So your plan is to simply reject all evidence that contradicts your position; I guess that settles that.
It is simply a matter of common knowledge and common sense that Hamas was always a greater force in Gaza. It was founded there. It grew there. Its leadership has always been (largely) based there. It won an election there. You can find the history of Hamas in 500 places on the internet and every one will tell you the same basic facts. If you’re going to reject things like “Hamas was founded in Gaza and has always been centred there” or “Hamas won the election in Gaza” or “Hamas has always operated primarily out of Gaza” then what evidence will convince you?
Sigh… I really hope you’re not trying to insult me, particularly with the reference to my “expat opinion”.
Anyway, I’m not sure why you’re upset with my answer. I may have misunderstood the question. If so, perhaps if you rephrased it, I can better answer it.
He asked why they couldn’t build the settlements in the Negev and I mentioned the fact that doing so would piss off the Bedouin.
I’m certainly not defending the building of the settlements which are flagrant violations of international law.
Additionally, of course, the settlements are often meant to be, effectively suburbs for Jerusalem and suburbs of Jerusalem made more sense there than in the Negev.
As I mentioned previously, I know lots of people have this impression that most of the settlers are these hard-core religious fanatics from Brooklyn, but the truth is most of them are more likely to be middle-class Israelis seeking cheap housing.
Now, all that being said, there’s also no question that part of the reason various Israeli governments, particularly Likud ones were loading up the West Bank with settlers was tactical.
About a year or two after Shamir was put out to pasture by the Israelis for pissing off George H.W. Bush he was interviewed and asked whether or not he regretted voting to reject the peace plan with Egypt from 1979. Shamir said no, he didn’t regret it and that had it been up to him, “We’d have put a million Jews in the West Bank by now and there’d be no talk of giving it back.”
Not at all – you asked me a question and I answered it. Israel pulled out of Gaza and shortly thereafter Hamas took over. Without knowing anything more, the reasonable inference is that the pullout was the efficient cause of the Hamas takeover.
Please show me some cites showing that in the time leading up to the Gaza pullout, Hamas and militancy were significantly more intense in Gaza.
i.e. I am asking you to supply actual evidence to support your position.
Actual sources like newspaper articles from reputable sources which were written in the months before the Gaza pullout.
Anonymous people on the internet asserting after the fact that something was “common knowledge” will not convince me.
Stuff which shows that in the time period leading up the Gaza pullout, Israel could reasonably have anticipated that a Gaza pullout was more likely to result in a militant takeover than a West Bank pullout.
Do you understand the difference?
Also, can I take it you concede you are unable to substantiate your claim that Abbas supports Israel as a Jewish state? I would like an answer to this question so that I can understand your position.
No insult meant. Just a segue to your oft-mentioned personal, on-the-ground, knowledge of the area.
And all I was asking in response was that if the Bedouins get “pissed” that’s Israel’s problem – no one else. That said, I obviously agree that the settlements are ‘tactical’ for the most part.
I don’t know if you can see it, but notice how you’re painting them as “Arabs” instead of Palestinians. I guess if you dehumanize and pigeon-hole them, it’s much easier to denigrate them as modern day savages. Be that as it may, taking away their tax money is petty because it was done specifically to punish them. All that’s missing is a cross, a hood, some rope, and someone in a southern drawl talking about “uppity Arabs going to the U.N.” Keep in mind, Israel pulled similar nonsense when the people democratically voted in Hamas to replace Fatah and decided to cut utilities. Also, someone upthread posted a leaked cable from Israel which they were engaging perpetual and purposeful economic warfare with Gaza. Any comment or would you like to sidestep that one as well? Whenever Israel doesn’t get it’s way, she stomps around angrily like some petulant child and regresses into poor behavior indicative of third world countries. Further, whenever Israel is called out on her poor behavior, she passes the buck: blames the Arabs, complains that the entire world is against her and generally is unable/unwilling to see how her poor behavior has a hand in the world’s response.
Let the Palestinians exist without having rely on Israel for economic security. Let Palestine have its own country with their own air space, sea ports, central bank, and military/police force. These are all fundamental prerequisites for a country.
They are at peace now. So, you’d think the silent economic warfare would cease, right?
Just 3? The bad behavior exhibited by Israel rests on a three legged stool of denial of any responsibility for anything that Israel does and shifting the buck to the victim. If Israel was an anthropological person, she’d have traits for certain personality disorders.
