Sherbrooke

Re: Middle East: Passion & Protest

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:30 pm

Antiochus wrote:That's like saying that without laws, only criminals have recourse... :lol:


To me it is like saying the Israeli has a duty to deal fairly with another sovereign power, not a rag-tag group of terrorists hiding amidst a population.


Palestine is in a inferior arguing position. They can't deliver on promises of cease-fires


Well, they had until recently, and that was after the Israeli's had broken their part of the bargain which was to stop the colonisation of Palestinian land.[/quote]

Rocket-fire is not an appropriate response to the breaking of international law (not a treaty b/w Israel and Palestine). It only puts them further in a weaker position, too, when Israel counter-attacks.


When they try, they are called terrorists.


Rocket-attacks are not protection, they are aggression. Human-shields are not bunkers. There is a difference between fighting and terrorism. I rarely see Palestinians fighting, I see them committing acts of terror.


Funny how the Hamas was formed with Israeli money in order to fight the OLP...

Like a cancer patient that complains about testicular cancer after he installed an unprotected nuclear reactor in his bathtub... :lol:


How can Israel be blamed for trying to put a power in Palestine that will be more favorable? We do it all the time. I'd rather pay off my enemies. It obviously didn't work here, though.



Sad thing is that the Israelis don't even follow rule B and C and sometimes even fail to observe rule A...

This is why I don't even think Israel still has the moral high ground here... Its hard to do so when you use white phosphor weaponry on cities, violate international law on a daily basis and sabotage the peace talks...


I disagree as to A. To me the violations of international law and the influencing of the peace-talks is of little significance (in morality terms) to me. Killing people, is. I don't condone their use of certain weaponry. I also feel like shooting-rockets into Israel is like pissing off a bee-hive.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4311
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Middle East: Passion & Protest

Unread postby Antiochus » Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:26 pm

Shikanosuke wrote:To me it is like saying the Israeli has a duty to deal fairly with another sovereign power, not a rag-tag group of terrorists hiding amidst a population.


Yeah, but when you do all in your power to keep the rag-tag group within their rag-tagg...giness... and sabotage the process that would allow them to properly organize, you have to be held accountable, especially if you do it by breaking the law.

Palestine is in a inferior arguing position. They can't deliver on promises of cease-fires


Well, they had until recently, and that was after the Israeli's had broken their part of the bargain which was to stop the colonisation of Palestinian land.


Rocket-fire is not an appropriate response to the breaking of international law (not a treaty b/w Israel and Palestine). It only puts them further in a weaker position, too, when Israel counter-attacks.[/quote]

I'm not going to say its a good option, but they don't have any other. In any other cases, colonization of foreign land would constitute a casus-beli and a cause for international sanction.

Rocket-attacks are not protection, they are aggression. Human-shields are not bunkers. There is a difference between fighting and terrorism. I rarely see Palestinians fighting, I see them committing acts of terror.


And this is where I think your being really selective. While I cannot say that the means used by the Palestinians are morally acceptable, I think people that share your point of views hide behind government sanctions to defend acts that are just as bad. When Israel use white-phosphor over residential area, its not better than someone who uses rockets on civilian populations.

Asking the Palestinians to resort to conventional warfare is basically asking them to be slaughtered to the last without any hopes of results. It would be a fight between a kid with a slingshot and a world power that is being supported by the greatest military force on earth and its allies.

In the end, its a matter of realism. I agree that the methods employed by the Palestinians proved to be unsuccessful, but the same can be said about the Israelis, who failed to pacify the region even though they had a crushing military superiority and an actual international legitimacy. With the demographic shift that's just around the corner, I'd say Israel is not acting in its own best interest for the years to come.

How can Israel be blamed for trying to put a power in Palestine that will be more favorable? We do it all the time. I'd rather pay off my enemies. It obviously didn't work here, though.


The Hamas was never favourable to Israel, that was not the point. They funded them because of their opposition to the PLO, not because they were hot to the idea of an expansionist Jewish state.

They basically went with the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, not noticing that this is basically bullocks when the enemy of my enemy was my enemy even before he was the enemy of my enemy.... enemy...

