Yes, maybe the wording was poor. I know who should pay, but who will in reality do it. (If anyone will)
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Breaking: Israel launches Operation Protective Edge against Hamas in Gaza
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
Yes, maybe the wording was poor. I know who should pay, but who will in reality do it. (If anyone will)
Cheesecakebobby
Banned
I'm sure Iran will step in to help deal with the tremendous damage done to Hamas's infrastructure.
The civilians will just have to hope that some of the aid given by Israel and the international community, which constitutes the most aid given to any group ever, will actually reach them.
The civilians will just have to hope that some of the aid given by Israel and the international community, which constitutes the most aid given to any group ever, will actually reach them.
Given that almost the entire political world is in bed with Israel, i'm gonna go with Palestine. Assuming they get to keep the land.
Are you saying that Israel's aid to the palestinian territories is the most aid given to any group? You couldn't be saying that the international community's aid to Palestine has been the most to any group ever, because I know that's 100% false.
Maybe the United States could divert the ridiculous aid we give to Israel to Gaza instead..........
A Black Falcon
Member
This is a good article! It has some issues, which I will address below, but as I've said before, I do think that antisemitism is behind some of the opposition to Israel and what Israel does. Antisemitism is a powerful force which has been around for thousands of years, and while it has declined in some places since World War II's end, unfortunately some still believe such things.
But before I get to today, I should establish that antisemitism was one of the main reasons why the Arabs wanted to destroy Israel in the first place. When declaring war on Israel in 1948 at the moment of its creation, the Arab League's secretary said "I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades". Antisemitism was the primary reason why the Arabs wanted to destroy Israel. Fortunately they failed and their would-be genocide didn't happen. Today Jordan and Egypt have made peace with Israel, and the Palestinian Authority, while clearly pushing antisemitic education (West Bank students don't usually learn about the Holocaust, as I've pointed out before) is not militant about it like they used to be, but Hamas still flies that flag of genocidal hate. And just as important, while Arab governments have abandoned Hamas and are notably silent about this war (more on this below), Arab citizens clearly still hate Israel, and of course the original reason for that was antisemitism.
In addition to that quote above, another thing to show the antisemitic origins of anti-Israeli opinion in the Middle East is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-N...Ties_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II The Muslim Arab leader of Palestine was a friend of the Nazis, knew about the Holocaust while it was happening, and agreed that something had to be done about the "Jewish problem"; supposedly all he wanted in Palestine was to evict all Jews from the territory and not kill them all, but he liked that the Nazis were solving the problem their way too: "It is the duty of Muhammadans in general and Arabs in particular to … drive all Jews from Arab and Muhammadan countries….Germany is also struggling against the common foe who oppressed Arabs and Muhammadans in their different countries. It has very clearly recognized the Jews for what they are and resolved to find a definitive solution [endgültige Lösung] for the Jewish danger that will eliminate the scourge that Jews represent in the world. …" (1943)
That is the kind of statement that led to the 1948 war, and that 1948 war led to 25 years of warfare between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, before they finally gave up and the Egypt-Israel peace treaty of 1978 was signed. Peace with Jordan soon followed. But again, as I said above, while the Arab governments have changed, their people have changed less. On that note, here's a pretty good article from yesterday's NY Times about how the Arab governments are refusing to support Hamas, as I said earlier. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/w...ab-nations-amid-offensive.html?ref=middleeast This is an interesting article, I recommend reading it. It makes the point that while the Arab street is angry about what Israel is doing, Arab governments are much more worried about their own Islamic insurgencies they are fighting, in Iraq, in Syria, in Egypt, in Libya, etc., so they have no interest in telling Israel to stop when they too oppose groups like Hamas. The article points out that this is the first such war where not one Arab country has stated its opposition to the war, and that Egypt has blamed Hamas (not Israel) for some Palestinian civilian casualties, since Hamas refused the peace deal Egypt worked out.
Getting back to the article in specific, I do have some criticisms of it. Of course there are other reasons than antisemitism why people are angry at what Israel does to the Palestinians, such as general oppostion to any Western wars -- there are many who do oppose the various other wars and military strikes the article mentions. However, the point in that article in the quote, asking why people are so angry about Israel but do not react with as much rage to the wars America or European nations wage, is a good one worth consideration. I don't know for sure of course, but yes, I would think that antisemitism is a likely contributing factor, and the article makes a case to that effect. For my criticisms of the article though, I would say that the author probably does understate the amount of opposition to things such as drone strikes and foreign wars in the West, and does not differentiate enough between America and Europe. Many American liberals, such as myself, greatly dislike the drone-strike campaign and opposed the Iraq War. We're not out there demonstrating in the streets, but that doesn't mean that the opposition is not real, or that it is not a significant thing in public discourse! It is. Also the scale of the protest mentioned in the article that was in the US was pretty small, I believe. It's also notable that the one link in the article to an American news source with an article which challenges Israel, the 'Rein in Israel' quote, is from Democracy Now, a far-left news organization on public access cable channels, the internet, and such with a history of challenging Israel perhaps because it tries to counter prevailing American political opinion; this is one reason I rarely watch Democracy Now despite often agreeing with them many other times, their stance against Israel is horrible. But regardless most Americans have probably never even heard of Democracy Now or its anchor Amy Goodman, they're a quite niche organization.
In Europe, though, the situation is different, and I think the article is more valid for the situation there than it is for the US. It's the protests in England and France that were large, and it's Europe which has a much bigger disparity between their reaction to this versus their reactions to those other war actions mentioned in the article, perhaps. The mentioned boycotting of Israeli goods is also a VERY obscure thing in the US, something you never hear about in a domestic context, only as something done in other countries which are less friendly to Israel. I do not think that it's like that at all in Europe. Are these things because of antisemitism, or is it something else? I'd need to go looking for more sources to say for sure, but the question is something you see debated, I know that. And with evidence like that in the last section of the article, of the kinds of things said in Europe, I think it's a good debate to have.
Not "I think that's wrong, stop it", but "don't say that, it'll get you banned"? Really?
