General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[bit_pattern]

There are plenty of people saying that Israel should never have been founded, or that it doesn't have the right to exist -- and plenty of these people post on these forums.

Then take that up with the people who actually make those arguments, don't use it as a broad brush to tar anyone who dares to contradict the official IDF narrative.

<ETA: Snark removed, post continues >

Don't get me wrong, I'm guilty of the same thing, I made assumptions about a person in this thread earlier but realised today that I'd completely stereotyped him without looking at what he was saying to other people in posts I hadn't seen at the time. I just think people on this thread are to quick to slip into the grooves of old arguments. Doesn't bode well for the overall tone of the discussions, bodes even more poorly for any misguided notions that the different tribes in this thread can sway one another with the force of their argument, much less the actual combatants.

 

[JihadJane]

'Obama Has An Epiphany On Killing People'

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Then take that up with the people who actually make those arguments, don't use it as a broad brush to tar anyone who dares to contradict the official IDF narrative.

Don't take my reply for more than it was, I confess I took the quote I replied to out of context.

 

[JihadJane]

So sad to see people in this thread supporting the Hamas terrorists and the murders they commit. I wonder how they sleep at night.

Same way people who support Israeli terrorism and murder sleep at night, I guess.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

 

[JihadJane]

But they're just defending their country!!!!

There are plenty of people saying that Israel should never have been founded, or that it doesn't have the right to exist -- and plenty of these people post on these forums.

Name six of "these people".

 

[funk de fino]

Take note - PCHR are now an approved news source for Virus.

This could get interesting.

 

[Virus]

Wars end when one side faces a credible threat of being annihilated and has to surrender, or both sides just get sick of fighting. The problem with wars today is rather than letting them run their course until one side is decisively crushed and has to surrender, we break up the fight, impose a "ceasefire", feed, house and clothe refugees and pour money into reconstructing the damage. The effect of this is to completely shield the participants of war from the true consequences of their decision, and return the situation to the status-quo ante without resolving the cause of the war in the first place.

All this does is subsidize and prolong conflict. After resetting the situation belligerents can re-arm and lick their wounds. The intention is to reduce civilian casualties but what it does is reduce them in the short term in order to prolong them for the long term.

People don't start wars over "grievances" or "offenses" or "misunderstandings". They start them either to defend their interests or because they calculate they can benefit from it. This doesn't have to be a material benefit. It's often honor or prestige that can lend support and short-term stability to an undemocratic, dictatorial government.

So we're looking at everything the wrong way. Forget about "solutions" for the time being. Two-state, three-state, one-state they're all pipe-dreams anyway. The terrorists provoke Israel in the hope of getting a short-term conflict that they know will be broken up after a few weeks. They know public pressure will force a "ceasefire" which they will use to re-arm. They can then boast about how they're the tough guys, "more Islamic than thou" sticking it to the Zio-Imperialists and killing the Jews. Then the cycle will continue when they see their next opportunity.

Instead of trying to stop the war, we should let it run to its conclusion: a decisive, crushing defeat of Hamas that forces them to surrender to save their worthless asses. War actually leads to peace. If the terrorists are utterly crushed, then they're not going to start wars again. They're not going to have the manpower for it. They won't have the funds. The weapons. The logistics network. More importantly their calculation of war will be realigned to reality. People would be less likely to go to war if they knew a crushing, humiliating defeat was waiting for them. This is what war used to be before well-intentioned but misguided notions changed it.

See Edward Luttwak's (awesome dude) essay Give War a Chance.

 

[bit_pattern]

Wars end when one side faces a credible threat of being annihilated and has to surrender, or both sides just get sick of fighting. The problem with wars today is rather than letting them run their course until one side is decisively crushed and has to surrender, we break up the fight, impose a "ceasefire", feed, house and clothe refugees and pour money into reconstructing the damage. The effect of this is to completely shield the participants of war from the true consequences of their decision, and return the situation to the status-quo ante without resolving the cause of the war in the first place.