Now I got a migraine... :lol:


I disagree as to A. To me the violations of international law and the influencing of the peace-talks is of little significance (in morality terms) to me. Killing people, is. I don't condone their use of certain weaponry. I also feel like shooting-rockets into Israel is like pissing off a bee-hive.


Your being selective. We have often seen acts of vengeance, sometimes even taking the form of angry mobs, that caused the death of Palestinian citizens. Its just that when it happens, people are willing to believe that those acts can be justified, which is just as ridiculous as defending terrorism.
If they can abolish fanaticism, let us pray for the advent of the sceptics.

Raymond Aron
The Opium of the Intellectuals
User avatar
Antiochus
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 2573
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 5:29 pm
Location: Sherbrooke

Re: Middle East: Passion & Protest

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:45 am

Antiochus wrote:
Yeah, but when you do all in your power to keep the rag-tag group within their rag-tagg...giness... and sabotage the process that would allow them to properly organize, you have to be held accountable, especially if you do it by breaking the law.


I don't thin its all in their power. They haven't conquered Palestine, though they could. I don't think the settlements keep them there, either. The closest thing I can see is stunts like they pulled with Hamas.


I'm not going to say its a good option, but they don't have any other. In any other cases, colonization of foreign land would constitute a casus-beli and a cause for international sanction.


The two options they have are to compromise (to their detriment) or to continue their current course.

And this is where I think your being really selective. While I cannot say that the means used by the Palestinians are morally acceptable, I think people that share your point of views hide behind government sanctions to defend acts that are just as bad. When Israel use white-phosphor over residential area, its not better than someone who uses rockets on civilian populations.


I'm not condoning the use of white phosphorus. The difference is this isn't the Israeli's general use of force. It did happen, and when it did it was noticed and reported. The Palestinians on the other, by necessity, make their terrorsitic ways part of their standard method of attack. I think that is the big difference b/w the two.


Asking the Palestinians to resort to conventional warfare is basically asking them to be slaughtered to the last without any hopes of results. It would be a fight between a kid with a slingshot and a world power that is being supported by the greatest military force on earth and its allies.


But this isn't a case of David verses Goliath in the sense that what david does is small and meaningless but noble. This is that the Palestinians actively target non-combat personnel in their attacks, and in their defense they utilize their own citizens as fodder. Guerrilla warfare can, and has, been waged without these tactics. To me, there is no justification..including necessity..that can justify such methods.

In the end, its a matter of realism. I agree that the methods employed by the Palestinians proved to be unsuccessful, but the same can be said about the Israelis, who failed to pacify the region even though they had a crushing military superiority and an actual international legitimacy. With the demographic shift that's just around the corner, I'd say Israel is not acting in its own best interest for the years to come.


Now, I don't think you're being realistic about that. The Israelis realistically have the power to pacify the region, they are merely held in check by international law and community. As you demonstrated with their use of white phosphorus, as well as noting their military superiority, they could easily both (or either) annihilate Palestine or beat it into submission. Hell, they could do so merely with a blockade.


The Hamas was never favourable to Israel, that was not the point. They funded them because of their opposition to the PLO, not because they were hot to the idea of an expansionist Jewish state.

They basically went with the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, not noticing that this is basically bullocks when the enemy of my enemy was my enemy even before he was the enemy of my enemy.... enemy...


Well, if thats the case then its foolish to put in power a group who promotes violence against your own state. But it should be noted America often backs regimes when they are not hostile to them via providing material assistance to a new party.




Your being selective. We have often seen acts of vengeance, sometimes even taking the form of angry mobs, that caused the death of Palestinian citizens. Its just that when it happens, people are willing to believe that those acts can be justified, which is just as ridiculous as defending terrorism.


I'm not trying to justify the innocent death of any civilians, on either side. I'm just saying that one's sides method of warfare includes targeting civilians. And such a method of warfare, against such a state as Israel, is a dangerous move.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4311
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Middle East: Passion & Protest

Unread postby Antiochus » Fri Mar 25, 2011 11:49 am

Shikanosuke wrote:I don't thin its all in their power. They haven't conquered Palestine, though they could. I don't think the settlements keep them there, either. The closest thing I can see is stunts like they pulled with Hamas.


