Of course Israel is going to have a higher kill-count, they have better weapons and military. That doesn’t make them morally wrong. It’s the apartheid policies that make them morally wrong.
First a little off topic, the name is Legowarrior, no need for the extra capitalization. I don’t say MurBella.
Second, at the time of 9/11, I was living off a US Military Base overseas going to high school. At the time that it happened, my entire school shut down, and everyone was moved out of the school (off base) and on to base. It was a very real experience for me despite being 4000 miles away. Over the course of that year, many of my friends had family members move off to Afghanistan or Iraq front, doing their duty for my country. Lucky for me, my father was a teacher at the DoDD School, and a civilian, which wasn’t true for many people at my school (military brats). So, no, I don’t think 9/11 was something we deserved. No one does, and the hatred that is directed at the US, to me, seems ill placed.
Back on topic:
Israel, as the dominate force in the region bares the majority of the responsibility. That’s true in any conflict. Hamas is wrong is directing any of there rockets at civilians (excepts the settlements, because fuck those people, that’s why). That’s true. On the other hand, when you created the largest prison in the world, and confine people regardless of there status, you are going to get a lost of bullshit happening.
Otherwise, I’m with Alstein. Apartheid is what makes Israel a nation that is in the wrong.
So what precisely would you have Israel do, as part of your one-state solution? How will you stop Hamas, granted equal rights of access, from carrying out a wider terror campaign?
Of course , you’ve already established that attacking civilians with terror weapons and tactics is for you something which is conditionally acceptable. Which don’t mesh with you saying that 9/11 isn’t something which should happen to anyone.
Oh, and you of course are willing to state that you have an issue with Jordan and Egypt for not having open borders with the Palestinians, right?
Murbella - Pretty much.
None of those are things I said. You and Murbella are crazy to think otherwise. But if you want to be in favor of oppression, and slow destruction of a people, more power to you. I’m out. Dave was right all along.
So discussing the basic security consequences of what you call for - the single state solution - is “crazy”? Why can’t it be talked about? (Perhaps you can’t do so because it’s a terrible plan, and the situation isn’t like South Africa?)
And you said you had no issues with Hamas attacking settlers, so it IS conditional in your view. You said, specifically -
So, conditionally acceptable. Now, I oppose the settlers but terrorism is still wrong. Tearing down illegal settler communities and them of the financial benefits they’ve gained from the settlements…is not terrorism, it’s justice. There’s an unsubtle dividing line (involving violence, for starters).
Neither did you accept any blame for Jordan or Egypt, which is of course again telling. Never mind they’ve refused to open the borders to the Palestinians…
Like Dave, you single out Israel.
(edit: there, clearer layout)
Israel, as the dominate force in the region bares the majority of the responsibility. That’s true in any conflict. Hamas is wrong is directing any of there rockets at civilians (excepts the settlements, because fuck those people, that’s why). That’s true. On the other hand, when you created the largest prison in the world, and confine people regardless of there status, you are going to get a lost of bullshit happening.
A few problems i see here.
I don’t think it’s rationally sound to simply assign blame to a group, simply because they are more powerful than others. While it’s reasonable to place greater responsibility upon them, since they are not close to omnipotent, they cannot be held responsible for all actors involved.
Second, it’s dangerous to actually go so far as to endorse attacks on civilian populations simply because you don’t agree with what those people are doing. If you accept that kind of thinking, then you essentially give a pass to any terrorism, since the terrorists no doubt always think, as you put it, “fuck those guys”. This is not an acceptable justification for intentional attacks on civilian targets.
I believe that I unconditionally oppose intentional targeting of civilians. And honestly, if the Palestinians were able to cease such actions, they would almost certainly gain the full support of the vast majority of Americans. This would be, I’m certain, the most effective course of action.
I agree generally, but that’s a great one - or indeed breaching people’s basic rights in the first place.
Because there’s a great example of “fuck those guys”, and I’m pretty sure at least one person is going to get mad over this, but still - Gitmo.
Another is extraordinary rendition, etc.
When China or Russia can turn around and say to something morally repugnant, honestly, “we are not doing anything you didn’t do”, there’s an issue. And dosn’t the USA look like a hypocrite for complaining about the Guoanbu’s actions compromising computers in the wake of Snowden?
(And **** yes, there’s issues with the Israeli government doing this sort of crap and I am a Peace Now supporter who opposes the Israeli right for a reason! But that does not mean the supporters of said right or even the settlers don’t have human rights!)
This thread is like discussing Israel in American politics by the way, for any non-Americans who aren’t familiar.
See how we can’t do it without someone instantly declaring someone Anti-Semitic?
Basically the only solution is going to be when Israel decides to stop being part of the problem, exactly like it took with the Northern Ireland Troubles issue.
Once the ‘Crown’ had stopped assassinating people that enabled a dialogue to open up; i.e it took the UK wanting peace to happen for it to happen. It will be the same with Israel, well once the people stop voting in guys like Netanyahu (as people like him are not going to stop the State backed killings).
The Palestinian (and all aspects) side is a ‘reactionary’ thing, as the IRA was. And while i can never support a truly terrorist act, i can at least understand why they happen and where they come from. ‘Something’ creates that desire, and in the case of the IRA it was the UK, as in the case of Palestinian/Gazza issue it is Israel. This is why you wont get peace until Israel actually wants it, and why it is down to the State power in these types of conflicts to resolve them.