All this does is subsidize and prolong conflict. After resetting the situation belligerents can re-arm and lick their wounds. The intention is to reduce civilian casualties but what it does is reduce them in the short term in order to prolong them for the long term.

People don't start wars over "grievances" or "offenses" or "misunderstandings". They start them either to defend their interests or because they calculate they can benefit from it. This doesn't have to be a material benefit. It's often honor or prestige that can lend support and short-term stability to an undemocratic, dictatorial government.

So we're looking at everything the wrong way. Forget about "solutions" for the time being. Two-state, three-state, one-state they're all pipe-dreams anyway. The terrorists provoke Israel in the hope of getting a short-term conflict that they know will be broken up after a few weeks. They know public pressure will force a "ceasefire" which they will use to re-arm. They can then boast about how they're the tough guys, "more Islamic than thou" sticking it to the Zio-Imperialists and killing the Jews. Then the cycle will continue when they see their next opportunity.

Instead of trying to stop the war, we should let it run to its conclusion: a decisive, crushing defeat of Hamas that forces them to surrender to save their worthless asses. War actually leads to peace. If the terrorists are utterly crushed, then they're not going to start wars again. They're not going to have the manpower for it. They won't have the funds. The weapons. The logistics network. More importantly their calculation of war will be realigned to reality. People would be less likely to go to war if they knew a crushing, humiliating defeat was waiting for them. This is what war used to be before well-intentioned but misguided notions changed it.

See Edward Luttwak's (awesome dude) essay Give War a Chance.

Where's that laughing dog emoticon when you need him

 

[Virus]

Where's the guy who paraded around a kid killed by Hamas and blamed it on the Jews? Oh, that was you.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Take note - PCHR are now an approved news source for Virus.

Yeah I saw that too.

 

[JihadJane]

Where's that laughing dog emoticon when you need him

Humiliation (shame) is one of the major causes of violence, war and terrorism.

 

[angrysoba]

Hamas killed him.

It's Pallywood man. Par for the course. They do it because the dupes always sucker for it.

Virus's Vicsims theory.

 

[JihadJane]

There is Palestinian resistance in Gaza because the 1.5 million people, mainly refugees, who live in Gaza have been under siege for more than five years, totally blockaded in what David Cameron called a “huge prison camp”, to punish the people there for how they voted in a free election. For Hamas.

The people are refugees because their country, Palestine, has been wiped off the map. Thirteen million Palestinians now live under siege, or illegal occupation, in illegally annexed territory, as third class “citizens” in what they call Israel, or in their millions as refugees and exiles outside of their country. The vast majority have no passports, papers, status, rights, or hope. What they do have are the titles to the houses and lands from which their families were driven by “Israelis. And they have their eternal legal and moral right to return to their homes.

The Palestinians could have resigned themselves to the destruction of their society by “superior” western, European, settlers more than sixty years ago. They could have quietly entered the museum of “Ex” nations. We could today be visiting that museum, viewing their garments in the glass cases, lamenting their lost culture.

But they refused to go quietly into that good night. They still exist because they resist. They will not be quiet. They will not surrender. Even if abandoned by the rotten rancid corrupt cowards who rule virtually every Arab regime. Even if abandoned by the so-called “Jihadists” who are too busy murdering other Arabs and Muslims to notice the Palestinian blood and tears running in rivers right by them. Even if every last western journalist, feasting upon their suffering turns their face away. As long as 100 Palestinians remain alive they will never surrender their rights.

Friends of “Israel”; know this. As long as there is no justice there will be no peace. As long as there is no peace in the middle-east there will be no peace in the world. You have been warned.

George Galloway MP

 

[John Mekki]

George Galloway MP

Mm..

Does this justify the claim of Hamas who wants the removal of the State of Israel?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

I see some news commentators conflating the Israeli policy of targeting the houses of militants' families with the collateral damage that might be caused by Israeli bombs missing rocket launch sites and hitting houses instead. The deliberate targeting of the houses of people associated with militants has nothing to do with any Hamas rocket positions.

Also, does everyone agree that this incident more or less precipitated the recent cycle of rockets and airstrikes?