What about derailing any attempts to form an actual second state like they did last years, even in the face of the international community. Even the American government criticized Israel on that one, which is something that only happen in the face of unbearable guilt. What about the fact that they often stop the representatives of the Palestinian authority from meeting or accomplishing any form of actual legislative process?

I got a list of those that you can find in Tanya Reinhart Research (an Israeli columnist by the way) known as Israel/Palestine : How to End the War of 1948.

Actually, if you can, try to get a copy of the 1982 Ehud Barak memo that was published by the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz. You will see how far Barak went to exacerbate tensions... The fact that he never denied the authenticity of that memo is quite frankly terrifying...

I'm not going to say its a good option, but they don't have any other. In any other cases, colonization of foreign land would constitute a casus-beli and a cause for international sanction.


The two options they have are to compromise (to their detriment) or to continue their current course.


This is absurd. This is directly out of the classic playbook that says that the only way for Israel to survive is a constant territorial expansion, a policy that was not used in contemporary politics since the days of Adolf Hitler. The establishment of those illegal colonies has to stop. Its a useless source of tension and a huge complication for the Israeli army, who has to dismantle several of them every-time the US has a moment of clarity and puts a little pressure on Tel Aviv. Not to mention that those things are often built outside of their militarized zones, which forces the colonist to form militias who have the nasty tendency to murder Arabs, which causes more tensions (note that when an Israeli militia kills Muslim civilians, no one ever seem to care).

I'm not condoning the use of white phosphorus. The difference is this isn't the Israeli's general use of force. It did happen, and when it did it was noticed and reported. The Palestinians on the other, by necessity, make their terrorsitic ways part of their standard method of attack. I think that is the big difference b/w the two.


You are aware that the use of white phosphorus, while it was reported, did not stop. No one was actually prosecuted and no one was ever punished. It only stopped when the direct hostilities ended. I'm not even going to address the now overused tactic of starving civilian populations to death, which is what has been happening in Gaza for months now, which did not even successfully end the threat of the Hamas.


But this isn't a case of David verses Goliath in the sense that what david does is small and meaningless but noble. This is that the Palestinians actively target non-combat personnel in their attacks, and in their defense they utilize their own citizens as fodder. Guerrilla warfare can, and has, been waged without these tactics. To me, there is no justification..including necessity..that can justify such methods.


No one will defend terrorism, obviously. But you also chose to take the bombing tactics as the norm, while its not true since the most common tactic they employ is basic urban guerrilla warfare. You basically extrapolate the horrors of terrorism as the norm. Its like I used the now numerous case of civilian murder by Israeli soldiers and made them the absolute norm.

Now, I don't think you're being realistic about that. The Israelis realistically have the power to pacify the region, they are merely held in check by international law and community. As you demonstrated with their use of white phosphorus, as well as noting their military superiority, they could easily both (or either) annihilate Palestine or beat it into submission. Hell, they could do so merely with a blockade.


Wait what?

Your basically saying that genocide is an option here?

This is absurd. Using those methods was never an option on any table. What I said is that the methods constantly used by Israel proved to be an abject failure. Decades later, they are still constantly under the threat of civil war and international conflict. So much actually that their great fear is that their neighbor might democratize, which could lead to war with them.

If the only way to get peace is to slaughter everyone, well, your the problem.

Well, if thats the case then its foolish to put in power a group who promotes violence against your own state. But it should be noted America often backs regimes when they are not hostile to them via providing material assistance to a new party.



And when it comes biting you in the ass like it happened with the Talibans, no one came to congratulate the White House I assure you...


I'm not trying to justify the innocent death of any civilians, on either side. I'm just saying that one's sides method of warfare includes targeting civilians. And such a method of warfare, against such a state as Israel, is a dangerous move.


One could argue that both sides resorted to those methods. You just imply that its the absolute norm on one side because... well thats a good question there.