"They're just antisemites" is a fantastic thought-stopping expression. You never have to deal with troubling facts or messy battles of grey morality where neither side is really that great. Nope, just brush everything aside and claim that their true motive is just to get you, by whatever means possible. Anything they say is obviously false. Anything they do is obviously wrong. Cults use this psychology all the time to insulate themselves from criticism.
"Isreal has a right to defend itself" is almost as good, as while true in principle it ignores obvious follow-up questions like "defend itself from what?" or "is this the best way to carrry out a defense?" You don't see that, though, because the brain is turned off.
"Isreal has a right to defend itself" is almost as good, as while true in principle it ignores obvious follow-up questions like "defend itself from what?" or "is this the best way to carrry out a defense?" You don't see that, though, because the brain is turned off.
Wait so the only reason the Palestinians and or Arabs had any opposition to the creation of Israel was because of hatred of Jewish people? It had nothing to do with the taking of land and creating a country for people who werent all even in that region?
You mean to tell me had any other group besides the Jewish been granted that same land, the Arabs wouldn't have cared?
Wown you learn something new everyday. Here I thought the issue was complex, but it's a simple black and white issue. Antisemitic Arabs and Israel's right to defend. Very simple.
You mean to tell me had any other group besides the Jewish been granted that same land, the Arabs wouldn't have cared?
Wown you learn something new everyday. Here I thought the issue was complex, but it's a simple black and white issue. Antisemitic Arabs and Israel's right to defend. Very simple.
A Black Falcon
Member
If it wasn't Jews making the state but other people moving in in large numbers, oh, I do think that they'd have cared. I just don't think that they would have cared as much, and the historical proof of their antisemitism backs that up.
This point is also why earlier in the thread I talked about all the population transfers in Europe after WWII -- how Poland lost its eastern territories but was given eastern Germany, etc, and after the chaos of the transition the people settled down and now are living in their new countries. Why did it eventually turn out okay in Europe, but in Israel it continues to be such a violent problem? I do think that antisemitic hate is one of the explanations why this is.
The real cult is the cult of anti-Israeli hate you see on this forum. Of course Israel has done bad things, but what the other side has done and wants to do is so much worse that who is in the right is very, very clear.
And y'know, the ongoing policies of Israel.
Tu quoque fallacy. Also painting all palestinians as Terrorists unless you are trying to argue that collective punishment (considered illegal by the Fourth Geneva convention) is justified.
Tu quoque fallacy. Also painting all palestinians as Terrorists unless you are trying to argue that collective punishment (considered illegal by the Fourth Geneva convention) is justified.
Terra Firma
Banned
What a complete load of rubbish.
Antisemitism was NOT what drove the Arabs to war with Israel. The fact that a state was being created for a migrant population out of their own lands - that was the reason. If the British created a Hindu state there, the result would have been the same.
Even the response by a Palestinian in the 40s cannot be seen solely through the lens of antisemitism. Even in the Wiki article you've linked to, there is debate about whether this guy was antisemitic, with some conceding that he was nationalistic which then led to his antisemitic vitriol.
The only reason people bring up some relatively unknown figure (in the Islamic world) whenever there is discussion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to cause misdirection. This guy from the 40s was not even an inspiration for Hamas. That has been noted in your Wiki article as well.
To imply that antisemitism was something exclusive to the Arabs or to Germany is ridiculous. Majority of the West was also antisemitic, even during the war. The famous incident of a refugee ship from Germany that was refused entry into various countries comes to mind. A large number of those refugees ended up dying in concentration camps. The West did not come to attack Germany because it was killing Jews. It came because of nationalist reasons: Poland was invaded. If the Nazis had killed all the Jews within Germany, no one would have come to their assistance.
It is ridiculous to try to justify the article which does not even try to give a reason beyond "Because antisemitism" to people reacting more strongly to Gaza than to say the drone strikes. The reason is clear. Gaza is densely populated. People do not have anywhere to escape to. They cannot "get out of the way". They do not have bunkers. They do not have supplies. Let me make it easy for you. The reason why there is a stronger opposition to the attacks in Gaza is because:
THE MAJORITY OF THE CASUALTIES (70 TO 80%) HAVE BEEN CIVILIANS.
Regardless of your stance on America's wars, America does NOT have such a poor record. And this isn't something new. Even in the last war in 2012, the MAJORITY of deaths were civilians. In 2008, the same thing.
ramuh
Member
Probably once Hamas isn't running Gaza... As they are a designated terrorist group. If the Unity Government actually ran Gaza I'm sure there would be more Aid.
So you mean reality has an anti-Israel bias?
"NO U" remarks aren't that cute when you make them so ignorantly.
Necromanti
Member
Sorry, but you are delusional if you think this to be the case. I grew up surrounded by people who fervently hated Jewish people while being an outsider who condemned such blind hatred, and if you think that people who bring up valid criticisms about the Israeli government are anti-Semites for doing so, you're either being willfully disingenuous to direct the argument away from the atrocities committed by the government, or you legitimately believe that they are justified in their actions despite no compelling evidence with which to do so. Why would you expect anyone to take you seriously in that case? I'm as far from pro-Hamas as you can get, but that has no bearing on my opinion of the Israeli government. You are advocating the perpetuation of the denial of human rights.
If those population transfers worked so well in Europe why didn't they transfer the Jewish community within Europe?
Seems like the land now known as Israel and it's inhabitants were punished for thr crimes of the Germans and guilt of the Allied forces.
You mean that post where you talked about population transfer, an extremely destructive process that has caused countless deaths and destruction of property and displacement of people into refugee camps over the 20th century, and that's *explicitly illegal* in the Fourth Geneva Convention, as if it were something routine and vaguely unpleasant? I mean hell, one of the things the Nazis did was population transfer. It's one of the war crimes they were rightly convicted of.
Which of these utopian resettlements you're referring to are still under occupation, the resettled people no longer holding any sort of useful citizenship, and are still denied simple human rights over 60 years later?
There really ought to be more humour in this thread. Reality is already dark and cruel, at least here we should be able to have some fun.
Your lack of black humour disappoints me, GAF.
More on-topic, I strongly oppose the ground entry which I guess will lengthen this joke more.
During the weekend an Israeli citizen was killed by a rocket and four soldiers in the fighting.