November 8:
Israeli forces cross into Gaza, exchange fire with Gazan fighters, and a kid is killed. There is also an explosion in a tunnel that injures an Israeli soldier (in Gaza?)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/08/palestinians-israel-violence-idAFL5E8M8AWS20121108

From the cited link, this followed a two-week pause in violence.

 

[angrysoba]

Wars end when one side faces a credible threat of being annihilated and has to surrender, or both sides just get sick of fighting. The problem with wars today is rather than letting them run their course until one side is decisively crushed and has to surrender, we break up the fight, impose a "ceasefire", feed, house and clothe refugees and pour money into reconstructing the damage. The effect of this is to completely shield the participants of war from the true consequences of their decision, and return the situation to the status-quo ante without resolving the cause of the war in the first place.

All this does is subsidize and prolong conflict. After resetting the situation belligerents can re-arm and lick their wounds. The intention is to reduce civilian casualties but what it does is reduce them in the short term in order to prolong them for the long term.

People don't start wars over "grievances" or "offenses" or "misunderstandings". They start them either to defend their interests or because they calculate they can benefit from it. This doesn't have to be a material benefit. It's often honor or prestige that can lend support and short-term stability to an undemocratic, dictatorial government.

So we're looking at everything the wrong way. Forget about "solutions" for the time being. Two-state, three-state, one-state they're all pipe-dreams anyway. The terrorists provoke Israel in the hope of getting a short-term conflict that they know will be broken up after a few weeks. They know public pressure will force a "ceasefire" which they will use to re-arm. They can then boast about how they're the tough guys, "more Islamic than thou" sticking it to the Zio-Imperialists and killing the Jews. Then the cycle will continue when they see their next opportunity.

Instead of trying to stop the war, we should let it run to its conclusion: a decisive, crushing defeat of Hamas that forces them to surrender to save their worthless asses. War actually leads to peace. If the terrorists are utterly crushed, then they're not going to start wars again. They're not going to have the manpower for it. They won't have the funds. The weapons. The logistics network. More importantly their calculation of war will be realigned to reality. People would be less likely to go to war if they knew a crushing, humiliating defeat was waiting for them. This is what war used to be before well-intentioned but misguided notions changed it.

See Edward Luttwak's (awesome dude) essay Give War a Chance.

If I were you, I'd stick to the one-liners.

 

[Toontown]

If I were you, I'd stick to the one-liners.

What's your problem? Do you want Virus to shut up? Don't you want a decisive, crushing defeat of Hamas? Are you afraid the conflict will finally end?

 

[WildCat]

I do not see any evidence about your “private mail”

I thought you were an expert on this matter? You realize it was only in this "private mail" that Arafat promised that the PLO would finally amend their Covenant and recognize Israel? Guess what? They never did.

but I think the above public declaration that I linked and issued about 20 years ago has never accepted by Israel, AFAIK, why?

It wasn't public, it was only in the private letter from Arafat to Rabin. Arafat never followed through, the Covenant was never amended.

Why should Israel not accept a Palestinian state and to recognize them under the 67 borders?

Because the 1967 borders didn't prevent the Arabs from launching a war to destroy Israel in 1967, what has changed since? Especially since there's no documents or other evidence on the Palestinian side that they have given up their demands for all of Israel.

And, again, why is Israel building settlements in the West Bank and how this would be improving the peace process?
And, again, why is not Israel accepting the existence of a Palestinian state?

Isael offered land swaps as compensation for the settlements (most of which would revert to PA control) and the Palestinians rejected it without even offering a counterproposal. And of course, Hamas which represents Palestinians in Gaza have never accepted anything less than the destruction of Israel and death of the Jews as their conditions for peace. Peace, of course, defined as "no more Jews".

 

[WildCat]

Since I didn't say that, I'll just ignore your accusation.

Someone hack your acccount?

 

[Toontown]

Hamas killed him.

It's Pallywood man. Par for the course. They do it because the dupes always sucker for it.

There is a victim born every minute. Half of them end up posting in this thread, some brandishing dead babies. Without knowing who killed the dead babies.