The other side employs embargoes, even on basic food and water supplies, which kills more civilians than every terrorist act in Israel since... well ever...

They also use illegal weaponry, often allow militias to murder civilians without any form of prosecution and also enforce a vow of loyalty to Judaism to their non Jewish citizens.

You just chose to classify those as being exceptions. Basically, all it takes to convince you is a government sanction, which means that any regime can cause any atrocity as long as it is approved by a guy in a fancy suit.
If they can abolish fanaticism, let us pray for the advent of the sceptics.

Raymond Aron
The Opium of the Intellectuals
User avatar
Antiochus
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 2573
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 5:29 pm
Location: Sherbrooke

Re: Middle East: Passion & Protest

Unread postby Zhuanyong » Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:21 pm

Unrest in the Middle East and North Africa

It has a nifty interactive navigation bar that you can view information on each country in question.

There is also some commentary on the roots of unrest for each listed.
Avatar: N/A

[No comment]
User avatar
Zhuanyong
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 5355
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:58 pm
Location: If I told you, would it really matter?

Re: Middle East: Passion & Protest

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Fri Mar 25, 2011 5:27 pm

Antiochus wrote:
What about derailing any attempts to form an actual second state like they did last years, even in the face of the international community. Even the American government criticized Israel on that one, which is something that only happen in the face of unbearable guilt. What about the fact that they often stop the representatives of the Palestinian authority from meeting or accomplishing any form of actual legislative process?

I got a list of those that you can find in Tanya Reinhart Research (an Israeli columnist by the way) known as Israel/Palestine : How to End the War of 1948.


Actually, if you can, try to get a copy of the 1982 Ehud Barak memo that was published by the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz. You will see how far Barak went to exacerbate tensions... The fact that he never denied the authenticity of that memo is quite frankly terrifying...


That isn't all that it is within their power. In fact, that the least of it. Sure, it isn't laudable that they are doing that.


This is absurd. This is directly out of the classic playbook that says that the only way for Israel to survive is a constant territorial expansion, a policy that was not used in contemporary politics since the days of Adolf Hitler. The establishment of those illegal colonies has to stop. Its a useless source of tension and a huge complication for the Israeli army, who has to dismantle several of them every-time the US has a moment of clarity and puts a little pressure on Tel Aviv. Not to mention that those things are often built outside of their militarized zones, which forces the colonist to form militias who have the nasty tendency to murder Arabs, which causes more tensions (note that when an Israeli militia kills Muslim civilians, no one ever seem to care).



See, while I agree that its counterproductive (i.e. the settlements working at odds with the Israeli government) that has nothing to do with the Palestinian's options. Their options aren't related to Israel's criss-crossing actions. They still have only two options: concessions or repeating the current course of conflict. The Palestinians options are certainly not enhanced by looking toward the international community, they only have the situation (as futile as it is) in front on them.



You are aware that the use of white phosphorus, while it was reported, did not stop. No one was actually prosecuted and no one was ever punished. It only stopped when the direct hostilities ended. I'm not even going to address the now overused tactic of starving civilian populations to death, which is what has been happening in Gaza for months now, which did not even successfully end the threat of the Hamas.


It has stopped, but that isn't even my point. I'm not even denying its utilization. I'm noting that it is neither the sole nor the primary method of warfare by the Israeli military. Furthermore, while I agree with the statement the blockade didn't end Hamas (which, really, what does end terrorists other than outright extermination?) it certainly demonstrated that Israel can control Palestine without even using force.



No one will defend terrorism, obviously. But you also chose to take the bombing tactics as the norm, while its not true since the most common tactic they employ is basic urban guerrilla warfare. You basically extrapolate the horrors of terrorism as the norm. Its like I used the now numerous case of civilian murder by Israeli soldiers and made them the absolute norm.


I disagree on both counts. While bombing might not be the norm, no doubt due to Israeli security, firing rockets into civilian centers of Israel has been the norm for some time. The Palestinian government has even tried to stop it, and they can't. As for the Israeli's, theres quite a difference. In any urban warfare environment there is collateral consequences. And I'm not even denying the Israeli's seem to be the ones who care the least. But I will no more say that killing civilians is a norm for the Israeli army than I will say that is for coalition forces in Iraq/Afghanistan.