At the bare minimun (of restraint) it should be ‘an eye for an eye’ rather than ‘a whole family for an eye’ as is the current Israeli state modi operandorum, because down that path only madness (Final Solutions etc) and eternal war lay, because you never will actualy be able to kill everyone you have an issue with. (This is the fallacy of ‘The War on Terror’ as well btw).
That’s complete revisionist horseshit. What made peace possible was the IRA were willing to stop blowing people the fuck up.
It’s down to the terrorists to be willing to stop the violence, at which point negotiations can occur (not always to their benefit, if they’ve lost too much support in the meantime, of course). That’s been true again and again across the world - looking just at the last few decades, Kach, ETA, UCPN(M), HNLC, etc. - and the LTTE were defeated militarily when they didn’t. The PKK has only managed virtual statehood due to unrest in the region, and the ANC is in such a state that Desmond Tutu has turned his back on them!
(Also, Israel is perfectly capable in terms of technical capacity - and has been for decades - of eliminating the entire Palestinian population so that’s untrue in this case)
It’s like the people who try and excuse ships going direct to Gaza, when there is a long history of attempted arms smuggling that way!
The usa is the dominate force in the world. By your logic, doesn’t that make it bare the majority of the responsibility?
The Palestinians had their chance to stop both indirect and direct support for terrorism against Israel. They did not take it, or were incapable of taking it. Thus it is up to Israel to do it and nobody has any real right to complain. I’d expect no country to act differently. If they didn’t want Israel to take out their garbage, they should have done it themselves.
If Mexican drug cartels were firing rockets across the border at USA cities and the Mexican government refused to do anything about it, would you support the US government building defenses along the border and taking military action without the Mexican government’s permission?
Only the problem here is that Palestine doesn’t really have a country and Israel keeps encroaching more and more.
So for that analogy to work, we’d need to have Texas to take up most of Mexico and then keep building into defined Mexican areas after the fact.
This, exactly. And even then, the drug cartels could be eliminated by the US legalizing, taxing, and regulating drugs, which would wipe out the cartels’ income. The best answer to violence isn’t always more violence.
This is completely off the cuff but weren’t the Palestinians offered states in some form a few times in the last 15ish years? I don’t know whether those were good deals or bad deals but there is zero evidence that there is any currently deal to be had that would grant Israel lasting peace. If your only choices are terrorism with a palestinian state (with no confidence of that state being a real partner) and terrorism without one, I know which one I would choose if I were Israel.
No, that’s a problem. However, most of the violence is again not being directed from the West Bank at Israel, but from Gaza at Israel. Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza, and the response has been a massive escalation of attacks from there!
Moreover, why won’t Jordan take back the West Bank, or Egypt Gaza? Why won’t they even open their borders to them?
Rhino - Yes and no. The deals actually on offer…well. Unfortunately, the man in the best position to deliver peace - Rabin - was assassinated by an Israeli religious fanatic. Then Sharon, who pretty much despite his history was in the second best place to do so, fell into a coma.
At the same time, the USA does not have to outsource its lawmaking to violent drug cartels. I seriously doubt the USA would answer by legalizing all drugs and hoping everything was ok as opposed to militarizing the border more and “surgical” strikes. When you’re dealing with people like this, giving in to them only encourages them to use the tactic more, not join hands with you and frolic in meadows full of flowers.
The most effective answer to an attack on your civilians is not always the military, but it is not always not the military either.
The distinction is almost without meaning.
If there is no group in the area that can/will deal with it, then Israel is forced to in order to protect its citizens.
And no, i don’t support settlement expansion, but i do support the walls. They work to achieve Israel’s primary responsibility in a reasonable way. They shouldn’t need to have defenses like that to protect them from Terrorism but the world where they don’t actually need them, does not exist and likely will not in our lifetimes.
Israel cannot be the one to take the first step based on faith here, because the other side has not shown they deserve any. Some people may say the same about Israel but if there was actual peace there and Israel couldn’t fall back on the very real excuse that they are protecting their people from terrorists, there would be actual world wide support AGAINST Israel if they went back on an agreement. The same can not be said for the terrorists. They don’t care if the USA condemns them and surrounding countries aren’t likely to say a damn thing no matter what they do.
Murbella - Well, there’s two issues there, which get conflated. The internal walls in Palestian-administered land which should come down, and the Barrier with Israel’s border which shouldn’t. (Although it needs to be re-routed West in some areas)
The Barrier’s sadly needed - as I said, though, if there was peace then there could be a progressive lowering of restrictions.
Of course not, but addressing the root causes of issues is preferable to treating symptoms. Violent drug cartels are a symptom; drugs being illegal is the disease. And I say this as someone whose drug use is confined to an occasional glass of wine and wouldn’t budge from that if every possible substance was legalized (but I still think it should happen).
I’m totally in favor of decriminalization of drugs, but i think your premise here is in error.
The ultimate cause of drug cartels is not simply the criminalization of drugs. If all drugs were legal, those criminal organizations would still exist, they would simply take a slightly different form. They wouldn’t all just go off and become farmers or something.