Israel Thread

[Idaho]

The context of this post is a couple of UK Labour party MPs being suspended for "anti-semitism" which to my mind looks more like clumsily articulated anti-zionism.

Israel is lucky in it's enemies. For every reasoned, compassionate, logical opponent of the occupation and the apartheid state, there are 3 nutters who come out with "jews=lizards and the holocaust never happened" type nonsense... or the more cynical would say that the media give 3 times as much coverage to the loons and breezes over the reasoned opponents.

So opposition to land grabs, removal of citizenship, home demolitions, detention without trial, destruction of infrastructure, separation of communities and families, etc are characterised as anti-semitic.

My question to those who say critical of Israel = anti-semitism; what would non-anti-semitic criticism of Israel look like?

[Fragony]

As fair and justified critism I suppose. The critism isn't always fair and justified though, a lot of it.

[HopAlongBunny]

It would look like an empty glass?

[Strike For The South]

Naz Shah is more a victim of the runaway train that is identity politics, rather than anti-semtisim.

Labour can only blame themselves. There's an assassination piece on the independent right now whcih has all the trappings of vapid leftist journalism, only being employed by a right winger.

[Brenus]

A non anti-semitic criticism of Israel looks like the peace-now Israeli movement criticism. Quite easy.
You don't say Hitler had good reasons, you don't quote the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", or mention any international conspiracy.
You come with the right reason why you are against the actual Israeli's policy.
You treat Israel as a normal state, in confrontation with others for reason you analyse.
You don't pretend to be anti-Zionist in order to hind you are anti-Semitic.

A lot of lefties became anti-Semitic in being pro-Palestinian, the righties being anti-Semitic from birth.

[Greyblades]

Anti semetic, anti zionist, either way they're being extremely idiotic about how they express their criticism.

Poor Corbyn, he must be feeling the same sting Cameron does whenever one of his cabnet comes off as hating the working class.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The context of this post is a couple of UK Labour party MPs being suspended for "anti-semitism" which to my mind looks more like clumsily articulated anti-zionism.

Israel is lucky in it's enemies. For every reasoned, compassionate, logical opponent of the occupation and the apartheid state, there are 3 nutters who come out with "jews=lizards and the holocaust never happened" type nonsense... or the more cynical would say that the media give 3 times as much coverage to the loons and breezes over the reasoned opponents.

So opposition to land grabs, removal of citizenship, home demolitions, detention without trial, destruction of infrastructure, separation of communities and families, etc are characterised as anti-semitic.

My question to those who say critical of Israel = anti-semitism; what would non-anti-semitic criticism of Israel look like?

So is this about Israel or about the problem Labour has with anti-Semitism?

As far as I can tell Naz Shah shared a facebook post which basically said that it would be cheaper, and safer, to ship the entire population of Israel to the US than keep funding Israel. Given that the context of the post was talking about defence spending I suspect the originator was American.

I haven't seen the post but if it was another one of those captioned images that swirl around facebook it probably wasn't intended to be entirely serious and Shah probably thought it was funny and sharing it would make her look witty.

Clearly she has been violently disabused of both notions, and has apologised. The fact that this has surfaced about a week before elections is unlikely to be a coincidence.

The response of the leadership has been pretty pitiful though - they tried to simultaneously condemn her remarks and excuse them, making her look worse and making a suspension and likely expulsion inevitable when it was perhaps not deserved.

On the other hand Ken Livingston is a card-carrying Anti-Semite. This is the man who compared a Jewish reporter to a Concentration Camp Guard, who said Jews would vote for him as London mayor because they were rich and has now suggested that Hitler plan to force Jews to leave Germany was "supporting Zionism".

He may not think he's an anti-Semite but can't see how anyone else could think that - he's clearly prejudiced against Jews, uncaring of recent history and prone to seeing them all through the most negative of stereotypes.

[InsaneApache]

Hitler.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Here's the sourse Livingstone is going to cite: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/29/ken-livingstone-marxist-book-lenni-brenner-defence-israel-comments

Some Marxist from the 80's who, by the looks of it, was canting history pretty hard for his own agenda.

[Greyblades]

Hitler.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/455/450/7c8.png

[InsaneApache]

Tell that to Mr. Newt.

[Greyblades]

Gingrich?

[Lizardo]

With the identity politics of today it seems only a Jew can get away with criticsm of Israel and not being branded a jew hater/antisemitic for instance Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein.

The anti-semitic accusation is just like politcal correctness it's used to stifle real criticsm of Israel. But what these labour members naz shah and dianne abbott said is bordering on racism and Red Ken is hilarious he keepa digging. the left in their blind support for palestine have turned to hatred of Israel not critiscm. Love it when the left eats itself up!

All this media fanfare for what a Blairite campaign to kick Corbyn out of Labour?

I'm sorry but Blair's Labour is gone the shift even further towards a communist party has happened silly new membership rules the influx of the young generation who overwhemingly believe Socialism is better than Capitalism and the reshuffling of MP's who align to Corbyn.

Brenus you refuse to see facts that go against your preconcieved notion of the right spectrum of politics.
University education goes a miss on you.
"the righties being anti-Semitic from birth" <-- please tell me your being sarcastic
If you think like this no doubt you hold sterotypical views aswell. The irony is lost on you,
TYPICAL LEFTIES lol, and their identity politics

The "right" are some of the biggest proponents of Israel!

I think the left to right political spectrum is an awful way of articulating general political stances.

This article would tell you a thing or two about the left http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/the-politically-correct-way-to-do-racism/

[Hooahguy]

Finkelstein is certainly not free from antisemitism accusations, at the very least he is accused of being a self-hating Jew. As I remember he was even denied entry into Israel, which has got to be the first time a Jewish person was denied entry. Chomsky gets attacked with the label as well. I agree that the label is overused and real criticism is often stifled by it, but at the same time one must call it out when it actually happens. Its not easy to do as it can be disguised. But with the current state of overusing it, the term has been watered down and I am afraid it has lost its meaning.

And what I think Brenus meant by the right being antisemitic is the far right, AKA neo-Nazis.

[Papewaio]

It would look like an empty glass?

No country is perfect so we all have issues to deal with. First step is to look at points of commonality, shared interests and then look at the issues.

Even the Amish have internal conflicts, normally limited to cutting off each other's beards... So I'm sure there are issues in Israel even without looking at the elephant in the room.

Name me a country that is perfect and I'll show you a propaganda state... I'm looking at you North Korea.

[Fragony]

Question to OP, how are you just not admitting that anti-sematic critism on Israel just exists. I'd like to turn things around. Surily Israel can be critisezed or even hated. But why not hate the rest there or anywhere in the universe and surroundings. Perhaps there just happens to be a thing called anti-semitism?

[Husar]

Eh, most of the left doesn't like Israel because Israel is on the right, the country votes largely based on fear and therefore ultra-conservative, has people who believe they have a god-given right to take other peoples' land away (and are hardly stopped by the government when they do it) and so on. Show me another modern country that acts like that and is liked by most people. North Korea, Russia, ISIS?

I think the government has slowly come around to stopping the illegal settlement practices and at the same time it seems criticism has gone down...

[Myth]

Taking Palestinian land because of might makes right and developing nuclear weapons are the two things I really dislike about Israel.

[Fragony]

Eh, most of the left doesn't like Israel because Israel is on the right, the country votes largely based on fear and therefore ultra-conservative, has people who believe they have a god-given right to take other peoples' land away (and are hardly stopped by the government when they do it) and so on. Show me another modern country that acts like that and is liked by most people. North Korea, Russia, ISIS?

I think the government has slowly come around to stopping the illegal settlement practices and at the same time it seems criticism has gone down...

There is more than enough that is rightfully critised. But I it's how selective the crititism is that kinda makes me suspicious about why people are bothered by Israel's behaviour so much, there are much worse regimes that don't have a magnifying glass hovering over it. If the most outspoken critisers have a really good reason to convince me that it isn't because it is a jewish state I am open for their arguments. Won't automatically assume anti-semitism but I suspect that in many a case it actually is. A mild version, not like nazi's, but some sort of inherent distrust. Israel deserves to be critised, won't say it doesn't.

[Gilrandir]

Israel is on the right, the country votes largely based on fear
... and not groundless fear. So cut them a slack.

[Fragony]

... and not groundless fear. So cut them a slack.

Ya. without excusing the colonists (who aren't exactly popular) it shouldn't be that hard to admit that Israel exists in a very hostile place

[Husar]

There is more than enough that is rightfully critised. But I it's how selective the crititism is that kinda makes me suspicious about why people are bothered by Israel's behaviour so much, there are much worse regimes that don't have a magnifying glass hovering over it. If the most outspoken critisers have a really good reason to convince me that it isn't because it is a jewish state I am open for their arguments. Won't automatically assume anti-semitism but I suspect that in many a case it actually is. A mild version, not like nazi's, but some sort of inherent distrust. Israel deserves to be critised, won't say it doesn't.

It's about as selective as the support, a lot of countries throw weapons, technology and other support at Israel in a way that other allies don't get it. And the whole Holocaust thing put Jews in an even bigger spotlight. This also makes a lot of people think that people who claim to know what it is like to be treated in an incredibly unfair way should know better than to do the same to others.


... and not groundless fear. So cut them a slack.

Taking more land away from other people and talking smack about the neighbors will surely remove the reasons for that fear sooner rather than later. :rolleyes:
When was the last time peaceful coexistence was successfully enforced with guns? Crimea?

[AE Bravo]

Daesh in suits.

[Fragony]

It's about as selective as the support, a lot of countries throw weapons, technology and other support at Israel in a way that other allies don't get it. And the whole Holocaust thing put Jews in an even bigger spotlight. This also makes a lot of people think that people who claim to know what it is like to be treated in an incredibly unfair way should know better than to do the same to other


Also selective sure. But where are Israel critisers when other countries are building a wall, or even gassing tunnels or flooding them. A lot of Palestinians are from Libanon and they are not allowed to get back. If you ask me who has the most right to behave this way I really can't not excuse them or at least understand it. As for taking land, well they didn't start the war, Europe is full of shifting borders who are we to lecture them.

[Husar]

Also selective sure. But where are Israel critisers when other countries are building a wall, or even gassing tunnels or flooding them. A lot of Palestinians are from Libanon and they are not allowed to get back. If you ask me who has the most right to behave this way I really can't not excuse them or at least understand it. As for taking land, well they didn't start the war, Europe is full of shifting borders who are we to lecture them.

Apparently I don't stalk Israel's criticizers as closely as you do, so I can't really tell you where they are in other cases of atrocities.
Not sure what else you are saying, which borders have shifted in Europe since WW2?

[Fragony]

Apparently I don't stalk Israel's criticizers as closely as you do, so I can't really tell you where they are in other cases of atrocities.
Not sure what else you are saying, which borders have shifted in Europe since WW2?

Your own for example, and the Polish weren't exactly very kind to Germans.

love this animation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iha3OS8ShYs what are we yapping about really

[Gilrandir]

Taking more land away from other people and talking smack about the neighbors will surely remove the reasons for that fear sooner rather than later. :rolleyes:
When was the last time peaceful coexistence was successfully enforced with guns? Crimea?

When Israel proclaimed its foundation it was made war upon at once before it started taking land form others. Later it happened again and again, not to mention constant terrorist attacks inside the country. Arab countries which border on Israel have an issue with the very existence of Israel. Wouldn't it make anyone talk smack of those who do it? A country which lives in the perpetual state of alert (or war, for a change) is not likely to act differently, talk differently or vote differently.

[Fragony]

Ya. Violence against jew by the usual suspects, are there any excuses for that as well, or mayyyyyybe a lot of muslims just hate jews. And a (very succesful) Jewish state outright offends them. Especially because they will never match them in anything.

[AE Bravo]

You mean Arab countries don't match them in anything. "Muslim countries" is an overstatement. Also, Israel is an illegitimate country, an anachronism as long as the current regime stands. When it reforms its discrimination against its very own citizens as a democratic state than you can talk about how it has the right to do anything.

Who knows, maybe they will someday.

[Fragony]

You mean Arab countries don't match them in anything. "Muslim countries" is an overstatement

Fair enough. But has got to hurt to see Israel do so well when one thinks islam is superior

[Pannonian]

You mean Arab countries don't match them in anything. "Muslim countries" is an overstatement. Also, Israel is an illegitimate country, an anachronism as long as the current regime stands. When it reforms its discrimination against its very own citizens as a democratic state than you can talk about how it has the right to do anything.

Who knows, maybe they will someday.

Israel is by some distance the best of an exceptionally bad bunch. It doesn't make them good by western standards. But it makes them very good indeed by middle eastern standards. It's probably best to accept them as a middle eastern country, and judge them by these standards, than to think of them as a western country and judge them by these standards.

[AE Bravo]

By international and middle eastern standards, Arab countries are better at tourism, immigration, and commercial policy. Israel takes the cake in terms of military and technology due to zealous western backing since its creation.

[Husar]

Your own for example, and the Polish weren't exactly very kind to Germans.

love this animation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iha3OS8ShYs what are we yapping about really

I thought you jusdge a country by the standards of its time and not by comparatively ancient ones?
That is why I asked about the many changes AFTER WW2, because in the time frame you linked to there was no Israeli state for the most part.
If we're going to apply medieval standards now, how about we burn you as a witcher? I saw you flying around a clock tower tonight...


When Israel proclaimed its foundation it was made war upon at once before it started taking land form others. Later it happened again and again, not to mention constant terrorist attacks inside the country. Arab countries which border on Israel have an issue with the very existence of Israel. Wouldn't it make anyone talk smack of those who do it? A country which lives in the perpetual state of alert (or war, for a change) is not likely to act differently, talk differently or vote differently.

Israel was basically founded with a terror campaign and the establishment of the state was basically forced on a lot of people. I'm sorry that it surprises you that people are angry if something is forced upon them. The major reason Israelis are scared today is probably not that all the neighbors will invade again because it seems a lot of the neighbors have gotten used to it. What scares them are the terrorist organizations, some of which exist because Israelis settle on land these people formerly owned and others of which do indeed exist because of older grudges apparently.

If you support Israel conquering land for security though, then surely you agree with Russia conquering Crimea to secure its harbor?

[Pannonian]

By international and middle eastern standards, Arab countries are better at tourism, immigration, and commercial policy. Israel takes the cake in terms of military and technology due to zealous western backing since its creation.

Funnily enough, most westerners don't have these things in mind when they think of the key qualities of civilisation, or what the difference is between a good society and a bad society. Britain today is a considerably better place than the Britain of C18, and no one would say it's because of better tourism, immigration and commercial policy.

[Fragony]

Who conquered Crimea, military was already there and and the population voted for it

[AE Bravo]

Funnily enough, most westerners don't have these things in mind when they think of the key qualities of civilisation, or what the difference is between a good society and a bad society. Britain today is a considerably better place than the Britain of C18, and no one would say it's because of better tourism, immigration and commercial policy.
Just because you personally disregard them, doesn't mean they're not key qualities. What are the key qualities of Israel?

And why are all your posts so bigoted like your way is the end all be all, the blueprint to heaven or some isht..

[Pannonian]

Just because you personally disregard them, doesn't mean they're not key qualities. What are the key qualities of Israel?

And why are all your posts so bigoted like your way is the end all be all, the blueprint to heaven or some isht..

There are things like health policy, education policy, and other stuff. But underpinning them is social policy, or what is necessary to bring about a working liberal democracy. Israel is some way behind the west in this, but is way, way ahead of the vast majority of the middle east, by which I mean not just the geographical region, but also all Muslim countries.

And yes, I do believe in liberal democracy as the blueprint of what I would call civilisation. Given that you apparently live in the west, would you prefer to give up things like freedom and democracy to live in the Caliphate? After all, the society's qualities that I value aren't the be all and end all of heaven on earth, or so you tell me.

[AE Bravo]

How on earth did you conclude that? How many Arab countries have any or the same degree of institutionalized inequality, apartheid, outright racism against blacks, and same atrocities on civilians directly by the state military under its belt? This is far from being close to a liberal democracy. No society that prevents a segment of its population from building their own businesses in acquired settlements, based on racial reasons, is to be considered such. Some are Arab-Israelis that have no quarrel with Israel, see how they’re treated.

So there are no civilized societies besides the west? What if I lived in east Asian countries?

[Pannonian]

How on earth did you conclude that? How many Arab countries have any or the same degree of institutionalized inequality, apartheid, outright racism against blacks, and same atrocities on civilians directly by the state military under its belt? This is far from being close to a liberal democracy. No society that prevents a segment of its population from building their own businesses in acquired settlements, based on racial reasons, is to be considered such. Some are Arab-Israelis that have no quarrel with Israel, see how they’re treated.

So there are no civilized societies besides the west? What if I lived in east Asian countries?

I refer you to the horror stories coming out of Qatar. And that's just the country focused on because of the world cup, and seemingly Saudi and other countries in the region are just as bad. Israel's practical apartheid is repugnant to us, but in comparison with the likes of Qatar and Saudi, and they're among the richer Muslim countries (and thus should be able to afford better social policies), they're angels.

If you lived in east Asian countries, you'd see that they value westernisation as the acme of civilisation. Even if they don't adopt democracy, they certainly adopt liberalism.

[Hooahguy]

How on earth did you conclude that? How many Arab countries have any or the same degree of institutionalized inequality, apartheid, outright racism against blacks, and same atrocities on civilians directly by the state military under its belt? This is far from being close to a liberal democracy. No society that prevents a segment of its population from building their own businesses in acquired settlements, based on racial reasons, is to be considered such. Some are Arab-Israelis that have no quarrel with Israel, see how they’re treated.


:laugh4:

If you honestly think this then you clearly aren't paying attention to anything else which is going on anywhere in the Middle East besides Israel. Israel is certainly guilty of the many crimes that you mention to various degrees but to say that the surrounding Arab nations are any better just means to me that you arent paying attention or willfully looking the other direction to maintain your beliefs.

[AE Bravo]

If you lived in east Asian countries, you'd see that they value westernisation as the acme of civilisation. Even if they don't adopt democracy, they certainly adopt liberalism.
They value westernization as the acme of civilization? Doubt it. Liberalism doesn't belong to you.