Wait what?

Your basically saying that genocide is an option here?

This is absurd. Using those methods was never an option on any table. What I said is that the methods constantly used by Israel proved to be an abject failure. Decades later, they are still constantly under the threat of civil war and international conflict. So much actually that their great fear is that their neighbor might democratize, which could lead to war with them.

If the only way to get peace is to slaughter everyone, well, your the problem.


The problem is the question you're asking and conclusion you're getting. You asked to be realistic, not to be optimal. Realistically speaking the Israelis have the power to pacify Palestine. There really can be no way to question that. Yes, it would be morally repugnant and I'm not advocating it is a optimal or moral solution to the crisis. But I don't deny their ability to do so, and therefore, when you say that their military measures have been 'abject failures' I can only be confused. Essentially, Israel is a dog on a leash who is at the same time being coaxed into a politically happy solution by the international community. Their goal is not, as you mentioned before, eliminate Hamas. Being realistic, if that was their goal, they could accomplish this (and the collateral and moral consequences would be absurdly high as you note).

So no, it isn't their only way to peace. But I don't deny their power just because they are held in check by the international community and prevailing moral standards.


And when it comes biting you in the ass like it happened with the Talibans, no one came to congratulate the White House I assure you...


Or Iran, on this I think we can all agree. But I'm not sure non-interference would have produced any better of a result.



One could argue that both sides resorted to those methods. You just imply that its the absolute norm on one side because... well thats a good question there.

The other side employs embargoes, even on basic food and water supplies, which kills more civilians than every terrorist act in Israel since... well ever...

They also use illegal weaponry, often allow militias to murder civilians without any form of prosecution and also enforce a vow of loyalty to Judaism to their non Jewish citizens.

You just chose to classify those as being exceptions. Basically, all it takes to convince you is a government sanction, which means that any regime can cause any atrocity as long as it is approved by a guy in a fancy suit.


No, government sanction is irrelevant to me (thats not entirely true, but for purposes of this conversation it is). The question is the MO of the armed forces and their desired effect. What is the standard operation of the Israelis? Utilizing military against perceived military targets. This might even include illegal weaponry, yes. That is standard and nothing morally repugnant. This does have collateral damage. I don't deny that, or that the Israelis don't care much. They imposed a blockade against Palestine, true. Was their objective goal to injure Palestinian citizens? no. Did it? yes. Theres the difference.

On the other hand the Palestinians openly and repetitively employ known terrorist tactics that actively target Israeli citizens as their outright objective. They seek to injure any and all Israelis. They seek to inspire fear by hurting Israeli citizens. Theres the difference. This isn't really exception. This isn't rare. You suggest that it isn't their primary form of combat, and the only thing I can concede to is that even if it isn't the primary form, it isn't the exception and it occurs in tanget with all other forms of combat.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4311
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Middle East: Passion & Protest

Unread postby Zhuanyong » Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:46 pm

Protests become increasingly violent in Jordan

I hope they can get a grip on this and turn the ship around. I would hate to see anything remotely close to what we have seen in other places such as Bahrain, occur in Jordan.

On a lighter note --

Sex lives of married Egyptians

(Note this is not a link for perversion whatsoever)

I find it interesting that Dr. Heba Kotb, a leading sexologist in Cairo -- cites that 80% of marriages in Egypt end in divorce due to sexual issues. Lack of know-how when dealing with their partner. Honestly, I would have thought if anything -- lack of communication (not of the sexual kind) would be the leading cause for divorce
Avatar: N/A

[No comment]
User avatar
Zhuanyong
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 5355
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:58 pm
Location: If I told you, would it really matter?

Re: Middle East: Passion & Protest

Unread postby Antiochus » Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:49 pm

Shikanosuke wrote:That isn't all that it is within their power. In fact, that the least of it. Sure, it isn't laudable that they are doing that.