Incidentally there have been no rockets to Tel-Aviv though there was still massive bombing of the South. Perhaps they are low on the long range rockets. Maybe we can go back living in our bubble.
Edit: okay apparently there were a couple on Friday but I missed them because I was at my parents' place.
Your lack of black humour disappoints me, GAF.
More on-topic, I strongly oppose the ground entry which I guess will lengthen this joke more.
During the weekend an Israeli citizen was killed by a rocket and four soldiers in the fighting.
Incidentally there have been no rockets to Tel-Aviv though there was still massive bombing of the South. Perhaps they are low on the long range rockets. Maybe we can go back living in our bubble.
Edit: okay apparently there were a couple on Friday but I missed them because I was at my parents' place.
RustyNails
Member
Since you asked nicely I'll give extra effort on why I think this article is wrong in its articulation. First things first, Gaza and West Bank are under occupation. Full stop. The fact that the author failed to disclose this fundamental point in the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first paragraph raised red flag for me. These two territories have been under such occupation since 1967. Under this occupation, their homes and ancestral land is being slowly stolen from under their feet under evictions and settlements, with minimal recourse. All of this is done under the watchful eyes of America and the help with our taxpayer dollars. That automatically gives us Americans the basic right to discuss how we want our hard earned money to be spent by the government, if you want to exclude discussions based on humanitarian reason for any whatabout (Mali) reason. I do not want my money going towards starting an illegal 2003 Iraq war and I do not want it going to human rights blackholes like Saudi Arabia, nor do I want my money going towards occupying a defenseless population for 60 years. I'll cut to the chase here. The author's main argument is basically this: If you are protesting Israel's intervention, you must be an antisemite because you did not protest Mali intervention, Libyan intervention, Iraq and Afghan intervention, or the Balkan intervention. If you must be against one war you must be against all.
The author conveniently fails to mention these tiny details regarding Mali:
And this regarding Libya
These were legal wars. Iraq War in 2003 wasn't. That's why we protested. This war in Israel isn't. That's why we protest it. The Syrian Civil War, as I'm sure everyone understands is a lot more complicated than Mali or Libya. I'm not as ready to throw my weight behind the rebels as I was initially, because the opposition is now completely FUBAR. We do not know who these guys are anymore. The iron was hot during the first few weeks of the war, now it's cold as ice. The last time we supported an opposition we do not know, we ended with Taliban in our hands. So let them eke it out, or I hope the endless discussions in UN and SC will snake their way to a peaceful resolution. There is no point in my protesting outside an embassy for Syria, because I am not sure what I'm protesting.
2nd thing the author fails to point out is neither Mali nor Libya are occupied territories. These are sovereign countries with continuous borders and standing armies. In both Mali and Libya's case, NATO intervened at the behest of host countries' legitimate governments. WB and Gaza are occupied territories. Illegally. This is a military occupier subduing a restive population, not a country going to war with a country.
His next paragraph is same whataboutisms, except the Drone strikes:
I wrote a lengthy piece of drone strikes a while ago. There is healthy criticism and rebuke of Obama and his drone strikes and I share the criticism. But I also understand why America does it.
But Israel IS DIFFERENT. Not because of it's Jewish status, but because none of the countries the author mentions in his entire piece are occupying a land that is not theirs, and stealing it, at the protest of UN and much of the world, for the better half of the past century! And yes. America has the power to rein in Israel.
No clue what the dude is talking about here. Red herring here is lumping Balkan intervention which was legal with Iraq war which was based on lies and deceit, and saying since we did not protest either (Iraq war saw the biggest protests since Vietnam), we must have an agenda. The rest of the article finally makes it's simplified and braindead summary of anti-semitism, with a dose of second hand anecdotal "i saw the nazi flags" stories and actual anti-semitism.
Now, anti-semetism in some of these protests does show up. This is a serious issue and one that must be addressed. But by far these protests are not similar to KKK protests, which the author makes us believe they are. Few hoodlums with swastikas and praising Hitler are not representative of the larger peace rallies. This article in my opinion does more harm than good by making people believe that all the protests against Israel are rooted in anti-semetism, which further muddles the already complicated debate.
Who is the leader of this cult?
Calling us a cult because we question and criticize the actions of an occupying nation that is conducting war crimes.
Do you even know what a cult is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
A Black Falcon
Member
You keep intentionally not talking about the actual point. As I said before, yes, of course in the late '40s the population transfers were horribly violent in Europe. Probably worse than most all the Middle Eastern violence. But NOW, they are over. Germany and Poland and Ukraine are at peace. They have gotten past those difficult times.
If the Ukrainians were still murdering Poles as they did late in WWII, or if Germans were still being killed by the peoples of the lands they were leaving after the war, of course you'd see a very different situation in Europe today. There would be sanctions between nations, militarized borders, etc. But Western and Central Europe CHANGED. They learned to live with each other, mostly. The people of the Middle East haven't changed as much. As I said before there has been change -- the peace between Israel and Jordan and Egypt is very important -- but not nearly as much as there has been in Europe, particularly on a popular level as opposed to governments.
Seriously, the occupation and Gazan wars happen because of continuing attacks against Israel from the Palestinians (and, in '67, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, in one of the later Arab-Israeli wars). The occupation did not start for not reason, it started because of the constant attacks coming from those territories. If Jordan hadn't been so hostile to the existence of Israel back then, the West Bank might still be a part of Jordan, and the same goes for Egypt and Gaza. Unfortunately they were that hostile, and the treaties between Israel and those two nations did not solve the problems of the occupied territories in Israel/Palestine. The US has been trying to get that treaty done ever since, and it still is possible despite all the war and mutual hate.
Uh, Jews started moving to Israel in the early 20th century. It predated the post-WWII era by decades. As for why Israel was chosen, it's because that's what the Jews themselves wanted -- they wanted to return to their ancestral homeland. The British and later the Americans and U.N. were persuaded to go along with the plan.
Thanks to antisemitism I'm sure people (in general, not here in specific) would find something to complain about regardless of how things were going for the Palestinians...
Only the Palestinians who are members of Hamas are terrorists, not all of them. Perhaps also those who directly support Hamas or similar terrorist organizations. Not the rest.
No way. Antisemitism IS a real thing. It's one of the oldest and most pernicious forms of hate. That fact is impossible to deny! No other group has been as hated for as long as the Jews have. Of course the fact that they were Jews made the hate for the new arrivals significantly worse.
Anyone who knew about the Holocaust and approved of solving the "Jewish problem" was an antisemite. Come on.
No, it's to cover something which some like to overlook.
He may not have been in specific, but that antisemitic world-view helped give birth to groups like Hamas.
Also, I see that you only discuss the Husseini part of what I said, and not the other parts, such as that on the statement made before the 1948 war... he may have been one of the most vocal, but he's far from the only source for antisemitic hate from Arabs at that time. I'm sure not all supported such beliefs, but enough did.
This is true, yes. Of course the whole world was quite antisemitic. I've said before that there are real concerns about growing antisemitism in Europe today, but of course the situation there today is infinitely better than it was up until WWII, and in the US it's the same (there was antisemitism here before, but not as much as that which led to the Holocaust in Europe, so the reduction to current very low levels might be less of a shift than that in Europe?). I know that there was even a pogrom in Poland AFTER World War II!
So yes, of course there was antisemitism. But are you honestly saying that belief in antisemitic ideas has decreased as much in the Middle East today as it has in the US or Europe? If you think that... well, prove it. It'd be a very hard case to make, for sure.
Sorry, I just don't think this is the whole answer. A LOT more people have died in drone strikes than in this little war so far -- it's an orders of magnitude difference. And yet the protests about drones, while definitely real as I said -- many liberal Americans definitely greatly dislike our drone program -- don't create large angry crowds like you see in those awful recent anti-Israel protests in Europe.
No, we have a record that's hundreds or thousands of times worse -- look up how many civilians died in the Vietnam War, for starters! Or WWII, but of course there the other side killed even more civilians. I know you're only talking about recent times here, but if you go back a bit, America has a bloody record Israel has never even attempted to match, even during their wars against the Arabs.
Wiki: Both sides:
74,000 military deaths
18,000 civilian deaths
(19451995)[7]
That's it? Those numbers are quite low compared to what America did in Vietnam. And yet, as I said, the huge protests that wracked America were mostly about the American military dead, not the far more numerous dead Vietnamese civilians. We've progressed a lot since then -- in the Afghan War, Taliban casualties are apparently higher than Afghan civilian casualties are, and society has improved a lot as well in not tolerating that kind of thing -- but don't just pass over what America did in the mid 20th century. It's a sometimes necessary (WWII) and sometimes pointless and stupid (Vietnam) but always sad and awful part of our history.
Anyway, as I said above, the majority of the deaths in many modern wars are civilians. Modern weapons ensure that civilians often die, sadly. Again, this only recently started bothering people -- for instance, the fact that a million or more Vietnamese civilians were killed during the Vietnam War wasn't really a factor in the American peace movement in the '60s. The tens of thousands of American military deaths were. Since then we have made progress both in the accuracy of military technology and in social mindsets against civilian casualties, and now civilian deaths are considered much less acceptable than they were in the mid 20th century. This is a great thing, but this overdone focus on "but so many more Palestinians die than Israelis so we hate Israel" is something I find very, very strange. Given the tactics Hamas uses, of course lots of civilians are going to die! Blame Hamas for that, not Israel. The huge power difference between the two sides is a factor as well, of course. But saying that simply because Hamas is currently only powerful enough to kill a few Jews here and there that they should be ignored, or something, is complete nonsense, indefensible on any level.
Also of course, Israel does care about minimizing civilian casualties in Gaza, and do what they can to do so. If they didn't, civilian casualties would be tens of times higher than they are, at minimum. Of course I wish that this war wasn't happening and there weren't civilian casualties, but when faced with a group like Hamas so committed to attacking their state, Israel really was left without any options but to do what it is doing. And as that NY Times article I linked there shows, all of the Arab governments seem to quietly agree to some degree or another, given that none have made statements demanding Israel end this war now, and Egypt has directly criticized Hamas as well.
It's probably a group think thing, that or that this cult has built up with so much circular agreement that most people who don't agree with it probably just avoid all Israel threads because they know what they'll find. This is often what I do too, but not this time.
did you just call me a cult member for criticizing israeli policy?
deathkiller
Member
This is something that I have always wondered about military interventions. Do the family of innocent victims of drone strikes receive the same compensation that Americans would receive if they were accidentally killed by the army? Does this only happens sometimes if the family sues the USA government?
RustyNails
Member
Did you stop and think that maybe majority of internet users, especially on a gaming forum are young anti-war liberal types some of whom can elucidate their views and positions on complex foreign conflicts?
But please, tell us more about this secret cult on neogaf.
Terra Firma
Banned
Way to put words in people's mouths (or in their posts).
Where the hell did I say antisemitism wasn't true? Yes, it exists.
But it wasn't the reason that the Arabs attacked Israel. To say so is being dense. As I said, if the UN created a Hindu nation on the same spot, the result would have been the same. How do you think countries would take it if their people are displaced from their lands and then some foreign group declares the area where they displaced the country's citizens from to be their own land and a new country? It is obvious that no country would want that. To label it antisemitism is not just a complete and utter lie, but also trying to cover any sort of attack against Israel under an "antisemitism" blanket is a disservice to people who actually do face real antisemitism.
And you're also making up completely baseless connections between Husseini and others in the 40s and Hamas. Can you prove any of your baseless accusations? Hamas came 40 years after Israel was placed on the map by the UN. Its goals were completely different from that of even the Arabs that attacked Israel in 1948. The Arabs were not looking for an Islamic government, for instance. Hamas is based on Islamism.
What do you think ANY group would think if another group of people was oppressing them? Why do you think African Americans, especially during times of slavery, referred to white people in a disparaging manner? Were they referring to all white people, even those that they had never met? No, they were referring to a specific subsection which enslaved them in the US, particularly the South. Similarly, when "Jews" are called upon in the Arab world, it is Israel that is meant by the term. If you believe that Israel is a representation of all Jews, you must be daft.
Do you seriously believe Hamas wants to kill all the Jews? Hamas has even stated that when they do get a Palestinian state, they would allow Christians and Jews to live within. Doesn't sound like the Nazi/Neo-Nazi equivalents that you're trying to make them and other Arabs out to be. Hamas has been pushing for the '67 borders for a while now. They have even said that they're willing to recognize Israel.
It's funny that you're bringing up the Vietnam war, which happened decades ago with a completely different arsenal but aren't willing to look at current conflicts. We are talking about CURRENT conflicts. That article that was quoted also mentioned CURRENT conflicts.
We are talking about a modern conflict with current levels of technology and the best you can do is bring up Vietnam? Your desperation is showing.
(even the figure regarding the deaths you showed is ridiculous; what "MILITARY" are you talking about? that time range covers a bunch of wars and skirmishes, where there are bound to be military deaths but it does a poor job of showing us deaths under occupation)
Where the hell did I say antisemitism wasn't true? Yes, it exists.
But it wasn't the reason that the Arabs attacked Israel. To say so is being dense. As I said, if the UN created a Hindu nation on the same spot, the result would have been the same. How do you think countries would take it if their people are displaced from their lands and then some foreign group declares the area where they displaced the country's citizens from to be their own land and a new country? It is obvious that no country would want that. To label it antisemitism is not just a complete and utter lie, but also trying to cover any sort of attack against Israel under an "antisemitism" blanket is a disservice to people who actually do face real antisemitism.
And you're also making up completely baseless connections between Husseini and others in the 40s and Hamas. Can you prove any of your baseless accusations? Hamas came 40 years after Israel was placed on the map by the UN. Its goals were completely different from that of even the Arabs that attacked Israel in 1948. The Arabs were not looking for an Islamic government, for instance. Hamas is based on Islamism.
What do you think ANY group would think if another group of people was oppressing them? Why do you think African Americans, especially during times of slavery, referred to white people in a disparaging manner? Were they referring to all white people, even those that they had never met? No, they were referring to a specific subsection which enslaved them in the US, particularly the South. Similarly, when "Jews" are called upon in the Arab world, it is Israel that is meant by the term. If you believe that Israel is a representation of all Jews, you must be daft.
Do you seriously believe Hamas wants to kill all the Jews? Hamas has even stated that when they do get a Palestinian state, they would allow Christians and Jews to live within. Doesn't sound like the Nazi/Neo-Nazi equivalents that you're trying to make them and other Arabs out to be. Hamas has been pushing for the '67 borders for a while now. They have even said that they're willing to recognize Israel.
It's funny that you're bringing up the Vietnam war, which happened decades ago with a completely different arsenal but aren't willing to look at current conflicts. We are talking about CURRENT conflicts. That article that was quoted also mentioned CURRENT conflicts.
We are talking about a modern conflict with current levels of technology and the best you can do is bring up Vietnam? Your desperation is showing.
(even the figure regarding the deaths you showed is ridiculous; what "MILITARY" are you talking about? that time range covers a bunch of wars and skirmishes, where there are bound to be military deaths but it does a poor job of showing us deaths under occupation)
So you are in agreement of the fact, and saying, that the collective punishment that Israel engages in illegally (as stated by the Fourth Geneva convention) and in your view is justified.
m_shortpants
Member
Yes, everyone who disagrees with him is wrong, and part of the anti-semitic anti-Israeli GAF cult.
/s
Yes and since this cult is antisemitic, you are one too.
On the other hand just as we are all antisemitic, black falcon seems to be clearly racist against Arabs/Muslims. He probably wants nothing more than for all of them to die and be removed so Israel can take all of West Bank and Gaza.
hydragonwarrior
Member
Sometimes I feel the Palestinian people are trapped.
I'm sure a good amount of the sane people there do not trust Hamas but some may not have any choice (note that Hamas likely is intimidating in terms of getting what they want - esp when they have guns and such).
Likewise you have a fairly volatile Israeli army that contains members that have no respect for Palestinians whatsoever (we've seen lots of examples of torture, for instance). They are certainly not helping things by being the aggressors and the accidental killings.
Once peace settles, nothing will have changed except more infrastructure damage and more casualties. It's really a no-win for the sane folk there - except if they leave the country and don't look back.
That's clearly a "win" for Israeli goverment if they drive them out because I doubt they give two shits if that region becomes unstable, because it gives them eventually an excuse to take over the entire territory.
I'm sure a good amount of the sane people there do not trust Hamas but some may not have any choice (note that Hamas likely is intimidating in terms of getting what they want - esp when they have guns and such).
Likewise you have a fairly volatile Israeli army that contains members that have no respect for Palestinians whatsoever (we've seen lots of examples of torture, for instance). They are certainly not helping things by being the aggressors and the accidental killings.
Once peace settles, nothing will have changed except more infrastructure damage and more casualties. It's really a no-win for the sane folk there - except if they leave the country and don't look back.
That's clearly a "win" for Israeli goverment if they drive them out because I doubt they give two shits if that region becomes unstable, because it gives them eventually an excuse to take over the entire territory.
makingmusic476
Member
I think it's hilarious that the "they're just anti-semites" people don't realize what they're doing.
Anti-semites justify their misdeeds against Jews by painting the entire group as inhuman. Justifying Israel's actions against the Arabs because "they're just evil anti-semites" is the same damn thing.
Painting one group as subhuman has been a tactic used to justify oppression and genocide since the beginning of human civilization.
Anti-semites justify their misdeeds against Jews by painting the entire group as inhuman. Justifying Israel's actions against the Arabs because "they're just evil anti-semites" is the same damn thing.
Painting one group as subhuman has been a tactic used to justify oppression and genocide since the beginning of human civilization.
m_shortpants
Member
Massacre in Al Shujaeya just occured. 40 killed, over 150 injured. Journalists reporting on site killed as well. Bombed ambulances, children, and women. Twitter is full of pics. Bodies strewn across the street. Morgues filled with dead.
Ugh, fucking sickening.
Ugh, fucking sickening.
Fucking hell, pff did you see that picture of the little girl being carried into the hospital. Very gruesome.
I'm reading civilians were shelled as they were escaping. This is an outright massacre of people on the streets. If any other country would be doing this there would be a worldwide uproar and world leaders would stumble over each other to condemn the actions. Yet now there is not even any sympathy for the Palestinians.
A Black Falcon
Member
Maybe it's because I'm an American, but I absolutely don't think that that is the whole explanation, no. In the US at least being opposed to Israel is probably only slightly more common on the left than it is on the right, and on both ends it's only the extremes that are like that.
Are you conflating blockades with military actions? Because the two things are entirely different. Israel does what it can to only punish those who are guilty, and not collectively punish everyone, in these wars in Gaza. The relatively few civilian casualties are accidents.
As for blockades, of course the blockade hurts everybody, but still it is targeted at Hamas, and the things restricted all have potential military uses. As you can see from Hamas's financial troubles, the blockade is having success, particularly now that Egypt is unfriendly.
Also, I generally reject the idea that a blockade is an act of war. It isn't; it's an act short of war. I know that Israel went to war once based on a blockade, but in American law, blockades are generally not a cassus belli for war. The British blockade of Europe did admittedly help push the US into the War of 1812, though, so that isn't absolute -- but while it was a push, that was not the only reason; impressment, something that goes beyond just a blockade, was another major one, among others. And before World War I the German submarine warfare in the Atlantic helped pull America in, but subs sinking ships is more violent and deadly than a conventional blockade of the sense I mean. If I think of more standard blockades, such as the American blockade (and no-fly-zone) of Iraq through the '90s for example, that wasn't war. It was an ongoing blockade with the goal of keeping Sadaam from getting nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, and hurting his rearmament in general as well. The blockade was criticized harshly by some, but succeeded at its goal of keeping Iraq from rebuilding its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. But it was not a war, and the wars before and after it (1991 and 2003) were not caused by the blockade.
It sure would be nice if Israel's critics would consider the reality that what they are asking for is to allow one of the world's worst terrorist groups freer reign to attack its enemies, but that clearly isn't going to happen. Sad.
"If it was a Hindu nation it'd be the same"? I'm sorry, but that's just ludicrous... well, unless it was a Hindu nation in Pakistan or Bangladesh of course; then, yes, it would be the same.
The religious hatred between Muslims and Hindus on the Indian Subcontinent has to rival antisemitism in its virulence.Also, once again, there were many population transfers in the 20th century. No other one caused so many problems that have lasted to the current day as the formation of Israel has. That is not a coincidence.
Of course the goals of the groups were different. You're right that the Arabs before, sort of like Arab governments today, weren't interested in Islamic-law government. What is similar is the antisemitic hatred of the concept of a Jewish state. That is what binds those groups together, even if little else does. Claiming that it's all just because they are invaders and not because of religion as well is hopelessly naive and clueless. Antisemitism is one of the oldest biases, after all. The point is that those people and groups are or were frequently antisemitic, and their antisemitism pushes them to hate Israel more than they would if Israel was not a Jewish state.
You really can't see how this conflation of 'Jews' with 'Israel' is essentially antisemitism? Really?
I think that Hamas only claimed to support the '67 borders because they knew that it'd never happen. It makes them look good to people who don't pay any attention to what Hamas actually believes, while having no chance whatsoever of actually happening, because of course unlike a group actually willing to make peace they won't compromise from that position. And yes, if they could, of course Hamas would love to kill all the Jews, or at least a lot of them, all of the ones not willing to live under Hamas' thumb.
What in the world are you talking about? The Arab-Israeli wars have been ongoing ever since 1948, or, perhaps, the 1930s. It is not just a thing that started in the last few years, it is a long-term continuum of war and hatred. This period includes the Vietnam War. Those numbers there are for the casualties in the Arab-Israeli wars, which means no, it doesn't include the Israel-Palestinian conflicts of the past two decades, since those have happened since the ending of the Arab-Israeli wars. But of course, the current conflict is just a running offshoot of the ones before it, as the Palestinians took up violence after the Arab states gave up on defeating Israel on the battlefield.
Deaths in war and deaths which may or may not have been caused by a blockade or occupations are very different things, though... the former are much easier to quantify than the latter, and it's always debatable about how many of that latter group should be counted, etc. I'm sure that there are very different figures presented by each side, for how many Palestinians could be considered to have died because of the insurrections of the last few decades...
No they wouldn't. Only a few hundred civilians dead? If this was an African country where it was happening in, it'd probably not even merit a single mention in the press, much less any kind of worldwide uproar... how much uproar civilian deaths cause depends entirely on who those people were and the circumstances of why it happened. A lot of that is unfortunate -- those African wars should get more attention than they have -- but in the case of Israel, as all of the protests show, they actually they get a quite disproportionate show of anger compared to the amount many other war dead today do.
Relatively few? Are you serious?
65+% of the casualties are innocent civilians. You are just trying to provocate with these kind of remarks.
Piss off, you have the privilege to be the first user to enter my ignore list.
Who the hell are you to diminish the deaths of these people as "only a few". Have some respect for mankind.
A Black Falcon
Member
As I said earlier, I find the arguments about the number of civilians killed as an argument against Israel completely bizarre. What they are is a condemnation of Hamas's inhuman tactics.
Ignore lists are stupid, I've never used one and never will. I believe in free speech.
Also, if you actually read what I said there, you might have noticed that what I actually said was the exact opposite of what you seem to think. Of course every death in war matters, but the press and the media and governments DO consider the number killed and where they died as major factors. You know the saying (or do you?) - lots of dead Africans equals a few dead Europeans equals one dead American and such, as far as the US media cares... sad but true. This is one element of this, and it explains why African wars are so often so unfortunately ignored. Subjectively, people consider different things differently, even if they shouldn't.