I refer you to the horror stories coming out of Qatar. And that's just the country focused on because of the world cup, and seemingly Saudi and other countries in the region are just as bad. Israel's practical apartheid is repugnant to us, but in comparison with the likes of Qatar and Saudi, and they're among the richer Muslim countries (and thus should be able to afford better social policies), they're angels.
Racist laws and war crimes are different. Migrant deaths in those countries are crimes against humanity for sure, but you only named two Arab countries. Saudi Arabia can be compared now due to the war on Yemen, but I don’t see how any of them are “just as bad” besides western countries. UK can’t even declare the war on Iraq illegal, or acknowledge its warcrimes. If you really believe Qatar is more criminal than Israel than…

If you honestly think this then you clearly aren't paying attention to anything else which is going on anywhere
How many stable countries in the ME come close? It's never a good sign when a liberal democracy is being compared to Saudi Arabia, who have similar policies for their eastern provinces. So no, Israel is not a liberal democracy. Funnily enough Iran is probably more liberal in some respects.

[Hooahguy]

How many stable countries in the ME come close? It's never a good sign when a liberal democracy is being compared to Saudi Arabia, who have similar policies for their eastern provinces. So no, Israel is not a liberal democracy. Funnily enough Iran is probably more liberal in some respects.
You're the one who is comparing Israel to the surrounding states and saying that the surrounding states are better for human rights. And please, tell me where Iran is more liberal. Again, not excusing any of the crimes Israel has done but I think you are being overly selective with your criticisms.

Also why don't you look up how Bahrain handled the Arab Spring in 2011.

[AE Bravo]

Never said that. I said they’re less racist and they’re less murderous, often because their regimes are incapable of being so as much as Israel.

When was the last time Iran launched a war? 1/3 of Israel’s citizens can’t vote right? Everyone in Iran can including Iranian Jews. Seems like religious freedom is worse in Israel, and Iran is less genocidal. They only talk about it.

Compare how Bahrain handled the Arab Spring to how Israel handled ragtag resistance launching firecrackers. Look at the numbers.

[Hooahguy]

Never said that. I said they’re less racist and they’re less murderous, often because their regimes are incapable of being so as much as Israel.
Soooooo if they are less racist and less murderous, they are better in the realm of human rights. That is you are saying. And how are they less capable of being murderous? Just look at Assad in Syria now. Are you saying his crimes arent as bad as Israels?


When was the last time Iran launched a war? 1/3 of Israel’s citizens can’t vote right? Everyone in Iran can including Iranian Jews. Seems like religious freedom is worse in Israel, and Iran is less genocidal. They only talk about it.
You do realize that Iranian soldiers are directly involved in Syria's civil war, right? If you studied Iranian foreign policy even a little bit you would understand that while they might not be starting wars they certainly participate in them. Like in Yemen. Iraq. Syria. Afghanistan to a limited extent. I will agree, lack of voting rights for such a large chunk is criminal. But on the other hand, lets not pretend that Iran is a shrine of voting rights. The 2009 Green Movement didnt happen for nothing. And if you think that religious minorities in Iran have much in the way of religious freedom you arent doing any research at all into what religious minorities go through in Iran.


Compare how Bahrain handled the Arab Spring to how Israel handled ragtag resistance launching firecrackers. Look at the numbers.
Firecrackers which kill people. Im not excusing Israel for being heavy handed in Gaza (frankly its a disgrace how Israel handles Gaza) but lets not pretend that these "firecrackers" arent deadly, nor would I call Hamas resistance ragtag. Ragtag resistance doesn't inflict that many casualties on the IDF, an army renowned for being rather overly cautious when it comes to friendly casualties.

Also why dont we compare military operations with one another instead of comparing a military operation with a crackdown on protesters? According to the UN, 12,000 Yemeni civilians have been killed by the Saudi-led coalition so its not like anyone else in the region is in any way better.

[Pannonian]

Soooooo if they are less racist and less murderous, they are better in the realm of human rights. That is you are saying. And how are they less capable of being murderous? Just look at Assad in Syria now. Are you saying his crimes arent as bad as Israels?


You do realize that Iranian soldiers are directly involved in Syria's civil war, right? If you studied Iranian foreign policy even a little bit you would understand that while they might not be starting wars they certainly participate in them. Like in Yemen. Iraq. Syria. Afghanistan to a limited extent. I will agree, lack of voting rights for such a large chunk is criminal. But on the other hand, lets not pretend that Iran is a shrine of voting rights. The 2009 Green Movement didnt happen for nothing. And if you think that religious minorities in Iran have much in the way of religious freedom you arent doing any research at all into what religious minorities go through in Iran.


Firecrackers which kill people. Im not excusing Israel for being heavy handed in Gaza (frankly its a disgrace how Israel handles Gaza) but lets not pretend that these "firecrackers" arent deadly, nor would I call Hamas resistance ragtag. Ragtag resistance doesn't inflict that many casualties on the IDF, an army renowned for being rather overly cautious when it comes to friendly casualties.

Also why dont we compare military operations with one another instead of comparing a military operation with a crackdown on protesters? According to the UN, 12,000 Yemeni civilians have been killed by the Saudi-led coalition so its not like anyone else in the region is in any way better.

Israel are bad but the other countries are worse. Ranging from slightly worse in the best cases, to considerably worse in most of them.

[AE Bravo]

Soooooo if they are less racist and less murderous, they are better in the realm of human rights. That is you are saying. And how are they less capable of being murderous? Just look at Assad in Syria now. Are you saying his crimes arent as bad as Israels?
Notice I never said human rights, I was responding to Pannonian saying that Israel is the only civilized country in the region.

As for Assad, he may be just as bad but this is not a stable country, he lost control of it. With Israeli military, we can see a clearcut connection between military action and civilian deaths. We don’t have enough info to say the same about Syria, especially with evidence surfacing that the chemical attack was by a military dissident. Israel and Palestine don’t have the same factionalism obscuring reality.

You do realize that Iranian soldiers are directly involved in Syria's civil war, right? If you studied Iranian foreign policy even a little bit you would understand that while they might not be starting wars they certainly participate in them. Like in Yemen. Iraq. Syria. Afghanistan to a limited extent. I will agree, lack of voting rights for such a large chunk is criminal. But on the other hand, lets not pretend that Iran is a shrine of voting rights. The 2009 Green Movement didnt happen for nothing. And if you think that religious minorities in Iran have much in the way of religious freedom you arent doing any research at all into what religious minorities go through in Iran.
For sure. I personally am not a fan of Iran's leadership but having studied their foreign policy, it’s more about maintaining as opposed to Israel’s (and US allies) disrupting. For one, Israel carries out assassinations on foreign soil, treats injured insurgents, and doesn’t really value the territorial integrity of most of its neighbors (i.e. UNSC 242).

Iran, on the other hand, has a much less hostile, more consistent, and realist foreign policy.
- They have the permission of the de facto Syrian leadership to help them fight the insurgencies.
- Helped the US in Afghanistan
- Filled a vacuum in Iraq after the US applied its sectarian plan there, now fighting AQ and Daesh.
- No direct involvement in Yemen, arming a homegrown organization that has always been part of Yemen’s body politic

I only said that Iran is more liberal in some respects, which is true. But there is no denying that Iran has a politically sound foreign policy, which can’t be said about Israel. They don't start wars either.

Also why dont we compare military operations with one another instead of comparing a military operation with a crackdown on protesters? According to the UN, 12,000 Yemeni civilians have been killed by the Saudi-led coalition so its not like anyone else in the region is in any way better.
That’s way too high. Not to downgrade the crimes by the coalition but the civilian death count was around 3,000 last time I checked, so that must be the total. I mentioned that Saudi are approaching IDF levels of crimes sure, but unlike Israel they have a UNSC resolution on their side despite the war crimes.

Again I never said Israel is the worst, I only explained why it absolutely isn't the best or "least worse."

[Gilrandir]

By international and middle eastern standards, Arab countries are better at tourism, immigration, and commercial policy.

It is an over-generalization. You can't lump all Arab nations together and compare the bunch against just one country. For example, while some Arab countries (Egypt, Tunisia, UAE) may be good at attracting tourists (although seeing no figures I can't say they are better), others (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Oman, Kuwait) are definitely doing worse than Israel. The same can be said about other aspects you mentioned.



Israel was basically founded with a terror campaign and the establishment of the state was basically forced on a lot of people. I'm sorry that it surprises you that people are angry if something is forced upon them.

It doesn't surprise me. But you somehow justify the anger-caused violence of "a lot of people" (aka Arabs) and are not ready to do the same for jews.



The major reason Israelis are scared today is probably not that all the neighbors will invade again because it seems a lot of the neighbors have gotten used to it. What scares them are the terrorist organizations

And it makes their fear less? The reasons of the fear don't matter, the fear is still there. And perhaps it is even more intense, when you realize that the death may come not from (comparatively) far away, but is lurking somewhere around the corner and may come from a person you have known for ages.



If you support Israel conquering land for security though, then surely you agree with Russia conquering Crimea to secure its harbor?

1. Show meat least one statement where I support any land grabs. I was trying to explain to you the reasons of Israel's policies and didn't express any evaluation.

2. If you draw Russia into this debate:

Has Russia suffered any wars (since it was bereft of Crimea) started by Ukraine or from the territory of Ukraine or by proxy involving Ukraine?
Has Russia suffered any terrorist attacks on its territory by Ukrainians?
Has Ukraine officially said that it doesn't recognize the existence of Russia as a state?
Has Ukraine's religious leaders called for a jihad on Russia?

If you answer "no" to these questions, you will see that your attempt at equating the two land grabs is ridiculous. But that doesn't mean that I support the land grabs on the part of Israel, though.


Generally speaking, you can't by default accuse me of supporting or defending Israel. I'm a Ukrainian nazi, did you forget? Anyone who stays in Ukraine at least for a little while becomes one even if he is pregnant:
18111



Who conquered Crimea, military was already there and and the population voted for it

I thought that westerners know what voting is. What was pulled in Crimea was anything but voting. And it was not recognized by anyone (except some minor sycophants of Russia).

[Pannonian]

It doesn't surprise me. But you somehow justify the anger-caused violence of "a lot of people" (aka Arabs) and are not ready to do the same for jews.

I can understand it in the case of the Palestinians, as they're the ones who are actually being victimised on the ground. But the other countries have no excuse, except for the realpolitik of turning anger in their own inadequate societies towards an outside enemy.

[Husar]

It doesn't surprise me. But you somehow justify the anger-caused violence of "a lot of people" (aka Arabs) and are not ready to do the same for jews.

So you're saying that if the arabs retaliate against the terrorist jews, the terrorist jews have a right to be angry over the retaliation?
Just like a murderer has the right to be angry over and retaliate for his imprisonment?


And it makes their fear less? The reasons of the fear don't matter, the fear is still there. And perhaps it is even more intense, when you realize that the death may come not from (comparatively) far away, but is lurking somewhere around the corner and may come from a person you have known for ages.

How many jews were forced to go live in that country where they have to endure all this fear? Are you saying they couldn't know in advance that going to live in Israel would come with some dangers? And how does having fear excuse throwing rocks at children? Are arab children scary? Natural born terrorists?


1. Show meat least one statement where I support any land grabs. I was trying to explain to you the reasons of Israel's policies and didn't express any evaluation.

Here:


A country which lives in the perpetual state of alert (or war, for a change) is not likely to act differently, talk differently or vote differently.

If that is not meant to say everything they do is okay, then what does it say? Maybe you need to be a bit more precise.


2. If you draw Russia into this debate:

Has Russia suffered any wars (since it was bereft of Crimea) started by Ukraine or from the territory of Ukraine or by proxy involving Ukraine?

Ukrainians said very mean, fear-inducing things about Russians, "A country which lives in the perpetual state of alert (or war, for a change) is not likely to act differently, talk differently or vote differently.".

[Gilrandir]

So you're saying that if the arabs retaliate against the terrorist jews, the terrorist jews have a right to be angry over the retaliation?
Just like a murderer has the right to be angry over and retaliate for his imprisonment?


Imprisonment and murder to retaliate for it are somehow different.

But as for Arabs and Jews, I condemn both terrorists, while you sound like you feel for Arabs only.



How many jews were forced to go live in that country where they have to endure all this fear? Are you saying they couldn't know in advance that going to live in Israel would come with some dangers? And how does having fear excuse throwing rocks at children? Are arab children scary? Natural born terrorists?

A nation living in constant fear sometimes sees dangers where there isn't. But this is the price they have to willingly pay for surviving. Sometimes it hurts the innocent on both sides (I remember about a couple of months ago there was a ruckus about knife-armed terrorists and once on a false suspicion a crowd lynched a jew). But it is collateral damage which makes people (including me) sorry, but seldom goes further than that; much like MH 17 - in spite of all the evidence pointing Russiawards Europeans seem ready to forget about it and not press any charges. Even the Netherlands whose citizens were most numerous on board the plane indirectly supported Russia having voted at the referendum the way Russia cheered at.



If that is not meant to say everything they do is okay, then what does it say? Maybe you need to be a bit more precise.


It was an attempt at explanation, not a statement of support. Just like you offer plausible (as you believe) reasons why Russia annexed Crimea - does it mean you support it? Although I don't know - perhaps you really do. Not me in case of Israel.



Ukrainians said very mean, fear-inducing things about Russians, "A country which lives in the perpetual state of alert (or war, for a change) is not likely to act differently, talk differently or vote differently.".

If Russia is living in the state of alert (which has become acute right after the Crimea adventure), it is induced from within employing the rhetoric of a besieged fortress. In a cleft stick of their own cutting.

I thought we have been through with it. But if you want, let's do it again - those things were said AFTER Putin moved into the Crimea. But even with those things said - Ukrainians said them IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY never DOING anything nasty to Russia or in Russia, voicing NO PLANS TO DESTROY Russia. Can we say the same about Arabs? So, again - flawed comparison.

[Hooahguy]

Israel are bad but the other countries are worse. Ranging from slightly worse in the best cases, to considerably worse in most of them.
And I agree with you.


Notice I never said human rights, I was responding to Pannonian saying that Israel is the only civilized country in the region.
Human rights is a super broad category. The things you mentioned fall under this super broad category.


As for Assad, he may be just as bad but this is not a stable country, he lost control of it. With Israeli military, we can see a clearcut connection between military action and civilian deaths. We don’t have enough info to say the same about Syria, especially with evidence surfacing that the chemical attack was by a military dissident. Israel and Palestine don’t have the same factionalism obscuring reality.
So you are insinuating that Assad has little control over his own military? I find that very hard to believe. And his war crimes are not limited to the chemical attacks as you also have the barrel bombs and the general targeting of civilians by loyalist forces.


Iran, on the other hand, has a much less hostile, more consistent, and realist foreign policy.
- They have the permission of the de facto Syrian leadership to help them fight the insurgencies.
Permission to help prop up the rather murderous Assad regime.


- Helped the US in Afghanistan
And arms the Taliban at the same time.


- Filled a vacuum in Iraq after the US applied its sectarian plan there, now fighting AQ and Daesh.
And arms Shia militias who are now accused of war crimes against Sunnis in Iraq. I will say that Iran is overall doing good now in Iraq, but Iran is no saint here. And dont forget that during the Iraq War, Iran was arming the insurgency.


- No direct involvement in Yemen, arming a homegrown organization that has always been part of Yemen’s body politic
I dunno, arming rebels seems to be a form of involvement. Maybe not troops on the ground but they certainly are involved.


I only said that Iran is more liberal in some respects, which is true. But there is no denying that Iran has a politically sound foreign policy, which can’t be said about Israel. They don't start wars either.
Name the ways they are more liberal, besides voting rights (which I will agree with you on). And just because they dont start wars doesnt make a country automatically have a sound foreign policy. Lots of factors go into how to evaluate a foreign policy, not just if they start wars or not.


That’s way too high. Not to downgrade the crimes by the coalition but the civilian death count was around 3,000 last time I checked, so that must be the total. I mentioned that Saudi are approaching IDF levels of crimes sure, but unlike Israel they have a UNSC resolution on their side despite the war crimes.
Fair enough, I looked at the numbers again and you are correct.


Again I never said Israel is the worst, I only explained why it absolutely isn't the best or "least worse."
You say that, but your previous posts seem to say the opposite.

[Husar]

But as for Arabs and Jews, I condemn both terrorists, while you sound like you feel for Arabs only.

Actually you sounded like you cared for the Israelis only, maybe that is the problem here.


A nation living in constant fear sometimes sees dangers where there isn't. But this is the price they have to willingly pay for surviving. Sometimes it hurts the innocent on both sides (I remember about a couple of months ago there was a ruckus about knife-armed terrorists and once on a false suspicion a crowd lynched a jew). But it is collateral damage which makes people (including me) sorry, but seldom goes further than that; much like MH 17 - in spite of all the evidence pointing Russiawards Europeans seem ready to forget about it and not press any charges. Even the Netherlands whose citizens were most numerous on board the plane indirectly supported Russia having voted at the referendum the way Russia cheered at.

And where in this is the understanding you have for the Arab reaction? Do Palestinians not live in constant fear?


It was an attempt at explanation, not a statement of support. Just like you offer plausible (as you believe) reasons why Russia annexed Crimea - does it mean you support it? Although I don't know - perhaps you really do. Not me in case of Israel.

I don't support it in either case, I brought it up because you seemed to be finding excuses for the Israeli occupations.


I thought we have been through with it. But if you want, let's do it again - [...]

Nono, we are, thank you very much. ~;)

[Fragony]

M17 has nothing to do with that referendum and why people voted no, completily seperated issues

[AE Bravo]

Human rights is a super broad category. The things you mentioned fall under this super broad category.
I stated why Israel is not the best at human rights. There are a bunch of countries that can be considered more “civilized” with more harmonious societies despite being a bit more conservative.

So you are insinuating that Assad has little control over his own military? I find that very hard to believe. And his war crimes are not limited to the chemical attacks as you also have the barrel bombs and the general targeting of civilians by loyalist forces.
Has little control over his country. Syria is a failed state, there’s no comparison and all this comes with the territory, it’s beyond control especially with the amount of countries sabotaging that control from the beginning. Every time states start to show little respect for another's sovereignty expect this to happen.

Permission to help prop up the rather murderous Assad regime.
As if that’s any better than propping up rebels with state-threatening agendas? Murderous or not, objectively, Iran has permission from the legitimate government, so their intervention is lawful.

And arms the Taliban at the same time.
To fight Daesh. They have a streak of successful foreign policy initiatives so it could work. They also share borders with all these countries so there’s a higher risk factor for them, unlike the US. You have to understand where they're coming from.

And arms Shia militias who are now accused of war crimes against Sunnis in Iraq. I will say that Iran is overall doing good now in Iraq, but Iran is no saint here. And dont forget that during the Iraq War, Iran was arming the insurgency.
They also share borders and were at war with Iraq for eight years so they have their reasons. There's a legit stake in this for them.

I dunno, arming rebels seems to be a form of involvement. Maybe not troops on the ground but they certainly are involved.
US funded Daesh before it became Daesh just so it could bring down Assad. Iranians don’t support a seizure of Yemen’s government and made the rebels announce a powersharing plan before Saudis went apeshit. You’ll see how much the Saudis will regret this entire thing, they’re trying to pull out without losing face right now.

Name the ways they are more liberal, besides voting rights (which I will agree with you on). And just because they dont start wars doesnt make a country automatically have a sound foreign policy. Lots of factors go into how to evaluate a foreign policy, not just if they start wars or not.
There’s a lot of ethnic tension in Iran, but the religious freedom is better than in Israel believe it or not. They have a more reasonable foreign policy than the US and allies, this is pretty clear. Starting wars is a big deal too, it should tell you that Iran is not the cause of regional instability when most are guilty of this.

You say that, but your previous posts seem to say the opposite.
Where did I say that Israel is the worst in the ME? My problem is with the idea that it’s slightly better than the rest.

[Hooahguy]

I stated why Israel is not the best at human rights. There are a bunch of countries that can be considered more “civilized” with more harmonious societies despite being a bit more conservative.
Name them.


Has little control over his country. Syria is a failed state, there’s no comparison and all this comes with the territory, it’s beyond control especially with the amount of countries sabotaging that control from the beginning. Every time states start to show little respect for another's sovereignty expect this to happen.
Thats not what Im saying. Yeah, Assad has lost control of large swaths of Syria. But I find it very doubtful that all of those major war crimes perpetrated by the Assad loyalists were done without the knowledge and approval of the man himself.


As if that’s any better than propping up rebels with state-threatening agendas? Murderous or not, objectively, Iran has permission from the legitimate government, so their intervention is lawful.
I didnt say their intervention was unlawful. Just that this intervention isnt necessarily a good thing.


To fight Daesh. They have a streak of successful foreign policy initiatives so it could work. They also share borders with all these countries so there’s a higher risk factor for them, unlike the US. You have to understand where they're coming from.
Iran was helping the Taliban well before Daesh came out. Im not saying Iran should not have gotten involved, they absolutely have a right to be concerned about unstable countries around them such as Iraq and Afghanistan.


They also share borders and were at war with Iraq for eight years so they have their reasons. There's a legit stake in this for them.
Yeah, and when the US and allies were in Iraq the Iranians were funding and supplying insurgents fighting the government. Dont kid yourself into thinking Iran is some sort of benevolent leader in the region.


US funded Daesh before it became Daesh just so it could bring down Assad.
Citation needed.


There’s a lot of ethnic tension in Iran, but the religious freedom is better than in Israel believe it or not. They have a more reasonable foreign policy than the US and allies, this is pretty clear. Starting wars is a big deal too, it should tell you that Iran is not the cause of regional instability when most are guilty of this.
Not really. If you arent Muslim, Zoroastrian, Jewish, or Christian then your faith isnt sanctioned and is not protected. I would say religious freedom is roughly equal to Israels.

Also Iran funds and arms such terror groups such as Hebollah and Hamas, so while they might not be the root cause of instability, they certainly are fanning flames.


Where did I say that Israel is the worst in the ME? My problem is with the idea that it’s slightly better than the rest.
Its hard to read your posts and conclude anything besides the idea that you think that Israel is at least among the worst in the region. Comments like this:

How many Arab countries have any or the same degree of institutionalized inequality, apartheid, outright racism against blacks, and same atrocities on civilians directly by the state military under its belt?

[AE Bravo]

Name them.
Jordan, Morocco, Kuwait, Tunisia, UAE, Oman, Algeria. They all have their deficiencies, and to say Israel is totally better is subjective at the very least. Most, if not all, of the listed countries have never invaded others. Oman and Tunisia have always been neutral.

Thats not what Im saying. Yeah, Assad has lost control of large swaths of Syria. But I find it very doubtful that all of those major war crimes perpetrated by the Assad loyalists were done without the knowledge and approval of the man himself.

I didnt say their intervention was unlawful. Just that this intervention isnt necessarily a good thing.
Fact is he’s fighting violent totalitarian movements that are not internationally recognized but supported anyway. Whether they had approval or not we can’t say for sure.

Only time will tell, one of the key qualities of their foreign policy is that they handle their business legally. This is what makes them better than the west in that department.

Yeah, and when the US and allies were in Iraq the Iranians were funding and supplying insurgents fighting the government. Dont kid yourself into thinking Iran is some sort of benevolent leader in the region.
They’re against illegal forced occupation, so they fund resistance. Those groups killing Sunnis are disgusting, but when the US stormed in it was open season, Iran won over most Iraqi people.

Citation needed.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

Look at page 3 for context and then scroll down to #8 C. for the zinger.

Not really. If you arent Muslim, Zoroastrian, Jewish, or Christian then your faith isnt sanctioned and is not protected. I would say religious freedom is roughly equal to Israels.

Also Iran funds and arms such terror groups such as Hebollah and Hamas, so while they might not be the root cause of instability, they certainly are fanning flames.
Do all religions and groups have representation in Israeli politics?

I understand that these may be terror groups to you, but keep in mind they’re resistance movements, and Iran is all for that as it’s against launching wars on other countries. I agree they’re fanning flames, but Hamas and Hezbollah reacted to invaders. Just because they're listed as terrorists by the west and its allies doesn't make it so for everybody else.

Its hard to read your posts and conclude anything besides the idea that you think that Israel is at least among the worst in the region. Comments like this:
Israel has atrocities unique to Israel, and I don’t think it’s fair to say that it’s superior everyone else. It’s kind of offensive because most ME countries are painted with the same brush, but I believe they hold their own just like Israel does in other areas. To say Israel is better than the rest just for being a democracy is ill-informed, and a part of the problem. Don't forget that Israel regularly does stuff that is labelled illegal by the international community like land seizures and invasions, while Saudi Arabia is mostly guilty of the treatment of its own people.

[Hooahguy]

Jordan, Morocco, Kuwait, Tunisia, UAE, Oman, Algeria. They all have their deficiencies, and to say Israel is totally better is subjective at the very least. Most, if not all, of the listed countries have never invaded others. Oman and Tunisia have always been neutral.
Well, Jordan did invade someone. Israel, in 1948. And then they fought again in 1967. After which minority Jewish populations in many of the countries you listed were persecuted, set upon by mobs, or outright kicked out.

And bear in mind when we say "better" we are arguing "a tiny bit better." Nowhere are we excusing Israel's (many) crimes. Besides why are these countries consistently rated lower in the realm of human rights by various organizations such as Freedom House and Human Rights Watch.


Fact is he’s fighting violent totalitarian movements that are not internationally recognized but supported anyway. Whether they had approval or not we can’t say for sure.
You realize that Assad is also a violent totalitarian regime right? If it wasnt done with his approval he certainly hasnt said anything to make anyone think otherwise.


Only time will tell, one of the key qualities of their foreign policy is that they handle their business legally. This is what makes them better than the west in that department.
Sure, besides their funding of groups who engage in terrorist activities.


They’re against illegal forced occupation, so they fund resistance. Those groups killing Sunnis are disgusting, but when the US stormed in it was open season, Iran won over most Iraqi people.
Ok, so because Iran wants a stable neighbor out of Iraq, why would they fund insurgents fighting against the government that the US was trying to help?


https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

Look at page 3 for context and then scroll down to #8 C. for the zinger.
You do realize this is just a report, not a paper outlining policy, theres no credible evidence that the US funded ISIS. If there was, it would be the scandal of the century, and it would be all over the news and whatnot. Which is why this "smoking gun" is just an illusion.


Do all religions and groups have representation in Israeli politics?
Political representation doesnt automatically mean equality. For example, in Iran, Jews are barred from a lot of government positions. Is that religious freedom? A token seat in parliament is hardly true representation anyways. What religious freedom means is that any religion can practice openly and freely in a country.


I understand that these may be terror groups to you, but keep in mind they’re resistance movements, and Iran is all for that as it’s against launching wars on other countries. I agree they’re fanning flames, but Hamas and Hezbollah reacted to invaders. Just because they're listed as terrorists by the west and its allies doesn't make it so for everybody else.
Ah yes, such great acts of resistance such as the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in Argentina where 85 people were killed. Totally resistance, not terror. Totally.


Israel has atrocities unique to Israel, and I don’t think it’s fair to say that it’s superior everyone else. It’s kind of offensive because most ME countries are painted with the same brush, but I believe they hold their own just like Israel does in other areas. To say Israel is better than the rest just for being a democracy is ill-informed, and a part of the problem. Don't forget that Israel regularly does stuff that is labelled illegal by the international community like land seizures and invasions, while Saudi Arabia is mostly guilty of the treatment of its own people.
Again, nobody is arguing that Israel is anywhere close to being an angel. Hell, I will be the first to condemn how Israel treats Palestinians, steals land for settlements, indiscriminate bombing of Gaza, and the list goes on. My argument is that it is slightly better, in the sense that you can be openly gay without government persecution, women have full rights, there is freedom of the press, etc. Granted, in some of these areas these freedoms are being eroded such as freedom of the press.

[Papewaio]

Never said that. I said they’re less racist and they’re less murderous, often because their regimes are incapable of being so as much as Israel.

When was the last time Iran launched a war? 1/3 of Israel’s citizens can’t vote right? Everyone in Iran can including Iranian Jews. Seems like religious freedom is worse in Israel, and Iran is less genocidal. They only talk about it.

Compare how Bahrain handled the Arab Spring to how Israel handled ragtag resistance launching firecrackers. Look at the numbers.

Iran is not an Arab state.

[Gilrandir]

And where in this is the understanding you have for the Arab reaction? Do Palestinians not live in constant fear?


I don't know. If you initiate violence you WILL live in constant fear of retaliation. But I don't feel sorry for those who e. g. attack civilians with a knife and then vanish into the thickly populated neighborhood making its denizens live in constant fear of retaliation from Israelis or of being branded traitors if they deliver the perpetrator to the police.



I don't support it in either case, I brought it up because you seemed to be finding excuses for the Israeli occupations.


Yet the comparison was lame.


M17 has nothing to do with that referendum and why people voted no, completily seperated issues

That is the problem - the Dutch didn't/don't seem to realize that those issues are connected.

[Fragony]

That is the problem - the Dutch didn't/don't seem to realize that those issues are connected.

They probably are, but the considerations for voting no against that treaty has mostly financial reasons. We are more pissed of of our own government for not doing their job investigating it properly but that really isn't important, M17 is a side-issue. I couldn't care less who did it really shit happens.

[Husar]

I don't know. If you initiate violence you WILL live in constant fear of retaliation. But I don't feel sorry for those who e. g. attack civilians with a knife and then vanish into the thickly populated neighborhood making its denizens live in constant fear of retaliation from Israelis or of being branded traitors if they deliver the perpetrator to the police.

Eh, the state of Israel was not exactly founded by having the people of the region vote on it. So by your own argument, it is the fault of the Israelis that they themselves live in constant fear of retaliation. So what was your argument again?

[Fragony]

Eh, the state of Israel was not exactly founded by having the people of the region vote on it. So by your own argument, it is the fault of the Israelis that they themselves live in constant fear of retaliation. So what was your argument again?

A very well-balanced one I'd say

As for the M17, I can't speak for me fellow Dutchies, but I am pretty sure most just wonder why it was flying over warzone when it was known that both sides have the means to take it down.

[AE Bravo]

And bear in mind when we say "better" we are arguing "a tiny bit better." Nowhere are we excusing Israel's (many) crimes. Besides why are these countries consistently rated lower in the realm of human rights by various organizations such as Freedom House and Human Rights Watch.
That’s true, but Jordan isn’t an apartheid state, probably more free than Israel for everybody living there. It’s also worth noting that this is around the time that Israel, with their phalangist allies, targeted Palestinian refugee camps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

You realize that Assad is also a violent totalitarian regime right? If it wasnt done with his approval he certainly hasnt said anything to make anyone think otherwise.
There’s no need to say anything, he has been constantly demonized even before he was as big of an asshole as he is now, just for taking a stance. You’d be surprised how free pre-war Syria was, you could be openly atheist and even write a book about it. Does Netanyahu not deserve to be treated similarly? Why isn't he demonized?

Sure, besides their funding of groups who engage in terrorist activities.
Less destructive than US and allies in that department as well.

Ok, so because Iran wants a stable neighbor out of Iraq, why would they fund insurgents fighting against the government that the US was trying to help?
At the end of the day the Quds Force and the CIA had the same plan for Iraq's government, they both were responsible for placing a war criminal as its president.

You do realize this is just a report, not a paper outlining policy, theres no credible evidence that the US funded ISIS. If there was, it would be the scandal of the century, and it would be all over the news and whatnot. Which is why this "smoking gun" is just an illusion.
Of course there’s little proof that they funded them, but they obviously knew about it and went along with it to pull the rug from under a once stable Syrian government.

Political representation doesnt automatically mean equality. For example, in Iran, Jews are barred from a lot of government positions. Is that religious freedom? A token seat in parliament is hardly true representation anyways. What religious freedom means is that any religion can practice openly and freely in a country.
Token or not, they have a multi religious and multiethnic military and political system. Shia Islam is the official state religion, and everything else including Sunni Islam is relegated. Still, equality in Iran is better because they have a more inclusive society. How is it listed as "free" in Freedom House when 1/3 of the population can't vote based on their ethnicity? Should be "partially free," not free.

Ah yes, such great acts of resistance such as the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in Argentina where 85 people were killed. Totally resistance, not terror. Totally.
Gonna have to agree to disagree, Hezbollah’s involvement is totally up for debate.

Again, nobody is arguing that Israel is anywhere close to being an angel. Hell, I will be the first to condemn how Israel treats Palestinians, steals land for settlements, indiscriminate bombing of Gaza, and the list goes on. My argument is that it is slightly better, in the sense that you can be openly gay without government persecution, women have full rights, there is freedom of the press, etc. Granted, in some of these areas these freedoms are being eroded such as freedom of the press.
These are all admirable traits of Israeli society, but what do those rights mean when they were built on the backs of people whose self-determination was taken away from them? It’s as much a dictatorship as a lot of its neighbors, to people that are under its occupation. Israel is an apartheid state, and to say it’s any better than the likes of Tunisia or even the monarchies is not accurate.

[HopAlongBunny]

A critique of Israel that is non-anti-semitic cannot exist at present. The label "anti-semitic" is used to flag critiques as outside the universe of discourse; all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic; therefore outside the universe of discourse.
That's just the way things are, independent of the quality/veracity of any such critique.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_Illusions

[Fragony]

Just curious, why do people who call a state an apartheid state when it's basicly nothing more than a admittingly apartheid society. I wouldn't use that word in any case,it's really off imho

[Hooahguy]

That’s true, but Jordan isn’t an apartheid state, probably more free than Israel for everybody living there. It’s also worth noting that this is around the time that Israel, with their phalangist allies, targeted Palestinian refugee camps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
Sure, though there isnt much in the way of free speech but I suppose in the grand scheme of things thats better than most in the region.


There’s no need to say anything, he has been constantly demonized even before he was as big of an asshole as he is now, just for taking a stance. You’d be surprised how free pre-war Syria was, you could be openly atheist and even write a book about it. Does Netanyahu not deserve to be treated similarly? Why isn't he demonized?
So free that you can protest without being fired upon by the military?

And people do demonize Bibi. A lot. I strongly dislike the man and he has done terrible things, but now you are doing what Israel's apologists do- point fingers at others to deflect criticism.


Of course there’s little proof that they funded them, but they obviously knew about it and went along with it to pull the rug from under a once stable Syrian government.
So why did you say that they were funding them earlier.


Token or not, they have a multi religious and multiethnic military and political system. Shia Islam is the official state religion, and everything else including Sunni Islam is relegated. Still, equality in Iran is better because they have a more inclusive society. How is it listed as "free" in Freedom House when 1/3 of the population can't vote based on their ethnicity? Should be "partially free," not free.
Well first off, the 1/3 statistic is if you include everyone in the West Bank and Gaza. They arent citizens, and dont get to vote in Israeli elections. Yes, the military occupation of the West Bank is bad, and needs to end. So does the stranglehold over Gaza. But at the same time they arent Israeli citizens which is why pretty much all human rights organizations who deal with that area list Israel as being "free" in that regard.


Gonna have to agree to disagree, Hezbollah’s involvement is totally up for debate.
So besides the fact that in this case pretty much all the evidence pointed to Hezbollah involvement, theres a whole bunch of other terror attacks I can list that were linked to Hezbollah. But really it is coming across that you simply deny the fact that Hezbollah is, at its core, a terrorist organization.


These are all admirable traits of Israeli society, but what do those rights mean when they were built on the backs of people whose self-determination was taken away from them? It’s as much a dictatorship as a lot of its neighbors, to people that are under its occupation. Israel is an apartheid state, and to say it’s any better than the likes of Tunisia or even the monarchies is not accurate.
Yes, and its a real issue that the world and Israel have to deal with (though Bibi isnt a dictator nor do I think that Israel is truly an apartheid state but whatever). But at the same time, don't whitewash the crimes of their neighbors when going after the crimes of Israel.

[AE Bravo]

Sure, though there isnt much in the way of free speech but I suppose in the grand scheme of things thats better than most in the region.
If its government actually practices what it claims for itself and give its citizens equal rights. This would actually be in Israel’s favor in the grand scheme of things. Until then, I can see a lot of countries that are better, and they don’t have to be as liberal to do that because they don’t prevent weak people from basic human services every day.

So free that you can protest without being fired upon by the military?

And people do demonize Bibi. A lot. I strongly dislike the man and he has done terrible things, but now you are doing what Israel's apologists do- point fingers at others to deflect criticism.
Before things got out of hand, Assad dealt with protesters the same way the Israeli police dealt with Arab protesters. If you read up on the Syrian protests from non-western or less biased Arab media outlets you’ll see that Islamists fired from the crowds and planted snipers, you’ll even see that Assad began the reformation process before his voice was buried by his powerful enemies. If people really had Syria’s best interest in mind they should’ve been more diplomatic and avoid threatening to destroy the big guns rather than force them to make concessions (which they started doing btw). Damascus is pro-Bashar, violent protests came from the countryside and invaded the city, most violent protests in Syria want an Islamic state, not a Syrian one.

So why did you say that they were funding them earlier.
They did, this is why Syria is where it’s at now. Who do you think everyone was talking about with the "moderate" rebels? There are over 1,000 brigades, they have no problem being wolves in sheep's clothing if it gets them what they want.

Well first off, the 1/3 statistic is if you include everyone in the West Bank and Gaza. They arent citizens, and dont get to vote in Israeli elections. Yes, the military occupation of the West Bank is bad, and needs to end. So does the stranglehold over Gaza. But at the same time they arent Israeli citizens which is why pretty much all human rights organizations who deal with that area list Israel as being "free" in that regard.
And this is how Israel circumvents what it supposedly stands for. Its human rights violations dealing with people under its control outweighs some of the “not free” countries in Freedom House.

So besides the fact that in this case pretty much all the evidence pointed to Hezbollah involvement, theres a whole bunch of other terror attacks I can list that were linked to Hezbollah. But really it is coming across that you simply deny the fact that Hezbollah is, at its core, a terrorist organization.
You’re passing this off as a fact, but it isn’t. The word has no meaning, not in Islamic politics or any politics. Ask the people of Lebanon if Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.

Yes, and its a real issue that the world and Israel have to deal with (though Bibi isnt a dictator nor do I think that Israel is truly an apartheid state but whatever). But at the same time, don't whitewash the crimes of their neighbors when going after the crimes of Israel.
The only progressive Israel is a post-Zionist Israel. As of now, it’s dominated by ethnic nationalism at the constant expense of another group, so I feel it deserves to be thrown in the same basket.

[Hooahguy]

If you read up on the Syrian protests from non-western or biased Arab media outlets
So in other words, only sources that conform to your particular world view. Gotcha.


They did, this is why Syria is where it’s at now. Who do you think everyone was talking about with the "moderate" rebels? There are over 1,000 brigades, they have no problem being wolves in sheep's clothing if it gets them what they want.
You said there was little proof. Why are you now saying that its definitive.


And this is how Israel circumvents what it supposedly stands for. Its human rights violations dealing with people under its control outweighs some of the “not free” countries in Freedom House.
I agree, I was just saying how its justified under international law.


You’re passing this off as a fact, but it isn’t. The word has no meaning, not in Islamic politics or any politics. Ask the people of Lebanon if Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.
I mean the Arab League considers them as such. As does the EU. And the US. And to most apparently. But to you facts carry no meaning so it wouldnt matter anyways.


The only progressive Israel is a post-Zionist Israel. As of now, it’s dominated by ethnic nationalism like most of its neighbors, so I feel it deserves to be thrown in the same basket.
I agree. I think Zionism is only hurting the cause of democracy in Israel. I just happen to think that its towards the top of that basket.

[AE Bravo]

You said there was little proof. Why are you now saying that its definitive.
That they funded Assad’s opponents is a no-brainer. I said that there was no actual proof of funding Daesh itself, you’re conflating separate points.

I agree, I was just saying how its justified under international law.
That’s also a mixed bag with Israel, because they tend to violate international law where it matters.

I mean the Arab League considers them as such. As does the EU. And the US. And to most apparently. But to you facts carry no meaning so it wouldnt matter anyways.
So because all these countries, including my own, have them in their list it’s a “fact?” What about the countries that object like Tunisia? It's a homegrown movement, and it's not hurting Lebanon. It doesn't mean anything.

I agree. I think Zionism is only hurting the cause of democracy in Israel. I just happen to think that its towards the top of that basket.
Dunno, but feel free to see it that way when comparing it to a country that doesn’t regularly deny basic human services like electricity, humanitarian aid, food on the table, and a wall that separates Muslims from Jews.

[Hooahguy]

That they funded Assad’s opponents is a no-brainer. I said that there was no actual proof of funding Daesh itself, you’re conflating separate points.
Are you reading what you are writing? Because Im definitely getting mixed signals here.


So because all these countries, including my own, have them in their list it’s a “fact?” What about the countries that object like Tunisia? It's a homegrown movement, and it's not hurting Lebanon. It doesn't mean anything.

Well, yes. The international community has for the most part agreed that Hezbollah at the very least has parts of it which engage in terrorist activities. The same international community which has condemned Israel for its crimes. You cant ignore the opinion of the international community when its not convenient for you.

[AE Bravo]

You find it hard to believe that Islamist and Kurdish opposition have gotten to where they are with foreign backing…

I’m not trying to whitewash anything, but coming back to the point, these things have to be highlighted when you look at Iranian foreign policy. Basically you started by telling me that “if you know anything about Iranian foreign policy you’d know it SUCKS” without telling me how it’s worse than US or Israel. I tried explaining why it’s smarter and safer. If facts didn’t matter to me like you say I wouldn’t waste my time defending something I really dislike.

Well, yes. The international community has for the most part agreed that Hezbollah at the very least has parts of it which engage in terrorist activities. The same international community which has condemned Israel for its crimes. You cant ignore the opinion of the international community when its not convenient for you.
One is a disputed issue while the other isn’t. You can point to supranational bodies being against something to make a point but you can’t say it’s “fact” when there are countries that object to it using the charters of the very same bodies to prove a point.

[Hooahguy]

You find it hard to believe that Islamist and Kurdish opposition have gotten to where they are with foreign backing…
You said that "US funded Daesh before it became Daesh just so it could bring down Assad." I think for some reason you think that the Syrian rebels boil down to Kurds, Islamist, or ISIS. There are moderate groups fighting, there just arent very many of them. Which is why the US program to arm moderate rebels failed, because whoever they did vet and then arm, they were just captured or gave up to extremist groups. So is the US arming extremist groups by accident? Sure I guess if you want to argue that feeble point, that goes back to 2014 when the Iraqi Army just kinda gave up and all that equipment that the US donated fell into ISIS hands. But its is not policy and there is no evidence that it is policy as you say yourself.


I’m not trying to whitewash anything, but coming back to the point, these things have to be highlighted when you look at Iranian foreign policy. Basically you started by telling me that “if you know anything about Iranian foreign policy you’d know it SUCKS” without telling me how it’s worse than US or Israel. I tried explaining why it’s smarter and safer. If facts didn’t matter to me like you say I wouldn’t waste my time defending something I really dislike.
Clearly you arent reading what Im writing because I never said that Iranian FP flat out sucks. And I do mention how their FP isnt all that great you just dont listen. There are "good" parts to Iranian FP, I just do not think that its all sunshine and roses like you seem to think. I think you whitewash when you find something which you disagree with. Such as Hezbollah.


One is a disputed issue while the other isn’t. You can point to supranational bodies being against something to make a point but you can’t say it’s “fact” when there are countries that object to it using the charters of the very same bodies to prove a point.
On a certain level, both issues are disputed if we are going by your logic. Because there are countries who do object to the idea that Israel is apartheid and whatnot.

[AE Bravo]

Well, we know they funded FSA and they are pretty much Islamist, since they’re affiliated with a whole lot of other subgroups with fascist charters. US’s allies, like Qatar and Turkey, support AQ groups like Al Nusra. These moderate rebels you’re talking....who the hell knows who they are, man.

There are "good" parts to Iranian FP, I just do not think that its all sunshine and roses like you seem to think. I think you whitewash when you find something which you disagree with. Such as Hezbollah.
Me saying it’s not a terror org isn’t whitewashing.

And no, it’s not sunshine and roses but it’s better, the results they got speak for themselves. It's proven to be safer, no need to sidestep that.

On a certain level, both issues are disputed if we are going by your logic. Because there are countries who do object to the idea that Israel is apartheid and whatnot.
Okay, here’s what you said:

Well, yes. The international community has for the most part agreed that Hezbollah at the very least has parts of it which engage in terrorist activities. The same international community which has condemned Israel for its crimes. You cant ignore the opinion of the international community when its not convenient for you.
Israeli war crimes = acknowledged by everyone
Hezbollah labelling = disputed

And you’re right, not everybody considers it apartheid. On the other hand, apartheid is easier to spot since terrorism doesn’t really mean anything.

[Hooahguy]

Me saying it’s not a terror org isn’t whitewashing.
To you maybe.


And no, it’s not sunshine and roses but it’s better, the results they got speak for themselves. It's proven to be safer, no need to sidestep that.
Maybe safer. They are still pariahs to an extent, and only beginning to shed that label with the recent nuclear deal.


Israeli war crimes = acknowledged by everyone
Hezbollah labelling = disputed
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was pointing out that most of the same people who call out Israel for their crimes are also the ones who say that Hezbollah at the very least has elements which engage in terrorist activities. Some go further and label the whole thing as a terror organization but some which just label certain parts of Hezbollah, acknowledging the fact that there are parts of the group which actually do good for the Lebanese people.


On the other hand, apartheid is easier to spot since terrorism doesn’t really mean anything.
Explain?

[Gilrandir]

Eh, the state of Israel was not exactly founded by having the people of the region vote on it. So by your own argument, it is the fault of the Israelis that they themselves live in constant fear of retaliation. So what was your argument again?

My argument was forwarded based on no retrospective. If we start to figure out who started and who retaliated then, it will get all messy because each side may claim either way.

I was talking of the PRESENT DAY situation, where we almost always see Arabs attacking and Jews retaliating. Adopting this synchronic standpoint, Jews live in constant fear of attacks and Arabs get the retaliation blows. If Arabs stopped attacking, the reataliation (and much of the fear) would cease as well, no?




As for the M17, I can't speak for me fellow Dutchies, but I am pretty sure most just wonder why it was flying over warzone when it was known that both sides have the means to take it down.

Wrong. The separatists were presumed to have portable launchers only not capable of reaching great altitudes used by passenger planes. It was the shooting down of MH 17 that was the first evidence that the presumption was wrong.

[Fragony]

What I know an of course I don't know, but experts on these things say it was an older model because of the exit damage, the type only Ukraine has. But what does it matter, that plane just shouldn't have been there. I am only angry at the people who let it fly there.

[Gilrandir]

What I know an of course I don't know, but experts on these things say it was an older model because of the exit damage, the type only Ukraine has.
Russian experts?

[Fragony]

Russian experts?

Not as far as I know, experts on weapon-systems at least, older models supposedly leave differerent exit-damage, and it looks like itwas shot from behind. Seems logical to me as it was exit-damage, not frontal. But again, I don't really care who it was these people are dead and that's how far I am willing to care, that plane just shouldn't have been flying over a warzone. Everybody was probably dead the second the plane was hit, I hope at least, but it was completily torn apart so they probably were. There are a lot of questions to be asked though, I don't believe that all Ukrian's radars were into maintanance at the same time, nobody would do that. Common sense would say that the association-deal is more important than the M17 for some, had it been Russia it would have been used into their advantage to creep up on Russia's borders.

[AE Bravo]

To you maybe.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was pointing out that most of the same people who call out Israel for their crimes are also the ones who say that Hezbollah at the very least has elements which engage in terrorist activities. Some go further and label the whole thing as a terror organization but some which just label certain parts of Hezbollah, acknowledging the fact that there are parts of the group which actually do good for the Lebanese people.
Their whole schtick is unethical just like any religious group, but at the same time it does nothing to label them “terrorists" since they're not like any other group. Best to not disqualify them altogether and avoid being in utter denial of the workings of ME politics and Lebanese society in particular, because this is a mini state not a bunch of rebels. Lets not forget this started as a resistance movement to begin with to fend off invaders, and labelling them “terrorists” is what drove them to the country that didn’t label them as such - Iran.

Whether it's the same people or not, look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups This isn't something that's unanimous and most certainly isn't a fact. Look up terrorism you'll find different definitions that often extend to what states are doing right now. If you have to be a non-state actor to be labelled a terrorist, and a popular movement to boot operating legally within a state like Lebanon, the word loses its value.

Maybe safer. They are still pariahs to an extent, and only beginning to shed that label with the recent nuclear deal.
They’re considered pariahs by a few countries that have more dangerous effects on the world than they do, sure.

[AE Bravo]

If it looks like apartheid, swims like apartheid, and quacks like apartheid, then it probably is apartheid. Albeit less brazen. I could say that you're whitewashing by not considering it that way.

There's plenty of non anti-semitic criticism of Israel. Just take a look at the fascist PM calling people "wild animals."

[Pannonian]

If it looks like apartheid, swims like apartheid, and quacks like apartheid, then it probably is apartheid. Albeit less brazen. I could say that you're whitewashing by not considering it that way.

There's plenty of non anti-semitic criticism of Israel. Just take a look at the fascist PM calling people "wild animals."

If it looks like barbarism, swims like barbarism, and quacks like barbarism, then it probably is barbarism. And it's quite brazen about it too. Welcome to the middle east experience, where the Israeli section is less unpleasant than all the other bits. Not pleasant by any stretch of the imagination, but the Muslim bits range from slightly worse, in a few of them, to considerably worse, in most of them. Probably best to skip this theme park altogether.

[Gilrandir]

Not as far as I know, experts on weapon-systems at least, older models supposedly leave differerent exit-damage, and it looks like itwas shot from behind. Seems logical to me as it was exit-damage, not frontal.

AFAIK, it was the cockpit that was hit.

[Fragony]

AFAIK, it was the cockpit that was hit.

We will never know, I am not angry about all this, mistakes happen

[Kralizec]

Just curious, why do people who call a state an apartheid state when it's basicly nothing more than a admittingly apartheid society. I wouldn't use that word in any case,it's really off imho

The argument is basicly that Israels treatment of the Palestinians is similar to the way South Africa treated its black people. Under Apartheid, the official position was that black and coloured people weren't citizens of South Africa. Instead, they were citizens of their own governments, which also had small plots of territory. It was called the Homeland system. The "black homelands" were actually a farce, basically puppets of South Africa, and were recognised by no other country.

Most black people had no meaningful job prospects in their "homelands" and had no choice but to seek jobs for South African companies, often even on the territory of "real" South Africa. They were considered foreign workers, and had virtually no protection under the law.
In Israel/Palestine the Palestinians often have a somewhat similar postion, being forced to work for Israeli companies (often settler colonies). I think the comparison is flawed in some respects, but it's still a terrible situation.


PS: Good posts, Hooahguy and Showtime.

[Kralizec]

AFAIK, it was the cockpit that was hit.


We will never know, I am not angry about all this, mistakes happen

The damage to the fuselage is entirely consistent with a Surface-to-Air missile (i.e. a BUK) exploding near the front of the plane, and shredding the cockpit with shrapnel. This isn't my opinion, but the opinion of trained experts who have spent a lot of time on this. And yes, there are "experts" on the Russian side who dispute these findings, who have suggested a million different theories about how Ukraine is responsible. Putin is a fascist, and I don't take any of his apologists seriously.

[Fragony]

The damage to the fuselage is entirely consistent with a Surface-to-Air missile (i.e. a BUK) exploding near the front of the plane, and shredding the cockpit with shrapnel. This isn't my opinion, but the opinion of trained experts who have spent a lot of time on this. And yes, there are "experts" on the Russian side who dispute these findings, who have suggested a million different theories about how Ukraine is responsible. Putin is a fascist, and I don't take any of his apologists seriously.

You shouldn't. We wil never know it's obviously much bigger than the cassier who didn't give me enough change. I don't think anyone actually wants to know how all this came to be. Things can often be as simple as people doing something stupid, or really smart

[HopAlongBunny]

The deafening silence of the U.S. allowed the first resolution since 1979 condemning Israeli settlement policy:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/12/symbolic-resolution-israeli-settlements-161225090953898.html

[Hooahguy]

With the truce now over I have moved it to the Backroom where it belongs.

[LittleGrizzly]

Maybe someone can correct me on this and provide some really good reasons why it was done now right at the end of his final term in office....

But I can't help but feel this is just complete cowardice, Obama has decided to finally stand up and do the right thing now that there is very little chance it can harm him. Almost anybody can do the right thing in that situation.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Maybe someone can correct me on this and provide some really good reasons why it was done now right at the end of his final term in office....

But I can't help but feel this is just complete cowardice, Obama has decided to finally stand up and do the right thing now that there is very little chance it can harm him. Almost anybody can do the right thing in that situation.

Its just his way of flipping off Bebe on the way out. Not meant to be a substantive thing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a bit more than that - it finally gets a resolution on the books, one voted for by everyone but the US. That sends a significant message to the people of Israel on both sides of the argument - settlement building is not acceptable, it is illegal.

It also provoked a reaction from the Israeli Government that frankly betrays just how bizarre their position is.

It's not as much as the World needs, but it's something, more than nothing.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Israel will continue to colonize their conquered territories. They will do this until someone stops them with armed force (not annoys them or hurts them).

[LittleGrizzly]

I think its symbolic, but coming so late in the Obama administration and with such a pro-Israeli president about to be inaugurated it'll mean very little.

I do slightly disagree with the above assessment though, if Israeli got a similar treatment to the one Apartheid South Africa got then they would be forced to relent as so many voters would lose out financially. There may be enough support to keep the settlements going when it doesn't really cost Israeli's that much but if they started taking big financial hits then that support might disappear quite quickly.

[Montmorency]

I think its symbolic, but coming so late in the Obama administration and with such a pro-Israeli president about to be inaugurated it'll mean very little.

I do slightly disagree with the above assessment though, if Israeli got a similar treatment to the one Apartheid South Africa got then they would be forced to relent as so many voters would lose out financially. There may be enough support to keep the settlements going when it doesn't really cost Israeli's that much but if they started taking big financial hits then that support might disappear quite quickly.

This is a pitfall I think too many are lured in by.

1. Sanctions and disinvestment had very little concrete effect on the South African economy, and temporarily bolstered support for white supremacist rule. That is the flaw of principle for the comparison.
2. Sanctions were undertaken as political will allowed, meaning the lowest hanging fruit; this contributed to the largely-symbolic effect of sanctions by the countries undertaking them. Countries from whom sanctions on Israel would count most have the most to lose from them, in turn lowering political will.
3. Alternative economic partners are more readily found in today's world than in the 80s and 90s.
4. The political regime in South Africa was steadily weakening, while in Israel it is steadily strengthening - perhaps more appropriately said, it is hardening.
5. Afrikaners projected power outwards from white enclaves, while Israelis project power inward to Palestinian enclaves. Jewish supremacists lording over a Jewish state with minor colonial holdings (or else genuine apartheid with full administration of Palestinians as second-class citizens) stands on much firmer ground than white supremacists trying to hold tens of millions of black Africans in thrall, in the midst of a black African geography.
6. Palestinian Arabs are not looked upon favorably by the European mass, the American mass, the Israeli mass, or even the Arab mass. The Russians and Chinese would prefer they remain a restive thorn, if anything.
7. Black South Africans had the paradoxical advantage of both numbers in comparison to Palestinians and of not really being anything like a single cohesive ethnic group (to the extent Palestinians may be such).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think its symbolic, but coming so late in the Obama administration and with such a pro-Israeli president about to be inaugurated it'll mean very little.

I do slightly disagree with the above assessment though, if Israeli got a similar treatment to the one Apartheid South Africa got then they would be forced to relent as so many voters would lose out financially. There may be enough support to keep the settlements going when it doesn't really cost Israeli's that much but if they started taking big financial hits then that support might disappear quite quickly.

Possibly, but they have been somewhat of a pariah state as it is.

When they concede the settlements, the next point will be Jerusalem and full control of the West Bank as Palestine. After that, the next step is to continue the pressure until they forfeit all of the lands not accorded them by the 1947 mandate or to compensate/underwrite Palestine in lieu of "the right of return."

Moreover, since a Jewish state on the Arabian peninsula is anathema too all the hard core Salafist types, the violence never stops no matter what concessions are made.


The conflict in Israel/Palestine will cease when the Jews have been wiped out or the bulk of Arab cultures actually shift towards modernity.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Possibly, but they have been somewhat of a pariah state as it is.

When they concede the settlements, the next point will be Jerusalem and full control of the West Bank as Palestine. After that, the next step is to continue the pressure until they forfeit all of the lands not accorded them by the 1947 mandate or to compensate/underwrite Palestine in lieu of "the right of return."

Moreover, since a Jewish state on the Arabian peninsula is anathema too all the hard core Salafist types, the violence never stops no matter what concessions are made.


The conflict in Israel/Palestine will cease when the Jews have been wiped out or the bulk of Arab cultures actually shift towards modernity.

Israel is a state established by terror and forced expulsion, it's also a major Cause Celebre for extremist Islam.

It is for these reasons that it is in constant danger, but that does not give them the right to oppress the Palestinians. In reality, Israel is not a viable state as it is, it is currently only half a state, caught between stability and annihilation.

[Greyblades]

Personally I think Israel should evict the palestinians and be done with it, Israel's enemies can hardly hate them more than they allready do and thier allies have long since lost sympathy for islam.

Way I see it save for the inevitable violence during the eviction the removal of an eternal fifth collumn to a neighbouring region would be nothing but a net benefit for the state of israel.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Personally I think Israel should evict the palestinians and be done with it, Israel's enemies can hardly hate them more than they allready do and thier allies have long since lost sympathy for islam.

Way I see it save for the inevitable violence during the eviction the removal of an eternal fifth collumn to a neighbouring region would be nothing but a net benefit for the state of israel.

Not sure that I would agree with the "5th column" label, since I don't believe they are enemies within, so to speak. The majority of them have never accepted Israel's right to the conquered territories, so they aren't really working against their own government/culture.

And while the expulsion bit mentioned by PVH is arguable, the use of terrorism as a pressure tactic by Israel's founders is well documented. It may have had more of a guerilla war overtone in terms of targets, but Israeli terrorists certainly did take out civilian and mixed targets along with security forces targets. Moreover, once the Palestinian Arabs had cleared out to make way for the military assault on Israel, Israel, in practical terms, did not let them come back and did take all their land.

The only right to land Israel really has -- since they jumped the gun on the mandate land grants anyway -- is by right of conquest. Conquest is not the generally accepted legitimation strategy it once was...


Of course, I have to say this as a citizen of a country that was founded by rebelling against our own acknowledged government for the heinous behavior of moderate taxes enacted, in part, to defray costs incurred in defending our territory militarily. This rebellion was begun with doses of terrorism -- admittedly not too many that were lethal -- but which featured repeated acts of brutality, terrorism, and theft perpetrated between rebel and loyalist sympathizers. Once having been established, my new country proceeded, somewhat haphazardly, to acquire vast territories from those already living there through force expulsions, wars of aggression, pogroms (not genocide since it was never programmatic enough, but featuring many of the joyous tactics of ethnic cleansing). We absorbed an entire state of 5th columnists who'd rebelled successfully against the government they'd sworn to abide under, trumped up a war against our Southern neighbor to fulfill our "manifest destiny" after that huge new state was not enough; invaded foreign territory to conduct war against the native population living there and then forced the 'legal' owner to sell us the territory; launched two campaigns of conquest against our Northern neighbor (not wars of aggression, but when wars against England occurred, 'on to Quebec' was apparently on the to-do list); supported a 5th column effort in Hawaii and then absorbed the territory; allowed a journalist to foment a war to free Cuba from tyranny, which just happened to require us to invade and take over the Philippines and Puerto Rico as part of our campaign to free Cuba; and aided a provincial rebellion in order to establish Panama and get exclusive control of a lucrative and strategically important trans-oceanic canal (curiously, no Panamanians were physically around to sign the treaty that established Panama....).

It's all okay though, since this was all pre WW1, we got it "in under teh lock" so we cool.

[Greyblades]

Hrm, in my eyes Israel is lesson one on the forgotten reasons for the brutality of states past.

I wonder how much time money and blood would have been spent compared to history if Israel could have enacted a convert or leave policy with the palestinians once their millitary superiority was established.

[LittleGrizzly]

Monty I wouldn't expect a sea change in Israeli national opinion but just a strong enough targeting of enough moderates wallets to convince them that its worth changing their vote (slightly) rather than losing money and the hypothetical did entail a fair few countries following through with it, realistically I wouldn't expect anything like it to happen just feel the hypothetical of countries following through with it could lead to a small change.

Greyblades and I wonder if you could make a similar argument about letting many of the Europeans who formed Israel die at the hands of the third reich instead?

Regardless of either actually saving lives or money (if they would) in the long run I don't think you can justify either.

[LittleGrizzly]

Seamus (can't seem to reply so this is my version of it)

It is all well and good claiming that a peaceful Israel willing to give land back and treat the Palestinians fairly would not be tolerated but it is somewhat difficult to prove given the lack of evidence one way or the other. I wouldn't wildly disagree that there are some zealots who, regardless of their actions would not accept Israel, these people are nutters. Unfortunately it can become quite difficult to spot these nutters in amongst all the other people who dislike Israel and strike out at it for quite legitimate reasons.

Whilst an element could still rail against Israel to an extent it would become increasingly difficult message to convince people of, more moderate voices would actually be empowered, the misdeeds of Israel could no longer boost their extremist opponents. It would be a long process but in time progress would be made and most Palestinians would rather get on with their lives given such an opportunity than fight for a cause not so closely linked to their survival.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Seamus (can't seem to reply so this is my version of it)

It is all well and good claiming that a peaceful Israel willing to give land back and treat the Palestinians fairly would not be tolerated but it is somewhat difficult to prove given the lack of evidence one way or the other. I wouldn't wildly disagree that there are some zealots who, regardless of their actions would not accept Israel, these people are nutters. Unfortunately it can become quite difficult to spot these nutters in amongst all the other people who dislike Israel and strike out at it for quite legitimate reasons....

What frustrates me is the percentage of zealots in Islamic societies, especially Arabian ones. Morocco and Algeria both have their Islamist zealots, but the percentages seem to be about the same as with Western culture zealots -- an annoyance but not a vexing concern. Why is it so much more prevalent in the rest of those areas? I am pretty sure the answer has to be cultural, not religious, because ALL religions can spawn zealotry. Heck, the original zealots were, themselves, Jewish.


As you may have noted with my posts, I am despairing about the whole issue and well aware that all parties' behaviors have been....flawed...to say the least. Yet it seems that ANYTHING that is tried to improve the situation ends up becoming counterproductive, often in unpredictable ways.

Even the Camp David Accord mediated by Carter. He focused on two parties, knowing that if he brought the two of them permanently off the battlefield with one another that the Israelis could defend themselves readily against any other military threat posed by the Arab world. He figured that by making war unwinnable, the various players would gradually move towards brokered agreements. Instead, the Accord created the conditions under which international Salafist terrorism thrived and morphed from occasional plane hijackings to highlight a message into ISIS beheadings of the week and nowhere is safe.

[rory_20_uk]

Obama's administration didn't want to wade into one mess in the middle east which was (relatively speaking) stable. Bad, unjust but stable - Israel was much more necessary to help with Syria. Fine. Understandable from a hard-nosed, morally neutral point.

This is nothing but an own-goal. Before the vote, the Israeli PM was rather concerned about Trump coming to be President. Now, by a master stroke, Trump is being lauded as the positive candidate.

The piece of paper the UN has crafted is itself irrelevant. Much more important is the $38 BILLION the USA is giving to Israel over the next decade.

~:smoking:

[spmetla]

It's all okay though, since this was all pre WW1, we got it "in under teh lock" so we cool.

Not sure why the West thinks that the rules changed, the rules remain the same, just because Western Europe and the US doesn't partake doesn't make conquest any less true or legitimate than it has in the past. Tibet was forcefully 'repatriated' by the PRC. North Vietnam did forcibly 'reunify' the South. The current PRC policy in the South China Sea and the de facto annexation of Crimea show that hasn't changed. The Iraq War and subsequent Syrian/ISIS crisis has an ongoing genocide on both sides that will award territory to the 'victors' again. If Argentina had won the Falklands War the UN wouldn't give two licks about the 'illegal imperial britons' that would be evicted. If the US and Coalition nations hadn't forced Saddam out of Kuwait no amount of sanctions and harmless condemning declarations would have returned Kuwaiti sovereignty.

Why is Israel somehow the bad guy for doing what everyone else has done and continues to do except a lot more light-handedly. If Israel had been wiped out in '48, '67, or '73 no one would be forcing the Palestinians to allow Jewish communities to exist just like no one cried over the forced expulsion of Jews throughout the middle east following the establishment of Israel. I actually agree with Greyblades wholeheartedly on this and wish that the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza were relocated to Egypt/Jordan and compensated for loss of homes in land or money.

The forced expulsion of ethnic germans from Czechoslovakia certainly ended any issues over the Sudetenlands. The exchange of Turks and Greeks between the two countries in '23 and after has certainly made it far less likely for war between the two again (unless Cyprus throws us another loop).

The two state solution will always fail seeing as Israel will see it's neighbor as a knife to its throat while the other sees no right for Israel to exist.

[HopAlongBunny]

... Much more important is the $38 BILLION the USA is giving to Israel over the next decade.
~:smoking:

That's probably the whole thing. Israel is secure so long as the U.S.A. says so.
Obama may have just wanted to highlight that fact to Israel.

[rory_20_uk]

The rules haven't changed, the window dressing has. We now "liberate" rather than invade, or "proactively defend" rather than invade. We have the rules of law and then we ensure that they don't really apply when we are doing what we want. Hell, even the EU manages to gobble up countries since the leaders decide to let it. No guns, no bullets but somehow the final sovereign power has shifted. The Ottomans / Romans / Chinese would understand the process.


The two state solution will always fail seeing as Israel will see it's neighbour as a knife to its throat while the other sees no right for Israel to exist.

So they are the only country on earth that has a neighbour that wants them dead? Hardly. But they are one of the few who have nukes and the other side don't.

~:smoking:

[LittleGrizzly]

spmelta If a group of Chinese moved to a different continent and started taking the natives land, one they owned a kingdom in thousands of years previously, they'd probably get criticised just as strongly as Israel does, if not more so.

Less sure regarding Falklands but most of the examples you mention the countries had some legitimate claim to, or at least a far more legitimate claim on the we had a kingdom here thousands of years ago. If Britain decided to forcefully take back some of its previous holdings, say Canada or India, in the same way Israel is doing, so we don't just take charge, we actually displace the locals to replace them with our own people, the criticism would be far stronger than anything Israel receives.

[spmetla]

The chinese are essentially doing what you mention in their semi-autonomous regions to the Uighurs, Tibetans, and Mongols. Instead of removing the natives though they oppress them and have a policy for han-ization which brings in lots of Han chinese and essentially makes the former natives an insignificant minority through the passage of time. When they conduct crack downs no one can protest because media is just not allowed in these regions.

I'm not defending the creation of Israel, it was a very stupid idea and shouldn't have happened. Fact of the matter though is that Israel does exist now, it has defended and expanded it's borders against all its neighbors and still managed to establish the most modern, liberal, safe and progression country in the region. There hadn't been an independent Palestinian arab state in all of history either, it was always a part of another country such as the Ottomans or the Mamluks. Point being the creation of a Palestine is just as much fabrication as that of Israel or even Kosovo. The local arabs were there of course in 1948, there were also a lot of jews there at the time too. The difference is that when the nation of Israel was created the Palestinians attacked it together with every other arab nation around it. Israel won, in 1967 it pre-emptively attacked and expanded it's borders, in 73 it was attacked and again expanded its borders and then gave the Sinai away in exchange for peace with Egypt.

We can't wind the clock back to 1948 and undo it's creation unless you are willing to remove all the Jews as well. Creating a Palestinian state based on the '67 borders will not work. They will of course reserve the right to attack Israel and Israel will then counter attack and occupy again. If Gaza were given to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan then there could be peace because those countries would certainly stamp out the terrorist elements that constantly fire rockets and commit attacks within Israel. As an independent county with no natural resources, no industry, infrastructure, and sharing half it's capital city and with its employment dependent on its neighbor means it would not be a feasible country.

Do you really think that the 2-state solution will work? Peace in the region requires the cycle violence to stop, the tit for tat needs to end. Israel won't stop its occupation so long as the PLO and Hamas encourage and orchestrate attacks. In my mind either Israel should formally take the West Bank and Gaza and implement its settler program making the arabs a minority in their own land as in China, and the US or those two regions should be annexed by Egypt and Jordan.
As for Jerusalem, I say no matter what let the Israelis have it. They actually tolerate and keep safe muslim worship, the modern arab States typically don't show the tolerance (outside tourist zones) that they demand and get (Copts, Jews, Maronites, Shia/Sunni infighting, Druze, pagans/shaminists).

[Montmorency]

We can't wind the clock back to 1948 and undo it's creation unless you are willing to remove all the Jews as well. Creating a Palestinian state based on the '67 borders will not work. They will of course reserve the right to attack Israel and Israel will then counter attack and occupy again. If Gaza were given to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan then there could be peace because those countries would certainly stamp out the terrorist elements that constantly fire rockets and commit attacks within Israel. As an independent county with no natural resources, no industry, infrastructure, and sharing half it's capital city and with its employment dependent on its neighbor means it would not be a feasible country.
That is why Israel would more readily permit a sovereign Palestinian state forming from Gaza and the West Bank over having Jerusalem and half the country surrounded by the established powers - however cooperative or non-threatening they may presently be - of Egypt and Jordan. Regardless, any state within Israeli borders is untenable unless it holds the west bank of the Jordan river. Think Danzig between Brandenburg and Prussia.

[Idaho]

As settlements increase, the Israeli right are cementing control of the nation's politics. Palestinians are not considered citizens - with barely a tiny fraction of settler attacks on Palestinians being investigated :
Troops allow 5 day attack by settlers (http://m.btselem.org/video/20151027_5_days_of_settler_attacks_in_hebron)

Israeli police brutal beating of lorry driver caught on video (http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.779039)

Also internal opposition by Israelis is being attacked by increasingly suspect tactics :
Attempt to collect data on Israelis who oppose occupation (http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.778516?utm_content=buffer83f20&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

The aim is clear. The maps don't lie. Nothing short of the ethic cleansing of the west Bank and the construction of greater Israel is planned.
israeli-settlements-explained-in-5-charts (http://www.vox.com/world/2016/12/30/14088842/israeli-settlements-explained-in-5-charts)

And Gaza, too populated to be taken over is strangled slowly :
Israel tightens travel restrictions (http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.731116)

Meanwhile Trump cancels all foreign aid except for Israel

[Sigurd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35eEljsSQfc

[Greyblades]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C734PAbXkAAfzxg.jpg

Damn, how long had you been sitting on that bombshell?

[Kralizec]

I didn't realize that Idaho was an Arab nation

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I didn't realize that Idaho was an Arab nation

The western USA has changed a good bit over the years.

[Idaho]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35eEljsSQfc

Israel has always been lucky in its enemies.

It has a practiced and well drilled counter strategy. Firstly, don't talk about the allegations. Don't mention them at all. Then attack your attackers. Make the human rights in Algeria or Sudan or Qatar the issue.

[Idaho]

In the west bank, justice is meted out by Israeli military courts. They are testament to the detective skills of the occupying army as they have a close to 100% conviction rate.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.779748?utm_content=buffer3f050&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer&v=28B24443CBDCF1E560F2AAA9788F2E59

[Sigurd]

Israel has always been lucky in its enemies.

It has a practiced and well drilled counter strategy. Firstly, don't talk about the allegations. Don't mention them at all. Then attack your attackers. Make the human rights in Algeria or Sudan or Qatar the issue.
Its like the saying of another famous Jew: "​Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone..."

[Idaho]

Its like the saying of another famous Jew: "​Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone..."

And while it may be pithy and suggest, on a personal level, that we shouldn't kill someone who has had minor indiscretions - on the field of international law and relations, its nonsense.

It means that any issue you raise about another state cannot be discussed until you discuss first whatever the accused wants discussed.

It would be like you being tried for murder, and insisting that before *any* discussion of your case, the complete background of all the jurors, solicitors and judges be first examined.

[Pannonian]

Israel has always been lucky in its enemies.

It has a practiced and well drilled counter strategy. Firstly, don't talk about the allegations. Don't mention them at all. Then attack your attackers. Make the human rights in Algeria or Sudan or Qatar the issue.

TBF, its enemies are their own worst enemies. Israel is among the worst of the "western" countries on human rights, if it's considered a "western" country. However, it's by some distance the best of the "middle eastern" countries on the same terms, if it's considered a "middle eastern" country. Not because they're any good. But because the others, and more specifically Muslim countries, are far, far worse. Which makes it hard to care about Israel's undoubted abuses. IMHO we should just wall off the whole region and leave them to their own devices, without any judgement, and more importantly, without any action, from us. Pay what we have to for oil, and leave them alone otherwise.

[Idaho]

TBF, its enemies are their own worst enemies. Israel is among the worst of the "western" countries on human rights, if it's considered a "western" country. However, it's by some distance the best of the "middle eastern" countries on the same terms, if it's considered a "middle eastern" country. Not because they're any good. But because the others, and more specifically Muslim countries, are far, far worse. Which makes it hard to care about Israel's undoubted abuses. IMHO we should just wall off the whole region and leave them to their own devices, without any judgement, and more importantly, without any action, from us. Pay what we have to for oil, and leave them alone otherwise.
Your analysis has all the depth of a post by Greyblades.

Within the borders of Israel, if you are a full citizen, then your rights are greater than many in the region enjoy. But travel further east, and you are born with Palestinian papers, the situation is different. Your rights are as bad (if not worse) than anyone in the region. Arbitrary arrest and imprisonment are routine. You have no right to travel. Your property is subject to confiscation or destruction as a "collective punishment".

Although on the plus side, you went a whole post without mentioning Jeremy Corbyn. So well done.

[Pannonian]

Your analysis has all the depth of a post by Greyblades.

Within the borders of Israel, if you are a full citizen, then your rights are greater than many in the region enjoy. But travel further east, and you are born with Palestinian papers, the situation is different. Your rights are as bad (if not worse) than anyone in the region. Arbitrary arrest and imprisonment are routine. You have no right to travel. Your property is subject to confiscation or destruction as a "collective punishment".

Although on the plus side, you went a whole post without mentioning Jeremy Corbyn. So well done.

Have you read that Orwell essay I referred to? It's practically a complete description of the British hard Left as it exists today. And he wrote that during the 1930s.

[Greyblades]

Your analysis has all the depth of a post by Greyblades. .

Hm, Its the first time I've seen you use "depth" of all things as one of your buzzwords to substitute a lack of real criticism beyond "opinion I dont like"

[Gilrandir]

IMHO we should just wall off the whole region and leave them to their own devices, without any judgement, and more importantly, without any action, from us.

You have just walled off the EU. It seems that the idea of fencing yourselves in (or fencing the whole world out) is a neccessary constituent of British national character.

[Idaho]

You have just walled off the EU. It seems that the idea of fencing yourselves in (or fencing the whole world out) is a neccessary constituent of British national character.

It's a kind of childishness that besets all humans, but becomes more acute in island dwellers. An assertion that we can aggressively ignore problems that don't fit neatly into our simple preconceived set of solutions for everything.

[Gilrandir]

It's a kind of childishness that besets all humans, but becomes more acute in island dwellers. An assertion that we can aggressively ignore problems that don't fit neatly into our simple preconceived set of solutions for everything.

Aggressively ignore?

[Idaho]

Aggressively ignore?

Building the wall. If I choose to ignore my neighbour - that's one thing. If I choose to build a wall between us so I never have to look at him - that is a kind of aggression.

[Gilrandir]

Building the wall. If I choose to ignore my neighbour - that's one thing. If I choose to build a wall between us so I never have to look at him - that is a kind of aggression.

I would say that "aggression" and "ignoring" are mutually exclusive. But the islanders may see it differently. :shrug:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I would say that "aggression" and "ignoring" are mutually exclusive. But the islanders may see it differently. :shrug:

I take his point though. If the wall building is prompted by the dislike for the neighbor, there is a passive aggressive quality to it.

Which brings us to the latest "wall" in the news. Trump's Wall on the southern border. If prompted by a need to self protect it makes sense; if prompted by a motivation to ignore Mexico, that's a bit unhealthy....as is most passive aggression.

[Gilrandir]

I take his point though. If the wall building is prompted by the dislike for the neighbor, there is a passive aggressive quality to it.

Which brings us to the latest "wall" in the news. Trump's Wall on the southern border. If prompted by a need to self protect it makes sense; if prompted by a motivation to ignore Mexico, that's a bit unhealthy....as is most passive aggression.

Are we moving to discuss semantics? Then:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/aggression

[Idaho]

Are we moving to discuss semantics? Then:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/aggression

That's the direction argumentative ennui usually draws us.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Are we moving to discuss semantics? Then:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/aggression

er....the second definition cited by that dictionary for the term aggression more or less exactly supports the point I was making. Was this a counterpoint or posted in support of my comment?

[Gilrandir]

er....the second definition cited by that dictionary for the term aggression more or less exactly supports the point I was making. Was this a counterpoint or posted in support of my comment?

I get it we can't avoid discussing semantics....

I don't see how building a wall on YOUR territory can qualify as "any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment".

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I get it we can't avoid discussing semantics....

I don't see how building a wall on YOUR territory can qualify as "any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment".

It represents an attack on the Mexican economy and possibly on the political stability of Mexico itself. In allowing/sending undocumented workers to El Norte (along with those entering legally for work), the Mexican government has been both supplementing its economy directly ($23B in remittances each year) and by extension, NOT having to provide welfare and services itself to replace those monies. It has been argued that illegals function as a US corporate subsidy to the Mexican government. An increase in any real "barrier" would thus exert economic pressure on Mexico.

Moreover, any such barrier (and it would NOT be a fence from sea to shining sea, except metaphorically) would also make it more difficult for illegals from Central America to travel successfully through Mexico on "La Bestia" or by other routes as well as hamper the flow of illegal drugs. This is likely to incite further, not reduced, violence from the cartels who are already challenging the Mexican government's functional control of the Northern provinces.

This 'wall' would represent a significant "encroachment" on the current way of doing business on the Southern Border.

[Gilrandir]

It represents an attack on the Mexican economy and possibly on the political stability of Mexico itself. In allowing/sending undocumented workers to El Norte (along with those entering legally for work), the Mexican government has been both supplementing its economy directly ($23B in remittances each year) and by extension, NOT having to provide welfare and services itself to replace those monies. It has been argued that illegals function as a US corporate subsidy to the Mexican government. An increase in any real "barrier" would thus exert economic pressure on Mexico.

Moreover, any such barrier (and it would NOT be a fence from sea to shining sea, except metaphorically) would also make it more difficult for illegals from Central America to travel successfully through Mexico on "La Bestia" or by other routes as well as hamper the flow of illegal drugs. This is likely to incite further, not reduced, violence from the cartels who are already challenging the Mexican government's functional control of the Northern provinces.

This 'wall' would represent a significant "encroachment" on the current way of doing business on the Southern Border.

I see your post bestrewed with "illegal". Can any action be considered aggressive if its aim is to fight the illegal? It looks more like defensive.

[Pannonian]

I see your post bestrewed with "illegal". Can any action be considered aggressive if its aim is to fight the illegal? It looks more like defensive.

English common law has the idea that anything that persists for long enough can be assumed to have become legitimate.

[Gilrandir]

English common law has the idea that anything that persists for long enough can be assumed to have become legitimate.

"Long enough" is too vague a formula for laws.
Although I have no idea how your post bears on aggression and wall-building.

[Pannonian]

"Long enough" is too vague a formula for laws.
Although I have no idea how your post bears on aggression and wall-building.

Seamus doesn't just refer to physical walls. He also cites legal walls, ie. the tighter enforcement of existing laws that theoretically prevents illegals (these laws exist, otherwise they wouldn't be illegals). As for vagueness as a formula for laws: that's what courts and judges are for.

[Gilrandir]

Seamus doesn't just refer to physical walls. He also cites legal walls, ie. the tighter enforcement of existing laws that theoretically prevents illegals (these laws exist, otherwise they wouldn't be illegals).
According to Trump, it is the physical wall that he has in mind first of all.
But physical or otherwise, walls (constructed within one's own territory to uphold the law) can't be considered aggression.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Gil'

If you define aggression solely on the basis of direct impingement upon another, then no, it is not aggression. In his earlier post, I am pretty sure that Idaho was using the term much more broadly, and I was responding along those lines.


Our choice to build a 'wall' on our Sothern border (and yes, Trump would greatly extend the physical portions of that wall as well as electronic surveillance and the legal hurdles rightly noted by Pannonian), could not be stopped by Mexico -- it is our choice of actions upon our terrain and would in no way deny human rights to Mexicans -- you can be darn well certain that the presence of this wall WOULD impinge on Mexican interests, and you can be nearly as certain that they would perceive it to be an act of aggression, even if they did not claim it a casum belllum.

I am, personally, very much in favor of improving the security of our Southern border and curtailing illegal 'immigration.' I am not sure that a physical wall is the best choice, leaning more toward what Pannonian emphasized.

[Gilrandir]

Our choice to build a 'wall' on our Sothern border (and yes, Trump would greatly extend the physical portions of that wall as well as electronic surveillance and the legal hurdles rightly noted by Pannonian), could not be stopped by Mexico -- it is our choice of actions upon our terrain and would in no way deny human rights to Mexicans -- you can be darn well certain that the presence of this wall WOULD impinge on Mexican interests, and you can be nearly as certain that they would perceive it to be an act of aggression, even if they did not claim it a casum belllum.


If a nation takes some big scale steps there will always be another nation (or a group of foreigners) whose interests will be impinged on. Yet I think not all those actions can be qualified as aggression per se. But viewing things in a broader light one might even call aggression severe repemanding your neighbors' kids for raiding your mailbox.

[Idaho]

Most minors arrested by the IDF experience violence:


60 percent say experienced violence, only 10 percent met with a lawyer | In 2013, a UNICEF report said Israel was systematically abusing young detainees, new data shows little has changed

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.780996?utm_content=buffer092b3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

This is the kind of thing that can only be justified if you see these kids as less human than you.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If a nation takes some big scale steps there will always be another nation (or a group of foreigners) whose interests will be impinged on. Yet I think not all those actions can be qualified as aggression per se. But viewing things in a broader light one might even call aggression severe repemanding your neighbors' kids for raiding your mailbox.

And any number of parents will tell you that they have reprimanded a neighbor's children for some such little offense, only to have their neighbors tell them to "Back off, I will discipline my own children, it is not your job" taking affront (perceived aggression) at the neighbor's for 'threatening' their children.

Defending one's own should NOT be perceived as aggression, mind you, but in our irrational world it often is so perceived.



And I have been the parent yelling at the kids to stop wrecking my bushes, and WAS told to 'leave my children to me.'

[Gilrandir]

Defending one's own should NOT be perceived as aggression, mind you, but in our irrational world it often is so perceived.


Since you do perceive it as aggression, does it mean you are being irrational? :inquisitive:

[Beskar]

When you have a rather hostile neighbour and they start stocking up on guns and ammos... no way aggressive action?

[Gilrandir]

When you have a rather hostile neighbour and they start stocking up on guns and ammos... no way aggressive action?

Mexico did none of these things.

[Sarmatian]

Don't you get bored from arguing semantics?

It's obviously clear what they wanted to say by now and even if they worded it wrong, isn't it time to let it go?

[Beskar]

Mexico did none of these things.

I was not remotely comparing Mexico to a hostile neighbour.

[Idaho]

More evidence that while Israel is colonising the west Bank, its squeezing Gaza to destruction. Border crossing permits are currently 2% of the level of 2000 and human rights activists are banned from entering.

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/charlotte-silver/how-israel-sabotages-war-crimes-investigations-gaza

[Seamus Fermanagh]

More evidence that while Israel is colonising the west Bank, its squeezing Gaza to destruction. Border crossing permits are currently 2% of the level of 2000 and human rights activists are banned from entering.

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/charlotte-silver/how-israel-sabotages-war-crimes-investigations-gaza

It would be a kindness for it to be ended swiftly.

[Idaho]

It would be a kindness for it to be ended swiftly.

End the occupation and blockade swiftly? Yes, I agree. These are stateless people who are deliberately denied a state and whose infrastructure and political structures are constantly targeted for destruction. It's a slow and constant pogrom and is backed up by the world's biggest military and economic power.

Someone will come along and tell you it's all OK because Iraq has no Jews or because Saudi is run by ****s.

[Gilrandir]

I was not remotely comparing Mexico to a hostile neighbour.

Shall we argue what "hostile" means? In my view, if you build a wall ON YOUR TERRITORY, it is neither hostility nor aggression. But if you "start stocking up on guns and ammos" that is completely different, isn't it?


Don't you get bored from arguing semantics?

It's obviously clear what they wanted to say by now and even if they worded it wrong, isn't it time to let it go?

I was severely reprimanded by Brenus if I worded something wrong, but I somehow never heard anything from you in my defense. So when you start treating the debaters equally, I will consider your optation.

[AE Bravo]

Shall we argue what "hostile" means? In my view, if you build a wall ON YOUR TERRITORY, it is neither hostility nor aggression. But if you "start stocking up on guns and ammos" that is completely different, isn't it?
If you are still arguing in the context of Palestine and the Zionists, the wall is an act of aggression because it is a massive obstruction to the survival and economic wellbeing of the Palestinian people. This wall is responsible for the regular denial of basic human services and some people cannot go to the store because of it.

[Gilrandir]

If you are still arguing in the context of Palestine and the Zionists, the wall is an act of aggression because it is a massive obstruction to the survival and economic wellbeing of the Palestinian people. This wall is responsible for the regular denial of basic human services and some people cannot go to the store because of it.

In fact I was arguing in the context of Trump's Promised Wall. Disussing merits and demerits of the wall you speak of will indeed be tiresome. Let me just say that both sides have their own view on survival and security, and I don't see why only the Palestinian one should be considered.

[Idaho]

Israeli planes spray Gaza farmland with herbicides for the fourth time. Sewing the ground with salt - very biblical.

https://972mag.com/israeli-planes-spray-herbicides-inside-gaza-for-fourth-time-this-year/126415/?utm_content=buffer9516c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Idaho]

The annual protest March by Arab Israelis has been blocked this year for the first time ever :

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/04/israeli-police-block-palestinian-march-return-170409055747446.html?utm_content=buffer8a35d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Idaho:

The Israelis -- particularly their hardliners -- who you decry in these posts (and have decried before), already view themselves as being -- functionally -- pariahs to the larger international community.

They are not likely to give a rat's patoot about public opinion outside Israel and thus have little motivation to do anything aside from that which furthers their control over Israeli terrain (which they certainly define more broadly than the 1947 borders and probably more than the 1968 borders). So you are not going to sway them.

And the rest of the West is unlikely to actively oppose Israel any more than they already do. So....

[Idaho]

Actively oppose? Actively support usually. Vigorously in the case of the US.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, the USA does throw a fair amount of money their way, and we are pretty passive regarding other actions Israel takes that we officially oppose.

I had not thought that Europe was all that supportive of Israel at all though? Things not getting reported on that issue over here that I should know?

[Idaho]

Israel and its lobbyists do constantly say how Europe is against them, etc. This is because while European countries have normal political and economic relationships, they do sometimes say things like "can you.. Er.. Like stop ethnically cleansing the Palestinians from land you are illegally occupying?"

[Gilrandir]

IThis is because while European countries have normal political and economic relationships
European countries don't a a beehive for a neighbor.

[rory_20_uk]

Israel and its lobbyists do constantly say how Europe is against them, etc. This is because while European countries have normal political and economic relationships, they do sometimes say things like "can you.. Er.. Like stop ethnically cleansing the Palestinians from land you are illegally occupying?"

Even the BBC mentions the building with the statement "illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this". Funnily enough we don't get that caveat when it is North Korea building nukes or Russia invading the Ukraine.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

I have heard the BBC refer to both as being in contrivance of international law.

It seems that Israel and those who choose to support its actions are able to see the Palestinians as being less than full humans. That they don't need or deserve self determination, citizenship, property rights, political freedom, freedom of movement, freedom from arbitrary arrest. That it is not only possible, but entirely acceptable to discount their demands for these by picking on selected examples from history or of the actions of other states or political groups.

So Rory, is Israel occupying the west Bank, or is it Israeli territory? If the latter, why are those people living there not made citizens of this new state?

[Idaho]

Testimonial from soldier who operated in the West Bank. Taken by the group Breaking the Silence - which the Israeli government are trying to suppress.


“All the mattresses on one side, the carpet turned over, half the tiles are messed up, because maybe there's something under them. If they’re loose we take them out, we lift them. We hit the walls, make holes in them to see if maybe inside some wall where there’s a piece of plaster. That's what we did to it there. We drilled, and then used a hammer. We took out a wall, there's nothing there. What a bummer. Now there’s a whole lot of dirt in the room, and there’s no wall. A table and stuff, a computer – you look inside the computer. A teddy-bear, a fucking teddy-bear, you open its head and take the cotton wool out, maybe there's a gun there, who knows.
Was there a gun?
No.”
[First Sergeant, Nahal, 50th Battalion, Nablus area, 2012]

Read the full testimony >> http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/testimonies/database/379784

[Idaho]

Interesting the contrast between the 99% conviction rate for Palestinians in Israeli military courts and the 4.5% of Palestinian complaints about settler violence that result in any action whatsoever.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.783180?utm_content=buffer48d26&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer&v=6256B002400B71C090AD03039665C697

[Idaho]

It's Palestinian prisoner day!


Meanwhile, administrative detainees are arrested based on Israeli military intelligence data, to which the detainee has no access. Administrative detainees can be held without charge or trial for six months at a time, and their detention can be indefinitely renewed.

...

Last year marked the worst on record for child prisoners. A change in Israeli laws allowed Palestinian minors under the age of 14 to be sent straight to prison, instead of receiving custodian sentences. In 2016, 21 minors were under administrative detention. In the same year, a wave of Palestinian children received lengthy sentences, some amounting to more than 10 years of imprisonment.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/04/palestinian-prisoners-share-stories-170416132359955.html?utm_content=buffer0b76a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

A good, if depressing, eyewitness account from the Irish times:


The places where life was, children played, people called to each other and thought of as home and, once perhaps contentedly, as the boundary of their whole world, stand empty. Desolate. Turned into rat traps now, and cages. Sealed behind soldered doors. Closed off for hours, then days, then years at a time. Street names mauled and replaced so the very memory of their ever having existed becomes debatable, then fabled, then gone. The sheer effort, in this place, to make history die.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/eimear-mcbride-in-the-west-bank-all-that-is-human-in-me-recoils-from-this-1.3044958?mode=amp

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So, Idaho, why hasn't Israel gone to the logical conclusion of its policy? You seem pretty clear in your view that the entirety of Israeli policy is one of ethnic cleansing.

[Idaho]

They are moving to the logical conclusion. They are disrupting life, destroying homes, villages and communities. Destabilising political and civil structures. Breaking up families and interning civilians and even children without judicial review based on data correlations.

Their aim is simple and obvious - to make life untenable and force the Palestinians to leave.

How can you observe this seamus, and remain cool and unaffected? Have you no sense of justice? Are these not humans?

[Beskar]

Arguably, when Egypt and Jordan both invaded Palestine and if they gave them citizenship, a large majority of these problems would not exist. However, the Palestinian people were not given citizenship which gave them a limbo status where they received no help or support by those governments, with no right to live or work in those countries, leading to them to live in poverty and refugee camps. This made the situation even more dire for the people.

It doesn't change the current situation, but there could have been alternative rearrangements where the people are better off.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They are moving to the logical conclusion. They are disrupting life, destroying homes, villages and communities. Destabilising political and civil structures. Breaking up families and interning civilians and even children without judicial review based on data correlations.

Their aim is simple and obvious - to make life untenable and force the Palestinians to leave.

How can you observe this seamus, and remain cool and unaffected? Have you no sense of justice? Are these not humans?

The scope of human suffering is broad and this is far from the only current instance of man's inhumanity to man.

In this particular instance, I have been leaning towards a "pox on both their houses" attitude more and more over the years. I discarded the "plucky Jewish underdog" crap a while ago.

I guess part of it, sadly, is psychic numbing. I have been seeing atrocities and stupidities in both directions for my entire life...I "watched" my first Arab Israeli war in 1973 when I was 9.

I am not one of those who thinks we need to keep paying for Israel - especially as their conduct as an "ally" has been as much or more one-sided as has my country's treatment of the Special Relationship.


I just do not believe this ends with anything except a) the Palestinians getting kicked permanently off of what was theirs in 1947 and Israel finalizing its control or the 1967 conquests, or
b) Israel getting extirpated.

[Idaho]

A pox on both their houses would seem a fair reaction if it was remotely a fair fight.

Take a look at this article. These are the normal people who are being squeezed by the apartheid state:

The soldiers patrolling among the houses and olive trees demanded to see 20-year-old Khaled Abu Sh’kheidam’s identity papers. He took them out and the soldiers checked if the plastic covering bore a handwritten number that matched their lists. It did. Abu Sh’kheidam entered his house, a few meters away from where they had stopped him.
The soldiers were following orders on the Saturday just before Passover. For the last 18 months, the Israeli army has been prohibiting the entry of Palestinians who are not among the 1,200 residents of the Palestinian Tel Rumeida neighborhood in the western part of Old Hebron.


http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.783918?utm_content=buffer5f8d6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Montmorency]

Seems relevant (probably to several threads here):



When “ethnic conflict” joined the mainstream of comparative politics and international relations research in the early 1990s, there was a tendency to look uncritically at the labels applied to violent episodes. Actors were categorized
according to ascribed identities, usually ethnic but sometimes religious or linguistic. Typologies separated conflicts into analytical boxes accordingly. The easy categories of “Serb” or “Bosnian” masked a host of differences within
these allegedly separate groups in the 1990s, even though journalists and policymakers alike tended to use those categories without question to describe the belligerent sides in the Yugoslav wars. The labels Sunni and Shi’a took on a
similarly iconic status in Iraq the early 2000s. There are two obvious problems with using labels without being concerned for whether they really map social groups in the world. One is what might be called the implicit teleology of
ascriptive difference. It is often too easy for labels to masquerade as causes. To declare a conflict “ethnic,” say, usually rests on a set of assumptions about the roots of the conflict and the unusual levels of violence said to characterize it.
But emphasizing social identities can blind researchers to the mechanisms that are at work in shaping them, often in the middle of violence itself. Violence raises the stakes of defection by presenting both perpetrators and victims as threatened;
it makes it more difficult to move across interidentity boundaries. As one example, in the “lynching era” in the U.S.South—from the early 1880s to the early 1930s—a fifth of all lynchings were intraracial, whites killing whites and blacks killing blacks.
The highest incidence of these within-group attacks occurred before the period when new racial laws had reestablished the clear social boundaries between racial groups that had been eroded by the Civil War and Reconstruction. Lynching was thus
not only an abhorrent form of intergroup violence but also a method of in-group policing. Violence does not always make identity, of course, but it can certainly push a particular identity to the top of one’s repertoire.

[Idaho]

How about this example seamus? Does it appear to be two mortal enemies locked in combat? Perhaps your adjustment from seeing the plucky Jewish to seeing two equally bad combatants is just a stop on a longer road?


Settlers are caught on video throwing stones at a Palestinian school in Burin, and a settlement security guard fires his gun into the air. But the soldiers who arrive on the scene take no action against the attackers.

By Yael Marom
https://972mag.com/watch-settlers-attack-palestinian-school-harass-students/126864/?utm_content=bufferda227&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How about this example seamus? Does it appear to be two mortal enemies locked in combat? Perhaps your adjustment from seeing the plucky Jewish to seeing two equally bad combatants is just a stop on a longer road?


https://972mag.com/watch-settlers-attack-palestinian-school-harass-students/126864/?utm_content=bufferda227&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Israelis are engaged in a haphazard ethnic cleansing of the biblical Jewish homeland (The settlers and the hard core right wing would NOT be haphazard about it, but they don't have full control).

Fatah cannot get past graft and corruption long enough to make a go of anything resembling a state, and Hamas uses the Israeli abuses to further its war efforts with little regard for the population of Gaza as a community.

I am all for letting Israel sink or swim on their own merits -- funding them is a little annoying. They are supposedly our best ally in the region....but that alliance has felt, to me, a lot more like our alliance with France than that with the UK....

[Idaho]

In Gaza, it's unsurprising that hamas have been elected. They are not as corrupt as fatah, and they have long offered social services to the community. Can you imagine if your city was under siege for decades? If foreign tanks had bulldozed houses and jets had bombed infrastructure? Would the dominant political group be pacifist and conciliatory?

[Pannonian]

In Gaza, it's unsurprising that hamas have been elected. They are not as corrupt as fatah, and they have long offered social services to the community. Can you imagine if your city was under siege for decades? If foreign tanks had bulldozed houses and jets had bombed infrastructure? Would the dominant political group be pacifist and conciliatory?

We can't blame them for electing Hamas. We can't excuse them from electing Hamas either. They have the right to elect their government democratically, they live with the consequences of electing their government democratically. Just like all other democracies, including us.

[AE Bravo]

Hamas has been the last resort for the populace as peaceful resistance doesn't fly in "democratic" Israel. It's a last line of defense with actual power.

The reason Pannonian's argument doesn't work is because Palestine is almost entirely dependent upon the infrastructure Israel provides, which exacerbates the problem. While there has been international funding for the Palestinians to create their own desalination networks, revitalize their housing projects, and promote civil society, the money tends to be funneled into paramilitary operations and preparing the state for war with Israel due to the state of apartheid. This makes Israel both jailkeeper and primary care giver for the Palestinians after Jordan threw their hands up at the situation.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hamas has been the last resort for the populace as peaceful resistance doesn't fly in "democratic" Israel. It's a last line of defense with actual power.

The reason Pannonian's argument doesn't work is because Palestine is almost entirely dependent upon the infrastructure Israel provides, which exacerbates the problem. While there has been international funding for the Palestinians to create their own desalination networks, revitalize their housing projects, and promote civil society, the money tends to be funneled into paramilitary operations and preparing the state for war with Israel due to the state of apartheid. This makes Israel both jailkeeper and primary care giver for the Palestinians after Jordan threw their hands up at the situation.

I have always thought the "two country" solution so bandied about to be a mirage. There isn't enough space for two nations in that small strip of land. Water resources etc. mitigate against any useful division into two states.

I don't think this does anything but continue as is until one or the other pushes the second party out. All very sad, especially for the resource-poor Palestinian Arabs.

[Idaho]

The Arab Israeli wars would have been a bit of a no score draw, but for Israel being swiftly resupplied with lots of good kit from the US. So rather than be forced to broker a compromise with equally exhausted foes, it's been able to plough on with whatever it likes. It's opponents weakened, outmaneuvered, divided and dispirited.

In the end that means people, families and communities who were just getting through life, being apart of someone's war.

[Gilrandir]

The Arab Israeli wars would have been a bit of a no score draw, but for Israel being swiftly resupplied with lots of good kit from the US.

The same can be said of Arabs and the USSR.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The same can be said of Arabs and the USSR.

Yes and no. The USSR, with rare exceptions, only sold them the dumbed-down versions of its various weapons platforms. Moreover, they sold them and did not grant much foreign aid as did the USA.

I don't think that Idaho is acknowledging the other factor at play in those conflicts, however. US military folk suggest that the problem is partly cultural in that Arabs appear to be brave and effective warriors but to make lousy soldiers. Too few of their formed units had the combat staying power of a typical Israeli formation.

[Gilrandir]

Yes and no. The USSR, with rare exceptions, only sold them the dumbed-down versions of its various weapons platforms. Moreover, they sold them and did not grant much foreign aid as did the USA.


Soviet pilots as well as other military specialists trained Arabs to use weaponry and even participated in actual fighting.

[Idaho]

I don't think that Idaho is acknowledging the other factor at play in those conflicts, however. US military folk suggest that the problem is partly cultural in that Arabs appear to be brave and effective warriors but to make lousy soldiers. Too few of their formed units had the combat staying power of a typical Israeli formation.
These kinds of explanations are pretty ridiculous in my opinion. Humans are pretty similar, especially in large groups and in extreme situations. Organisation methods and technology are the parameters at play. Culture is a poor explanation.

[Idaho]

A good overview of how the Israeli government is removing political opposition. All opposition is terrorism. The leaders of the current prisoner hunger strike are getting the full smear treatment.


In a blatant attempt at distortion and misdirection, Israel claims that they “are all terrorists,'' all 6,500 prisoners including 300 children, 56 women, 13 parliamentarians, 28 journalists and the 500 administrative detainees held without charge or trial for indefinite periods of time, the worst form of arbitrary detention.

It claims all 800,000 Palestinian prisoners it has arrested since 1967 are ''terrorists'', the equivalent of 40% of our male population in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. And certainly, all the Palestinian people are ''terrorists'' by virtue of their identity.

http://www.newsweek.com/marwan-barghouti-man-peace-israel-apartheid-591021

[Seamus Fermanagh]

These kinds of explanations are pretty ridiculous in my opinion. Humans are pretty similar, especially in large groups and in extreme situations. Organisation methods and technology are the parameters at play. Culture is a poor explanation.

You and I disagree fairly thoroughly then on the impact of culture in these situations.

[AE Bravo]

What are the cultural traits you think are responsible then?

[Fragony]

What are the cultural traits you think are responsible then?

Whatever they are it's something to have figure out by themselves, maybe that's the cultural problem right there, they can't

[Idaho]

You and I disagree fairly thoroughly then on the impact of culture in these situations.

I suppose this is a natural way of thinking for white Americans. It is the mental approach they have had to the black underclass for many generations.

[Pannonian]

These kinds of explanations are pretty ridiculous in my opinion. Humans are pretty similar, especially in large groups and in extreme situations. Organisation methods and technology are the parameters at play. Culture is a poor explanation.

The west is based on a Christianity that has largely secularised itself over the last few centuries. The middle east is tending towards an Islam that harks back to the middle ages. Not quite in the middle east, but certainly a good example of this, see Pakistan.

[Fragony]

I suppose this is a natural way of thinking for white Americans. It is the mental approach they have had to the black underclass for many generations.

They really don't need whites to fail they do that to themselves, racism only exists in the head of delicate white-princesses, upper-class blackcoats and blacks who can't admit that they fucked it up

[Montmorency]

I suppose this is a natural way of thinking for white Americans. It is the mental approach they have had to the black underclass for many generations.

So the white frame of reference is a cultural element.

Anyway, the main immediate reason for Arab military failure is the inability of their central governments to keep a military campaign grinding on in the face of multiple competing parties among their coalitions, public dissatisfaction at home, and international disapproval.

Iran-Iraq, for one, had quite a lot of external impetus as well as being more unilaterally-driven.

[Montmorency]

They really don't need whites to fail they do that to themselves, racism only exists in the head of delicate white-princesses, upper-class blackcoats and blacks who can't admit that they fucked it up

Fucked what up?

[Idaho]

They really don't need whites to fail they do that to themselves, racism only exists in the head of delicate white-princesses, upper-class blackcoats and blacks who can't admit that they fucked it up

And this is why I don't take your opinions seriously Fragony. You are a combination of nasty and hilariously deranged.

[Fragony]

Fucked what up?

How about a lot? Not talking about black people but why insist to be a victim just because you are black? I would love to be able to fuck up and be excused just because I'm black, got a whole cheerleader-team of precious princesses cheering for me if I make a rap about it

This I can respect, how it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggxTtnKTMo

I got this whole 'racism is gone, what now, let's invent it' thingie

[Husar]

They really don't need whites to fail they do that to themselves, racism only exists in the head of delicate white-princesses, upper-class blackcoats and blacks who can't admit that they fucked it up

That's racist!

[Montmorency]

Racism can't be real because white people don't exist.

[Fragony]

Racism can't be real because white people don't exist.

That would be nice but white people do, and we get blamed for everything, and like flaggalanties we take the blame. Not me, a very big fuck of de moi go matter if you please but please, please

[AE Bravo]

I asked a question about why the militaries suck and it's like I just necroed an old thread in a new thread.

These kinds of explanations are pretty ridiculous in my opinion. Humans are pretty similar, especially in large groups and in extreme situations. Organisation methods and technology are the parameters at play. Culture is a poor explanation.

Anyway, the main immediate reason for Arab military failure is the inability of their central governments to keep a military campaign grinding on in the face of multiple competing parties among their coalitions, public dissatisfaction at home, and international disapproval.

Iran-Iraq, for one, had quite a lot of external impetus as well as being more unilaterally-driven.
Quoted for relevance. I don't remember seeing any indictments of culture in all the studies done by US military personnel over the years, and there have been a lot. Some problems pointed out by these studies:

- Over-centralization
- Discouragement of leadership at the junior office level
- Education system

Also, the shit some superior officers stay ignorant about would prompt a bitchslap and a demotion from a subordinate if it were in the states (US).

[Husar]

Not me, a very big fuck of de moi go matter if you please but please, please

Can I print that and hang it on the wall in my abstract art section?

[Idaho]

Back on topic - the pogroms in the West Bank continue:


The footage shows what appears to be a modified military vehicle being used to spray sewage over houses belonging to Palestinians. Israeli soldiers can be seen standing on the rooftops of Palestinian homes, indicating that they stormed and temporarily took possession of these houses.

The raid came after hundreds of Palestinians began marching following Friday prayers in solidarity with Palestinian prisoners who have started a mass hunger strike to protest Israeli prison conditions.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170429-israel-raids-beit-ummar-sprays-houses-with-sewage/?utm_content=buffer865ae&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[AE Bravo]

Don't bother, you'll get more responses to articles about crazy truck drivers running over European marketplaces.

Europe gonna Europe. Israel founded by Europeans do the math.

[Pannonian]

Don't bother, you'll get more responses to articles about crazy truck drivers running over European marketplaces.

Europe gonna Europe. Israel founded by Europeans do the math.

Europeans are supposed to feel guilty about what Israelis do?

BTW, the US was founded by Europeans too. If Europe is such anathema to your sensibilities, why don't you live somewhere where Europeans have no historical influence whatsoever, or where their miniscule influence is considerably outweighed by the glory that is Islam? That is your ancestral culture, isn't it?

[AE Bravo]

BTW, the US was founded by Europeans too. If Europe is such anathema to your sensibilities, why don't you live somewhere where Europeans have no historical influence whatsoever,
Off the face of the earth? No thanks I'm good.

Try not to kick me out.

[Pannonian]

Off the face of the earth? No thanks I'm good.

Try not to kick me out.

The middle east is your thing, isn't it? Islam has far greater influence in these Muslim countries than the west does, and to a greater degree with each passing generation, if Pakistan is any indicator. Western liberalisation will soon disappear from there and other Muslim countries, so you can return there in the gratifying knowledge that you won't have to endure European Euro-centrism, but can nestle contented in that glorious culture that is modern Islamism.

And BTW, don't try to guilt us into taking responsibility for the crapshow that is Israel/Palestine. Both sides turned on us in the second half of the 1940s, telling us to bugger off so they can sort things out by themselves. We buggered off as they wished, and now you want us to feel guilty for not doing anything about it? They didn't want us to do anything about it. They wanted us to clear off, which we did. Now it's their responsibility, not ours. And while Israel is by some distance the closest in that region to us culturally, they are still middle eastern, and fundamentally alien to us. Well, except their liberals and socialists, but they're losing traction there too, so Israel too can become a properly middle eastern country in a few generations time. No more bleeding heart Euro-liberalism for the Israelis, but full immersion in the cruddy culture of that region.

[AE Bravo]

Not sure what you're talking about, Pakistan is more your concern than mine. I do not live in an Islamist country, mine is a federation.

Also, Israel's founders and the ones currently on top of the pyramid are eastern European and not middle eastern. A western entity for all intents and purposes.

[Idaho]

Don't bother, you'll get more responses to articles about crazy truck drivers running over European marketplaces.

Europe gonna Europe. Israel founded by Europeans do the math.

Not all battles are glorious victories. Not all warriors get become great heroes. Not everyone gets make the decisive charge that routs the enemy. Some of us trudge on wearily with the wagon train for long years. But we still fight the good fight.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Don't bother, you'll get more responses to articles about crazy truck drivers running over European marketplaces.

Europe gonna Europe. Israel founded by Europeans do the math.

Some truth to this, for sure. Add in that some in the West view Israel as a sort of apology for failing to act against the Nazi pogroms against European Jews and you can see where some in the West view Israelis as an "us" to the Arab world "them."

Grossly oversimplifies the whole thing of course, but many of us like our cognitive efforts kept simple.

Most of my students view the actions of Israel in Gaza as a wrong, but they know little about it -- certainly far less then they know about the judging panel of the Voice or which acts are performing at which club.

[Pannonian]

Some truth to this, for sure. Add in that some in the West view Israel as a sort of apology for failing to act against the Nazi pogroms against European Jews and you can see where some in the West view Israelis as an "us" to the Arab world "them."

Grossly oversimplifies the whole thing of course, but many of us like our cognitive efforts kept simple.

Most of my students view the actions of Israel in Gaza as a wrong, but they know little about it -- certainly far less then they know about the judging panel of the Voice or which acts are performing at which club.

What isn't a simplification is that neither side wanted us to remain there. So we're gone, and good riddance to us, and good riddance to that hellhole that they call the holy land. Whoever wants it is welcome to it.

[Pannonian]

Not all battles are glorious victories. Not all warriors get become great heroes. Not everyone gets make the decisive charge that routs the enemy. Some of us trudge on wearily with the wagon train for long years. But we still fight the good fight.

They've won the good fight. They kicked us out decades ago. We're not going back.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What are the cultural traits you think are responsible then?

There are other research pieces that take on these issues -- and this pdf (https://www.wsiz.rzeszow.pl/pl/Uczelnia/kadra/asiewierska/Documents/Communication%20between%20cultures.pdf)is out of date by an edition or two, hence available on copyright grounds. I point you toward the values pieces beginning with Hofstede's work on p. 198.

Arab countries score distinctly differently in terms of collectivism (not individualistic as is the West, but not collectivist/communal as is common in East Asian cultures), uncertainty avoidance (Arab countries are moderate risk takers, not willing to put things to chance as are many Western cultures [though there is much more variance among the West on this]), and power distance (Arab countries tend to prefer/accept authoritarian power structures more readily than most Western cultures, which trend toward equality or less permanent positions of power). Arab cultures tend to be focused less on future generations so much as on the traditional power of the family and tribal groups. Being outcast from your clan would be huge among them, whereas in the West we view anything aside from being disowned by your nuclear family as of little import.

In terms of military effectiveness, the general rules for success to develop a soldiery as opposed to a collection of brave warriors, are at least as old as Rome. Create conditions wherein the individuals retain their individuality but choose to suborn themselves to a group of peers whose experiences they share and whose respect and affection they covet. Basic training, the building of esprit de corps, the acceptance of discipline, etc. are well known parts of the military "recipe."

Such things could certainly be done with any Arab on an individual basis -- but among a group of Arabs their cultural trend is NOT for the individual to find their place in the group but for the extant social -- not military -- group to serve as the locus of action for the individual. How could a rational Arab in the military trust the person next to them who hails from a different tribe when that other Arab MUST maintain their first loyalty to the clan and not to their fellow soldier. This culturally derived disconnect undercuts the kind of esprit de corps that is the basis for military effectiveness in most if not all of the top-tier militaries. And if you keep a clan group together so that clan authority and military authority coincide, you will have an effective unit of force that is crippled by it's inability to cope with casualties -- since ALL of the casualties come from the same clan and diminish it as the "damage" is not spread.

Tom Kratman has some interesting essays tacked on to the end of his first few Carrera-series novels that discuss these issues, drawing on his own and other associates military experience.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They've won the good fight. They kicked us out decades ago. We're not going back.

I believe Idaho was referring to himself as fighting "the good fight" by continuing to expose Israel's actions and thus work to curb or stop them despite a lack of response by many of those he seeks to persuade.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Idaho:

What is desired "end-state" in this?

To convince people that Israel is no better morally than those it blames for its own misfortune?

To convince people that Israel is the sole bad actor in this drama and that support for them should cease?

To convince people that Israel is functionally an equivalent to the Nazis or the commonly accepted views on Serbian ethnic cleansing, and that Israel therefore should be leagued against and broken in the same manner as the Serbs or perhaps Nazi Germany?

What would you see as the necessary level of "victory" in your "good fight."

[Pannonian]

There are other research pieces that take on these issues -- and this pdf (https://www.wsiz.rzeszow.pl/pl/Uczelnia/kadra/asiewierska/Documents/Communication%20between%20cultures.pdf)is out of date by an edition or two, hence available on copyright grounds. I point you toward the values pieces beginning with Hofstede's work on p. 198.

Arab countries score distinctly differently in terms of collectivism (not individualistic as is the West, but not collectivist/communal as is common in East Asian cultures), uncertainty avoidance (Arab countries are moderate risk takers, not willing to put things to chance as are many Western cultures [though there is much more variance among the West on this]), and power distance (Arab countries tend to prefer/accept authoritarian power structures more readily than most Western cultures, which trend toward equality or less permanent positions of power). Arab cultures tend to be focused less on future generations so much as on the traditional power of the family and tribal groups. Being outcast from your clan would be huge among them, whereas in the West we view anything aside from being disowned by your nuclear family as of little import.

In terms of military effectiveness, the general rules for success to develop a soldiery as opposed to a collection of brave warriors, are at least as old as Rome. Create conditions wherein the individuals retain their individuality but choose to suborn themselves to a group of peers whose experiences they share and whose respect and affection they covet. Basic training, the building of esprit de corps, the acceptance of discipline, etc. are well known parts of the military "recipe."

Such things could certainly be done with any Arab on an individual basis -- but among a group of Arabs their cultural trend is NOT for the individual to find their place in the group but for the extant social -- not military -- group to serve as the locus of action for the individual. How could a rational Arab in the military trust the person next to them who hails from a different tribe when that other Arab MUST maintain their first loyalty to the clan and not to their fellow soldier. This culturally derived disconnect undercuts the kind of esprit de corps that is the basis for military effectiveness in most if not all of the top-tier militaries. And if you keep a clan group together so that clan authority and military authority coincide, you will have an effective unit of force that is crippled by it's inability to cope with casualties -- since ALL of the casualties come from the same clan and diminish it as the "damage" is not spread.

Tom Kratman has some interesting essays tacked on to the end of his first few Carrera-series novels that discuss these issues, drawing on his own and other associates military experience.

There's also the strong cultural influences of Islamism, whereby you have people competing to show their devotion to the religion. Whatever discipline there is is trumped by ever stricter interpretations of religion, which justifies violent action against those deemed less devout, including authority figures up to and including their supposed rulers. Pakistan is probably the militarily strongest Muslim country in the world, and a couple of their ministers have been killed for attempting to enforce secular rule of law, with their murderers celebrated as martyrs (even here in the UK).

[Idaho]

Idaho:

What is desired "end-state" in this?

To convince people that Israel is no better morally than those it blames for its own misfortune?

To convince people that Israel is the sole bad actor in this drama and that support for them should cease?

To convince people that Israel is functionally an equivalent to the Nazis or the commonly accepted views on Serbian ethnic cleansing, and that Israel therefore should be leagued against and broken in the same manner as the Serbs or perhaps Nazi Germany?

What would you see as the necessary level of "victory" in your "good fight."

You have that American tendency to go into binary thinking. This person is the 'bad guy' therefore this one is the 'good guy'. This person should win therefore this one must lose.

The Palestinians need to be given full citizen rights +passports. They need to have title to their land. They need compensation for land seized in both Israel and the occupied territory.

[Pannonian]

You have that American tendency to go into binary thinking. This person is the 'bad guy' therefore this one is the 'good guy'. This person should win therefore this one must lose.

The Palestinians need to be given full citizen rights +passports. They need to have title to their land. They need compensation for land seized in both Israel and the occupied territory.

And you have the tendency to think that your side is right in all things and thus must come to pass. What if those in power don't want to give in to your demands? What's going to change their mind towards your objective?

[Idaho]

I am not in dialogue with the Israeli state. Seems a strange question to ask me.

[Pannonian]

I am not in dialogue with the Israeli state. Seems a strange question to ask me.

Then what's the likelihood of what you're demanding coming to pass? Who's going to do it? Or is it just a pie in the sky wishlist?

"Israel are the oppressors, and therefore I would like some magic beans, etc."

[Montmorency]

You should think in smaller and more achievable terms. Like an administrative/security UN Mandate over the Gaza Strip.

[Gilrandir]

Pakistan is probably the militarily strongest Muslim country in the world

What about Turkey?

[AE Bravo]

If Turkey was officially a Muslim country, it would still be second place. Pakistan has a very sophisticated military.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You have that American tendency to go into binary thinking. This person is the 'bad guy' therefore this one is the 'good guy'. This person should win therefore this one must lose.

The Palestinians need to be given full citizen rights +passports. They need to have title to their land. They need compensation for land seized in both Israel and the occupied territory.

Clear enough. Do you see this as a one-state or two-state option? Or perhaps that is immaterial to you.

And you are uncharitable in your assessment of me. I laid out a number of levels of potential end state to prompt your response -- fully aware you would pick none of the options bruited. Yet I see far too many argue against something without a sense of what a desired end state should be -- and those arguments, however elegant, are ultimately pointless. You, by contrast, at least can articulate a desired result that is not out of all rational possibility.

As an aside, the binary thinking you label as "American" is certainly a trait we possess, at least en masse, but it is hardly rare in your own nation nor in Western thinking in general.

[Idaho]

Apologies for being impolite Seamus.

I think it needs to be a one state solution.

Israel will cease to exist in its current form. And as an apartheid state based on protecting the chosen people, that won't happen easily. May be not at all. But there are many things we strive for that are unlikely.

[Fragony]

A one-state solution is what everybody who is reasonable should want, but it's not going to happen. Palestinians don't want to be a target themselve, can you blame them, they will be. Discussed it with a mate who is from there, he insists it's way too complicated and I believe him

[Montmorency]

Apologies for being impolite Seamus.

I think it needs to be a one state solution.

Israel will cease to exist in its current form. And as an apartheid state based on protecting the chosen people, that won't happen easily. May be not at all. But there are many things we strive for that are unlikely.

My impression is that Israel is not an apartheid state right now, and that the conclusion will entail either an apartheid state, or ethnic cleansing. Either way, this is a "one-state" outcome.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My impression is that Israel is not an apartheid state right now, and that the conclusion will entail either an apartheid state, or ethnic cleansing. Either way, this is a "one-state" outcome.

While I fear you are correct, I actually do hope for Idaho's end state -- a single state which guarantees a homeland to any Jew but affords truly equal citizenship to the Palestinian Arabs who have also lived there for millennia. The combination would, over time, result in an incredibly productive hybrid culture that could possess the strengths of both and put the rest of the Middle East in the dust.

Sadly, I don't see that as likely.

[AE Bravo]

This is the end state:
https://i.imgur.com/R9ke6dL.png

Simply put, if Israel does not become a post-Zionist Israel in the future it will be forcefully reformed for them. As it is becoming almost a certainty that Iran is the future hegemon of the region rivalled only by a Sunni state in Turkey, the two powers along with Muslim Brotherhood, its offspring, and the Hezbollah ministate will do as they please with that territory just as the west has in its establishment. It's an inevitability in the region, and this is why this conflict is a ticking time bomb that the west has been playing with for a century now without realizing that greater Palestine is the only thing the regional powers unanimously agree on.

[Montmorency]

greater Palestine is the only thing the regional powers unanimously agree on.

That's rather naive, on top of missing Egypt.

[Strike For The South]

How is it an inevitability? I'm genuinely curious.

Any serious threat to the core of the Isreali state will result in a nuclear retaliation from submarines.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How is it an inevitability? I'm genuinely curious.

Any serious threat to the core of the Isreali state will result in a nuclear retaliation from submarines.

But they have a fairly small arsenal according to best guesses. Even if though go counter value the Israelis cannot reverse the numbers game entirely.

[Strike For The South]

But they have a fairly small arsenal according to best guesses. Even if though go counter value the Israelis cannot reverse the numbers game entirely.

A fairly small arsenal that would cripple Iran and kill millions of innocent civilians. A pretty high price to pay to get rid of the regions whipping boy.

[Montmorency]

The United States, Europe, Russia, China, and the regional Muslim powers unanimously agree on what they want from "Greater Palestine", namely that this piece of land not be under the control of any of the other parties.

[Strike For The South]

The United States, Europe, Russia, China, and the regional Muslim powers unanimously agree on what they want from "Greater Palestine", namely that this piece of land not be under the control of any of the other parties.

Except both governments are very heavily invested by all of those? Im not sure I understand

[Montmorency]

Except both governments are very heavily invested by all of those? Im not sure I understand

Europe and the US don't control Israel, but they provide financial and political support because it is a useful foothold in West Asia, at least on par with Turkish NATO membership which was altogether oriented toward blocking the Russian navy at the straits and the army at the mountains. They don't have much reason to be antagonistic toward Israel when there are clear advantages to maintaining its existence. For the Muslim neighbors of Israel, Israel is the chief 'neutral' power separating Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia by land and averting Iranian control down to the Sinai. It's an essential buffer, geographically and politically, for all parties - as it was in ancient times. In the modern day an Arab Palestine wouldn't need to be directly administered by an imperial power, but it would still fall under the umbrella of one of the major powers as opposed to the others, and so a proximate cause of conflict between them.

[AE Bravo]

That's rather naive, on top of missing Egypt.
Why not? Always has been the best thing a state could champion for grandstanding. It’s more likely than a two-state solution, which is a fantasy given the facts on the ground and the map not being close to meeting what the Palestinians need thanks to the illegal expansion of settlements. Doubling down on mass thievery rendered that plan useless.

It’s either gonna be one-state solution (interstate freedom of movement + labor) at best, or one side wiping out the other at worst. Israel will not be able to do the latter. It’s political suicide. The problem with binationalism gives legitimacy to Zionism and it will have its domestic opposition, unlike the full-on Palestine solution. In a conflict of this nature, that factor will ensure success in the long term. Even if the Zionist project goes the squarely apartheid route, they will be outlasted by demographics alone.

[Montmorency]

Always has been the best thing a state could champion for grandstanding.

So lip service is useful. A dedicated war economy and at least tens of thousands of dead over months or years is less palatable, much less a coherent interstate alliance in service of that end (which will then collapse on itself once the mission is accomplished).

Someone out there always has an appetite for continuous civil war - this can't translate to offensive conventional war due to the scale of organization required.


Israel will not be able to do the latter. It’s political suicide.

They will if it turns out to be the path of least resistance among the others.


Even if the Zionist project goes the squarely apartheid route, they will be outlasted by demographics alone.

Those demographics aren't favorable for Palestinians though - just unfavorable for Israelis.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A fairly small arsenal that would cripple Iran and kill millions of innocent civilians. A pretty high price to pay to get rid of the regions whipping boy.

A fair counterpoint that.

[Montmorency]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wXM9BHYKAg

[AE Bravo]

A fairly small arsenal that would cripple Iran and kill millions of innocent civilians. A pretty high price to pay to get rid of the regions whipping boy.
Iran's aim is to dismantle Israel, not engage. They have never initiated a war, unlike Israel's preemtive striking tendencies. I remember an Iranian foreign minister once saying that their foreign policy was like weaving a Persian carpet, in that they'll delicately envelope the region like they are now with the Revolutionary Guard's paramilitary lackeys spread across the Levant.

Those demographics aren't favorable for Palestinians though - just unfavorable for Israelis.
Palestinians would eventually outnumber them. This would be the unmaking of a Zionist Israel in a Greater Israel scenario.

[Fragony]

Numbers don't matter if you are your own worst enemy

[AE Bravo]

Only in your own world they're the only people who are their own worst enemy.

You don't have the ability to apply it to yourself, so don't preach what you don't practice.

[Fragony]

Oh noes, he puts on his wizard hat and casts predujicus, never saw that comming

[AE Bravo]

Of course. Carry on heckling.

[Fragony]

I am not heckling, you probably silently agree with me

[Strike For The South]

Iran's aim is to dismantle Israel, not engage. They have never initiated a war, unlike Israel's preemtive striking tendencies. I remember an Iranian foreign minister once saying that their foreign policy was like weaving a Persian carpet, in that they'll delicately envelope the region like they are now with the Revolutionary Guard's paramilitary lackeys spread across the Levant.
.

Certainly a smarter strategy.

[Idaho]

This is the sad, bureaucratic reality of ethnic cleansing:

Fawaqa told Ma’an that forces raided his house without prior notice, and began emptying and evacuating the house in preparation for demolition. Authorities told Fawaqa that his home would be destroyed for lacking nearly impossible to obtain construction permits.
According to Fawaqa, he had been trying to obtain licenses for his house since he built it six years ago, but no no avail, pointing out that had paid more than 200,000 shekels ($55,403) in lawyers fees over the years.

http://maannews.com/Content.aspx?id=776867


So Palestinians can't get permits for reasonable construction of houses, while militant settlers get permission to displace whole communities and build new towns.

[HopAlongBunny]

So Palestinians can't get permits for reasonable construction of houses, while militant settlers get permission to displace whole communities and build new towns.[/QUOTE]

As one history prof of min said: "Be sensitive to when "justice" becomes "just Us"

[Crandar]

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.787689

Nice. Be a borderline racist party appealing to far-right fears. Aplly bigoted policy. Ethnic tensions rise and more people vote for you due to the increased radicalism. Stellar strategy.

[Idaho]

Palestinian teenage girl stands near the border. Someone shouts "knife" and several soldiers open fire on her, and continue to shoot her dead body:

http://maannews.com/Content.aspx?id=776923

[Idaho]

Look at the headline on this piece in the new York times:


Wife of Palestinian Hunger Striker Denies He’s Sneaking Food

Classic response to hunger strikers. Attack the legitimacy and sincerity of the protest. Undermine sympathy by either making light or hinting at fraud.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/world/middleeast/marwan-barghouti-hunger-strike-palestinians-israel.html?_r=0&utm_content=buffer8af00&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer&referer=http://m.facebook.com/

It's a tactic that states have used against hunger strikers since media was invented. The British state claimed the same against the suffragettes and the IRA.

[Fragony]

Not that his discrediting has anything to to with the topic of obvious misconduct of Israel, but isn't the only the article 'she says' the video is fake

edit, there are no signs of any faking, been analysed and it's all good, filed under F for Fail. Candy-bar ohnomnomnom. So fucking what but hey

I know Israel is no saint, but why care so much. You don't have to answer I think I already know why, there just happens to be something that lefties neo-naxis and islamists share, it begins with anti

[Idaho]

Is that one of those alt right dog whistle statements where you accuse me of anti semitism while maintaining a level of deniability? If so why not just ask me straight out if I don't like jews?