This is my point. The fact that they have not yet resorted to outright genocide is not really a big +. Its like saying that Stalin would have been a nice chap in the eyes of history had he not attempted to genocide the Ukrainian population.

See, while I agree that its counterproductive (i.e. the settlements working at odds with the Israeli government) that has nothing to do with the Palestinian's options. Their options aren't related to Israel's criss-crossing actions. They still have only two options: concessions or repeating the current course of conflict. The Palestinians options are certainly not enhanced by looking toward the international community, they only have the situation (as futile as it is) in front on them.


Again, this is wrong. Any real study of the situation leads to one conclusion: The Palestinians have made a lot more concessions than the Israelis. Not to mention that they are not the ones who sabotage the peace process. Defending Israel seems more like a matter of faith than real political insight...


It has stopped, but that isn't even my point. I'm not even denying its utilization. I'm noting that it is neither the sole nor the primary method of warfare by the Israeli military. Furthermore, while I agree with the statement the blockade didn't end Hamas (which, really, what does end terrorists other than outright extermination?) it certainly demonstrated that Israel can control Palestine without even using force.


What do you mean ''control''? According to Israel, they have to maintain the blockade because there are still rockets that are fired from the region (which says a lot considering how hard it is to get the equipment inside Gaza). The Hamas popularity was not affected and they still get to hire young Palestinians to go on with the fight.

The heavy handed method of Israel failed. They killed 10 times more civilians than their opponents did, destroyed all infrastructure and even resorted to illegal weaponry and they still can't pacify the region. Yet, some still refuse to see that and even fail to acknowledge the fact that Israel is responsible for much of the hostility, particularly when they sabotage their own peace process.



No one will defend terrorism, obviously. But you also chose to take the bombing tactics as the norm, while its not true since the most common tactic they employ is basic urban guerrilla warfare. You basically extrapolate the horrors of terrorism as the norm. Its like I used the now numerous case of civilian murder by Israeli soldiers and made them the absolute norm.


I disagree on both counts. While bombing might not be the norm, no doubt due to Israeli security, firing rockets into civilian centers of Israel has been the norm for some time.


As opposed to dropping bombs in civilian areas because it is believed that Hamas fighters are there...

But that doesnt count, because... They have a US approved stamp on the bombs I guess. Heck, the homemade rockets can't even compare to the actual military grade explosive that Palestinian civilians had to deal with for decades.

The Palestinian government has even tried to stop it, and they can't.


And if you read a real report, you will realize that the main issue that the Palestinian government has with its own power is that its curbed by several restrictions by the Israeli army that makes any form of real political actions by the Palestinian authority futile.

Israel got it easy. It makes its rival impotent, and then use this impotence as the justification for its actions... Brilliant...

As for the Israeli's, theres quite a difference. In any urban warfare environment there is collateral consequences. And I'm not even denying the Israeli's seem to be the ones who care the least. But I will no more say that killing civilians is a norm for the Israeli army than I will say that is for coalition forces in Iraq/Afghanistan.


Except when they use illegal weaponry and when their leaders admit openly that they want to goad the Palestinians into conflict...

The problem is the question you're asking and conclusion you're getting. You asked to be realistic, not to be optimal. Realistically speaking the Israelis have the power to pacify Palestine.


No. not. non. neine. niet.

Its like saying that the best way to end racial problem is to commit a genocide. The fact that they have this power is irrelevant and your maintaining that argument is simply ridiculous.


Or Iran, on this I think we can all agree. But I'm not sure non-interference would have produced any better of a result.


Well, the OLP became the Fatah which is the main group supporting peaceful resolutions. Even Arafat was willing to give the totality of Jerusalem for peace (with the exception of Al Quom, a borough that is outside the actual city).


You refuse to look at any real reports on the issue of the negotiations, discard any illegal and immoral israeli act as being out of the norm and doing the exact opposite with the Palestinians. You are unfair.
If they can abolish fanaticism, let us pray for the advent of the sceptics.

Raymond Aron
The Opium of the Intellectuals
User avatar
Antiochus
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 2573
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 5:29 pm
Location: Sherbrooke

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved