Israel and Palestine

Well, we never had any Palestinians in the first place. Come to think of it, I never see any Palestinanis speak for themselves in digital media. It's always third-party accounts...

Then again, when, back in The '70s, Palestinian representatives went throughout Europe's Leftist circles preaching their side of the story, they reputedly all found themselves very swiftly having unfortunate accidents.

What I'm saying is, I'm not sure local Arabs are free to mouth off on the Interwebs without worrying about surveillance and repressive retaliation.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

True, but stuff likethis,this ,this,this and this,along,with,things,like,this add,weight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoy_Hotel_Attack to]] it

Edit

Edit But what about those in other countries?

edited 28th Nov '14 7:32:01 AM by JackOLantern1337

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.

I've met a fair few Palestinian posters on other forums. Their Internet access tends to be somewhat irregular for obvious reasons, though.

He was characterising all Palestinians as bloodthirsty terrorists and implying that they weren't oppressed, one page after defending the collective punishment of innocent civilians to make a point and arguing that law-enforcement shouldn't follow the law because criminals don't. Try harder.

Also, hotel bombings aren't really something you want to look too deeply into the history of in the region. Unless you're trying to argue that both sides have been bloodthirsty terrorists, which I don't believe Superdark was.

edited 28th Nov '14 7:40:55 AM by Iaculus

What's precedent ever done for us?

First I was arguing about evidence for a perception, not an actual moral debate. Furthermore Superdark said "My country and people became a cartoon to you while bloodthirsy terrorists became agitated oppressed poor people. Have a good life, im not coming back here." Where does he say all Palestinians are terrorists? You are just assuming that based on the belief that all Israelis are Islamaphobic racists. And furthermore if we are going into strawmaning others points based on our own prior assumptions I remember you saying a few pages back that those who died in the Synagog attack deserved what they got because the Palestinians were being "oppressed." And somehow that made waltzing into a Synagog and shooting people justified. Furthermore, you claimed that Palestinians had a right to hate all Jews because of the actions of the Israeli government, yet you seem to not want to extend the same right to Superdark even after his community was under rocket attack.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.

Those few I met IRL tended not to be very vocal.

It was awkward. I mean, what can one say to "I'm Palestinian"? "I'm so sorry to hear that"? "Stay strong"? "At least you made it out of there"? There's nothing one can say without sounding like an asshole...

edited 28th Nov '14 7:57:12 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

No, I think the phrasing could be fairly interpreted to imply that. But I'll agree with you that Iaculus was very much not cool when dealing with the Synagogue killings. That made me very uncomfortable, all the more so because I usually find Iaculus to be a respectable source.

No, scratch it, that wasn't 'not cool', that was wrong.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Generally, when you're saying that 'agitated oppressed poor people' are actually 'bloodthirsty terrorists', you're implying that they're not oppressed and/or poor. This is really difficult to argue regarding Palestinians. And since he was saying that Israel's getting an unfair rep whilst 'bloodthirsty terrorists' are getting off lightly, that suggests there is an actual moral difference and that Israeli actions are not and have never been equivalent to those of said terrorists. Which is, again, hard to argue. Try comparing and contrasting what Netanyahu has to say about the Irgun and Hamas for some really uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

And I may be misremembering, so quote me if I'm mistaken here, but my stance on the Jerusalem attacks was chiefly that being oppressed makes people do crazy shit. And honestly, I would place the worse excesses of Hamas and the Irgun on pretty much the same moral level - my biggest gripe is that the present Israeli leadership condemn one while lionising the other. This does not, obviously, apply to national law enforcement, who are held to a higher standard than some average schlub on the street and seldom qualify as an oppressed class (unless/until the poor bastards retire with PTSD if national law enforcement is sufficiently militarised - I think it's an uncontroversial statement that most countries need more healthcare provision for that). The only victims who I had less sympathy for were the far-right ultra-Orthodox Jews who were using Temple Mount prayers to lobby for the demolition of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, because let's be honest, if you run a fundraiser for the destruction of one of a religion's holiest sites, it should be taken as a given that you're playing with fire.

edited 28th Nov '14 8:20:07 AM by Iaculus

What's precedent ever done for us?

So terrorists should get a free pass if they're poor?

The thing with you, Iaculus, it's not what you say — it's what you don't.

Keep Rolling On

'Free pass' is an overstatement - it's more that extreme violence tends to be caused by economic factors. You're way less likely to want to blow yourself up, or start stabbing people until the cops gun you down, if you have a secure and stable life and career, and when that starts becoming an actual lifestyle choice for a significant part of the population, it's a good sign that there's some deep-rooted problems with your society. You can arrest and punish terrorists, sure, but it's worth remembering that the only lasting solution to your problems and the only way to stop those jailed terorists' replacements from showing up is to enfranchise the disenfranchised in your society so that they feel they have a way out that doesn't involve murdering a shitload of people. And surprise, surprise, that's how most countries that have managed to end long-running terrorist campaigns have done so.

This does not, of course, mean that you should commit to a campaign against the Global Zionist Conspiracy, drive the Protestants into the sea, or kill whitey in specially-built extermination camps, but people tend to be less interested in such extreme solutions when the going's good and life is comfortable.

edited 28th Nov '14 8:32:41 AM by Iaculus

What's precedent ever done for us?

There is no excuse for deliberately targeting innocent people. No matter how "oppressed" you are. Besides, most of thr oppression comes from or as a result of hamas's actions

He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also

For the first bit, that's why you arrest 'em if you can and shoot 'em if you can't, but you'd better remember that from a purely practical perspective, the more oppressed the class they're part of is, the more will be following their example and the less effective conventional legal solutions will be, making sorting out that oppression the only viable long-term way to stop the violence. Depriving people of their homes and livelihoods doesn't work so well when they're already short of homes and livelihoods - it just reminds them of who's at fault. Poverty isn't an ennobling force, it just makes you more vicious and desperate. There's a reason fascists thrive in an economic recession.

On the second bit, I advise you read up more on the history of the region. Collective punishment and settlement expansion in particular have very little to do with Palestinian militant groups' actions, and the latter primarily occurs in the more peaceful and less hostile (very relatively speaking) West Bank, which is very much not run by Hamas.

edited 28th Nov '14 8:54:30 AM by Iaculus

What's precedent ever done for us?

So what would you suggest Israel do? They already have up quite a bit of land, leaving quite a few "settlers" homeless. A Muslim can, for the most part walk safely through anywhere in Israel, can you say the same about a Jew in the Arab territories?

If you ask me, Hamas is a cancer that needs to be eradicated. For both sides sakes.

He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also

Well, there's two options. One is the two-state solution, returning to the 1967 borders, pulling out their settlers, and allowing Palestine national sovereignty. This would be highly inconvenient due to the number they've poured into the West Bank, but hey, that's what happens when you gleefully ignore Geneva IV and pour civilians into a territory under military occupation. The other option is the one-state solution, where they grant Palestinians equal rights. This means that the setters can stay where they are, but also that they can no longer exclude Palestinians from living in the good bits of Israel, and that they have to kiss their identity as a Jewish state goodbye.

And no, Palestinians certainly aren't free to travel safely across Israel. The Gaza Strip's borders are closed, and West Bank work permits are an absolute bitch to get. Palestinian territories, meanwhile, are bad places for a Jew to visit for the exact same reasons as South African bantustans were no-go areas for white people.

And as astonishing as it may be, Hamas isn't the worst Palestinian paramilitary organisation. They have a much better rep for looking out for their citizens' interests than the hopelessly corrupt Fatah, and while they've certainly been responsible for their fair share of nasty stuff, they're actually kind of moderate compared to Islamic Jihad and the new kids on the block, ISIS. There aren't many better options for Israel to negotiate with, either because they've killed all their competent and relatively clean and respected members (Fatah), or because the guys are outright psychotic (IJ, ISIS). This is where refusing to negotiate with terrorists can get you - they get replaced with even angrier and more battle-hardened terrorists.

edited 28th Nov '14 9:15:21 AM by Iaculus

What's precedent ever done for us?

"What would you suggest Israel do?"

Really? Always the same question?

Well, here's a suggestion for a good start.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Thank you for reminding me why I prefer to avoid this thread. It's so good to know antisemism is alive and well. Try getting your information from somewhere besides al jazeera

He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also

If what you get out of all this is 'antisemitism', you are indeed doing well in avoiding this thread, and we will thank you for continuing to do so.

To begin with, the most cited news source here is Haaretz. We pretty much never cite Al Jazeera, or any Arab media, because we deem them too likely to be biased.

edited 28th Nov '14 9:17:47 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Most of the sources I've been citing in this thread have been from The Times of Israel and Haaretz, with a bit of Ynet and the Jerusalem Post. You know, Israeli Jewish publications.

What's precedent ever done for us?

Apart from a couple of posts I saw here (and those posts are open to interpretation), there's no anti-semitism. In fact, this is one of the saner threads on this topic I've seen on the Internet, if not the most sane.

edited 28th Nov '14 9:20:01 AM by Quag15

Saying that because we condemn Israel's atrocities we're anti semites is some real bullshit. I have family in Tel Aviv right now.

edited 28th Nov '14 9:21:01 AM by LeGarcon

Oh really when?

Opposing Israeli actions is not the same as anti-semitism. There is I am sure some really powerful fallacy and/or rhetorical tool at work in that statement.

<opens mouth to say something, then does a double-take and checks Wikipedia article first>

... I am astounded that Israel's oldest newspaper is also one that is, to quote Wikipedia, "editorially supportive of groups of Israelis who are exploited or discriminated against, such as sex workers, foreign workers, Israeli Arabs, and Ethiopian immigrants." And it's "vehemently anti-settlement", as well as voices "opposition to the occupation, the discriminatory treatment of Arab citizens, and the mindset that led to the Second Lebanon War"?

How does all that mesh with the the subsequent statement that its reporting of the conflict is "more favorable to Israelis than to Palestinians", though?

If by "biased" you mean "offers a much more comprehensive and detailed insight into the plight of Palestinians than most other media outlets, in an as-objective-as-one-can-do-while-being-humane way", then yes, you may deem Aljazeera's documentaries as "biased".

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Haaretz simply acknowledges that Israel has engaged in a certain degree of horrible shit. Since the horrible shit is not exclusively committed by one side of the conflict, this still allows it to create a narrative that's broadly supportive of Israel while deploring some of the details. 'Lesser of two evils' as opposed to much of the rest of the Israeli press's Black-and-White Morality framing, if you will.

They do seem to have got a bit angrier about the direction the country's going in recently, though.

edited 28th Nov '14 11:15:07 AM by Iaculus

What's precedent ever done for us?

Well considering some of the things certain Arab Nations teach in their schools it's a bit understandable why it would be hard to trust their sources. Al Jazira, ironically, is one of the more reliable ones,unless it is talking about anything having to do with the interests of the government of Qatar of course.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.

Yeah: they're slowly shifting editorially in response to what they see as horrible governance to try offsetting some of the worst offenders. They'll never be left-wing social liberals, but they're decidedly more-left-of-centre than they were. "Conservative with a conscience... and dusting off the soap box" might actually describe them quite well.

I'd worry about what is increasingly being taught in Israeli schools about Arabs, too. Some of the articles I've read sound horribly like the kinds of stuff I got as a kid. In the Apartheid state-school system.

Very reminiscent.

I don't think that's a mistake: the way some of the timetables are being scheduled look like the closeness with South Africa of the past left a few ideas knocking around. People don't like to talk about it, but South Africa and Israel have had some very close bonds since Israel was formed. Ideas of all kinds got swapped. Not just milspec stuff. Or hydroponics.

edited 28th Nov '14 1:13:30 PM by Euodiachloris

True, but then again the vilification of Jews in the education system of various Arab states has been going on for far longer,allowing their populations to get more and more brainwashed. And if a sight like Haretz existed in one of those countries, it's editors probably would have been killed by an angry mob a long time ago. All that said, you actually lived through Apartheid,therefore I will take your word on it.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.