The other factor is, you were talking about government, or political, reactions to war. Governments react to war based on several things -- where is this war, what is the scale of the war, how many casualties are there, what interests do we have in the region towards one side or the other, and such. The more of those hit the tripping point, the more a government will care. The problem the people of Gaza have is the NO MAJOR GOVERNMENTS LIKE HAMAS (other than Iran, who is busy right now and not going to do anything at this point), and Hamas rules Gaza. In order to get past that block, you'd need a LOT of civilian dead for little gain, enough to overwhelm governments' hatred of Hamas and force them to condemn Israel's actions in Gaza. So far, while sad, the casualty figures clearly are not as that level, as you can see from the lack of any public statements by any governments saying that Israel should stop right away. Governments are quiet because they see the potential gain of hurting an Islamic terror group as greater than the pain of those casualties. This is the kind of calculus governments are forced to make because of the way politics work. Many governments, including Barack Obama in fact, have expressed concern about the civilian casualties, of course, but they have not said 'Israel must stop now' so that clearly isn't good enough for people like you. When you're dealing with violent terrorists like Hamas though, why would you expect governments to react any differently? Of course any government today looks at Hamas and thinks 'that is the kind of group we never want to have to deal with here!'
If you respect mankind, consider the long-term consequences of a decision, not only the short-term ones. And in the long term, stopping a group like Hamas has great benefits. If Hamas ever gives up on violence or is defeated and dispersed and more moderate governance takes control of Gaza, many more lives will be saved or improved, long-term, than those sadly lost during the fighting. Many, many more.
Will you at least consider the possibility that part of the reason might be because of the character of this particular population transfer, and its 'coincidental' association with an endless military occupation?
None of the other examples you've mentioned are even remotely similar, and it's still bizarre that you think they justify anything considering MILLIONS OF PEOPLE died in forced migrations in the 20th century. Yes, if you beat the people being moved (or the people who's land they're taking) down enough, they get a little more pacifistic. See the people in various Chinese provinces for that. And if you make them citizens (most of your examples, other than the ones where they already were citizens) they tend to calm down too.
When you say what I quoted, you're all but saying the Palestinians deserve this. You seem to think they deserve it because of what Egypt and Jordan did. And because they just can't accept peace. Is this what you believe?
Israel can make real and concrete steps towards Palestinian independence with or without the Palestinians acting as partners. They can start with ending the illegal settlement of occupied territory. But they refuse to make this step, and have for decades now. Even under Oslo they didn't make this step.
Please, give me one good reason why they need the Palestinians to play nice before they end the settlements. Just one.
Perhaps the "only X amount killed" is becoming part of the script. It's not the first time this rather sick attempt to directly legitimise the killing of civilians and thereby devalue their lives down to complete expandability has been used.
Terra Firma
Banned
No point in arguing with "A Black Falcon" because he is just looking to call anything against Israel as antisemitism. Anyone attacking Israel -> he/she/it is antisemitic. Anyone who calls the Arab attacks on Israel upon its inception as antisemitic is just blind. Israel is a country. It is not a race. It is not a religion. It is not an ethnicity. The fact that he is using pro-Israel American majority opinion as some sort of support for his claim that there's an antisemitic cult here on NeoGAF speaks volumes.
A Black Falcon
Member
It happened because of what Egypt and Jordan did, that's what I said. What Egypt and Jordan, surely with input from the Palestinians, did caused the current situation. To the extent that they supported those goals, sure, they deserved to lose, and Israel seizing the territories was an understandable action done to try to reduce war and terrorism, and because they won the war. Do the Palestinians in Gaza "deserve" the blockade? In that many of them supported and support Hamas, and elected Hamas, well, they brought it on themselves. It's awful for all the innocents caught in the conflict of course, though, sure. But the voting public DID vote for Hamas. I am a strong supporter of democracy and elections, but elections have consequences, and when you elect terrorists you have to expect that something bad might happen... it's just fortunate for the people of the West Bank that Hamas did not take over there. Sure, the constant growth of settlements is bad, but it's not nearly as bad as bombs raining down from the sky.
But in either territory, of course the Palestinians suffer; they are poor, while Israelis are rich. Their territories have little. Even in ideal conditions, this wealth disparity alone could cause strife, and it is a concern for the future even if peace was finally made. This will surely be an ongoing issue, and one which surely requires outside help. This help would be much easier to ramp up if there was peace and no terrorism, of course.
Well, again, Israel shut down all settlements in the Sinai and Gaza, and forced all settlers there to return to Israel. In the Sinai this was successful and helped bring peace with Egypt, but in Gaza it was a complete failure, as all it brought was a bit more territory for Hamas to control. The Gaza example has been cited as a reason for why Israel doesn't want to abandon West Bank settlements before a treaty -- they tried it in Gaza, and it got them nowhere. Just abandoning the settlements alone did not bring peace in Gaza, so why would it in the West Bank? I fully support a settlement-expansion freeze, and think that Israel should do that, but actually abandoning the settlements, without a peace treaty? After Gaza, there's no evidence that it would help.
Israel should be doing much more than it is to make a real peace with the PA and the West Bank, though. No question about that. I know the PA doesn't really want to make a separate peace for just the West Bank, and now have their unity government, but if Israel was really pushing for something just for non-Hamas territories (to expand to Gaza once Hamas was no longer a factor), maybe they could get somewhere... Of course I dislike the fact that Israel keeps expanding its settlements, I've said that all along. And yes, I am not exactly a fan of Netanyahu -- he's very conservative, of course, and has never been especially interested in making peace. Maybe someday he'll shift like Ariel Sharon did, but I'm not holding my breath. Maybe we can get a peace anyway during his presidency, but it'll take a lot of effort on the US's part, and we aren't focused on it... and of course the Obama-Netanyahu relationship is not great. This doesn't exactly give America much leverage to try to get Natanyahu to stop expanding settlements again, while his governing coalition is quite definitely in favor of such expansion. Chances for peace would certainly be better if that was not the case.
So far, as some articles have said, Netanyahu has been relatively restrained in this Gaza war, but he's never done much serious to actually encourage the Palestinians to make peace, and yes, that's not good. He should be pushing policies towards the West Bank that encourages cooperation and encourages the people of Gaza to throw off Hamas if possible; this would also make a peace treaty, which does benefit Israel long-term a lot, much more likely.
It wouldn't make one easy, though -- after all, a treaty would require the Palestinians to probably give up on the "right of return" as an actual "you can go to your historical homes in Israel" thing (perhaps financial compensation could be arranged instead, that could work), the 1967 borders (some land swaps would surely give the Palestinians more land than they have now, but they wouldn't get all of it, I am sure...), and getting rid of all settlements (some would be abandoned, but it seems unlikely that the ones on the Israel side of the security wall, at least, would be...). East Jerusalem as their capital is also something of a longshot. So far the Palestinians have never been willing to agree to these things. Israel's list of concessions may seem short -- basically, stop expanding settlements and pull back on settlements to an agreed-on line which they could not violate in the future -- but given how many diehards believe deeply that they must conquer all of the region for Israel, this would be equally hard to accept. And this is why we still don't have peace. There would also need to be greater autonomy for the Palestinians, a real state structure, etc. Agreeing on the details of THAT would surely try both sides; the Palestinians would of course want a real country, while Israel would have a hard time giving up control. You'd need some agreement that gives Palestine a government, while also somehow protecting Israeli security in the event of future violence... tricky balancing there.
I don't understand why one would say "it happened" and then start somewhere in the middle after Israel was officially created, just seems silly to me.
Granted, sure, if everyone was peachy with Israel after it was created nothing would have happened further, that's probably a given but one could also say if Israel was never created that still everything would be peachy. Or we could go somewhere in the middle where Jews continued to emigrate to Palestine anyways and fight a campaign against the government there to create their own state and either win or lose, I guess that'd be a little less peachy.
But anyways, to just up and place all the blame on the Arab world for reacting to Israel the way they did is rather silly because, quite frankly, that's a really convenient place to start the timeline for your point of view. I would go so far as to say that even Arab reactions to Jewish immigration during British rule was not that out of the ordinary or unexpected. Hell we have protestors protesting migrant children coming to the US, imagine what would happen if they were setting up new communities with the aid of a foreign government in this country. Most countries we're citizens of control their immigration, and while all of us claim to like everyone else I can't imagine any of our countries would be a ok with allowing what happened to Palestine in the, what was it 20s(?), to happen to them now.
I don't even think antisemitism matters in this discussion, it's largely irrelevant. So what if the population of the middle east at that time was antisemitic? In a way it's something they shouldn't have had to deal with in the first place. So of course the question will get asked of me, am I antisemitic? Do I not believe that Israel has a right to exist? Well, I'm not antisemitic but I don't believe that Israel has a right to exist. Nor Palestine for that matter. Nor any country on the Earth. There is no God given right for any nation to exist, to hold the lands they do or be populated by the people who call them home. Ultimately I have no ability to decide what's right and wrong regarding ownership outside of my current place in existence where they both currently exist and thus both have as much a right as each other to exist.
I just hate the idea of trying to assign blame to a single party here as if the other's blameless.
So, the concept of "right" being what it is it's hard to say what's right without also taking into account the present, Israel's here now and that's that. It's fine really because despite all the accusations, finger pointing and second guessing of history we really have no way of knowing how things would have turned out had a different path been taken.
Granted, sure, if everyone was peachy with Israel after it was created nothing would have happened further, that's probably a given but one could also say if Israel was never created that still everything would be peachy. Or we could go somewhere in the middle where Jews continued to emigrate to Palestine anyways and fight a campaign against the government there to create their own state and either win or lose, I guess that'd be a little less peachy.
But anyways, to just up and place all the blame on the Arab world for reacting to Israel the way they did is rather silly because, quite frankly, that's a really convenient place to start the timeline for your point of view. I would go so far as to say that even Arab reactions to Jewish immigration during British rule was not that out of the ordinary or unexpected. Hell we have protestors protesting migrant children coming to the US, imagine what would happen if they were setting up new communities with the aid of a foreign government in this country. Most countries we're citizens of control their immigration, and while all of us claim to like everyone else I can't imagine any of our countries would be a ok with allowing what happened to Palestine in the, what was it 20s(?), to happen to them now.
I don't even think antisemitism matters in this discussion, it's largely irrelevant. So what if the population of the middle east at that time was antisemitic? In a way it's something they shouldn't have had to deal with in the first place. So of course the question will get asked of me, am I antisemitic? Do I not believe that Israel has a right to exist? Well, I'm not antisemitic but I don't believe that Israel has a right to exist. Nor Palestine for that matter. Nor any country on the Earth. There is no God given right for any nation to exist, to hold the lands they do or be populated by the people who call them home. Ultimately I have no ability to decide what's right and wrong regarding ownership outside of my current place in existence where they both currently exist and thus both have as much a right as each other to exist.
I just hate the idea of trying to assign blame to a single party here as if the other's blameless.
So, the concept of "right" being what it is it's hard to say what's right without also taking into account the present, Israel's here now and that's that. It's fine really because despite all the accusations, finger pointing and second guessing of history we really have no way of knowing how things would have turned out had a different path been taken.
Come off it. Some people have legitimate criticism of Israel and it has nothing to do with race or religion. Hell, even Israelis today have been protesting against the invasion in Gaza. Are they anti-Semites too?
You are one of the people who seems to be in denial of the merit of the reasonable posts and arguments as to why Israel is in the wrong here, and just to add insult to it you decide to label it as "antisemitism".
My word.
Antisemitism is a real problem in many parts of the world, and it is stupid to devalue the meaning of that term by throwing it around recklessly and inappropriately. It is also insulting to others to accuse them of being such just for their opposition to war crimes.
I had some amusement reading this opinion piece and the comments on the Spectator website:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/07/londons-pro-palestine-rally-was-a-disgusting-anti-semitic-spectacle/
The comments too are hilarious in their volatility.
MrMysterio
Member
*deleted post as I realised it will probably just cause more anger than do anything good*
jakonovski
Member
Why does a cornered animal fight?
They literally have no other choice. They can die quietly or they can go out fighting.
Also, remember, let's say you're a moderate Palestenian and your entire family gets killed by Israel. You're going to blame Israel and then there is someone claiming they can help you fight them. Bam, new Hamas member.
Holy fuck at that article. The industry of unconditional Israel support is damn scary, there is some truly hateful things in that article and all because people are protesting what they see as a slaughter of innocents that happens to be done by Israel.
LOL, it doesn't need to help anything. The settlements are an illegal invasion and reclamation of someone else's land. Israel doesn't have a right to expect some kind of goodie in exchange for ceasing from illegally seizing what is not theirs.
- Status