Use of Cluster Bombs and White Phosphorous. Poor behavior: Denial; unable to accept any responsibility for actions; often blames the Arabs themselves
Turkey Boat Incident. Poor behavior: denial; unable to accept any responsibility for actions. (This one is actually easy: just fucking apologize in a heartfelt way and pay the victims family their money).
Failed Peace Process. Poor behavior: denial; unable to any responsibility for actions past or present.
Mossad Hotel Hit on Dubai. Poor behavior: Speaks for itself: “Britain’s behavior is hypocritical. Who are they to judge us in the war on terror?” Well, Mr. Eldad, maybe Britain wouldn’t have expelled your diplomats if your government hadn’t fucking forged British passports to assassinate a guy on foreign soil! I mean, really, WTF?
Youtubing assassination in last Gaza War. Poor behavior: breaking international norms expected from Western societies for attention.
I was going to go on but I got stuff to do today. But anyway, needless to say, Israel is crazy.
You keep parroting “Don’t appease the aggressors” but can you give 3 examples in human history that this mantra has proved successful?
To be fair, it wasn’t productive because as soon as he was faced with proof that his claims were wrong, Red chose to change the subject and accuse the person who proved him wrong of being an Israeli agent. Against such ‘logic’, the Gods themselves contend in vain.
But, ignoring Red’s predictable evasion and CT’ing, it’s not out of the OP’s scope. The barrier will be an important consideration in future negotiations. Had the ICJ actually conducted due dilligence and not deliberately ignored both the law and the facts of the matter, their judgement against Israel would be relevant as a solid starting point for future negotiations. But as any reasonable, non-partisan, honest person would have to conclude (just several ICJ judges themselves, did) that the full facts were not presented, let alone analyzed… and the prime metric by which the law determines legality/illegality was deliberately ignored.
That’s an important set of facts, especially as there are those who will attempt to claim that the ICJ’s kangaroo-court proceedings are probative of anything other than the naked bias that’s become acceptable in the UN.
Hey, let us know when you start arguing true things that are based on facts, and when you’re debunked you don’t need to start slinging Conspiracy Theories about how Israel controls all of your debate opponents and they’re united in a malicious Israeli Hasbara plot against you. Just like, when it’s shown that the ICJ deliberately ignored both the law and the facts in order to come to a judgement, your only course of action was to change the subject to your perennial CT about Jews and/or Israeli agents who are out to get you and/or America.
…Quick, name everybody in the US government whose name sounds Jewish to you and accuse them of being potential foreign agents (no need to say why you think they’re potential foreign agents, of course. You can find out whether or not they are once you investigate them.) Now, just run a first pass list here, Red. We can help you remove the Greek Orthodox folks later so you can focus on the Jews.
Of course, you didn’t actually retract or apologize for anything. But I do recall that you were somewhat unhappy that you’d typed something so revealing under the influence of… well, whatever, exactly.
Meanwhile, not to interrupt your CT about Israeli agents infiltrating the Dope in order to get ya, but you still haven’t managed to address your numerous factual errors earlier, and you’ve returned to your CT that Israeli agents are out to get you. I know that you just learned a new word, and evidently the mods are fine with you accusing people in GD of being Israeli operatives, but you might want to consider, really consider, whether “You’ve debunked my fiction with facts and solid citations, you must be an Israeli agent and therefore I’m still right” is the sanest, most rational type of argument one might make.
Ask instead what was the point of offering them a state with preconditions and Israeli control over parts of it. Has Israel said that if Palestine gets a state, they should be totally independent, able to raise and maintain their own military if they wanted to? Have they gotten rid of the silly demand that Palestine recognize Israel as “Jewish” state rather than just a state?
Like I said, when you tried to derail the argument, appeasement has worked. Please respond to the example of England/India and Stalin before you continue down the “appeasement doesn’t work” road because sometimes, it does
You need a cite to acknowledge that England was the aggressors in India and Stalin was an aggressor?
Who are you referring to by picking those years? Are we talking about those years or now? Is your contention that because they’ve been aggressive in the past, the Palestinians can never have a state, or that borders should always be dictated by Israel?
Irrelevant. You’re moving the goalposts. Respond to this: Stalin wanted something and got it through appeasement. Churchill and FDR gave Stalin what he wanted to avoid a larger, more destructive conflict.
No, once again you aren’t even responding to the same argument. I said that appeasement can work, you said it can’t, and gave me the Peel Partition as one example that appeasement doesn’t work. I said that the PP doesn’t support your contention about appeasement because its not a plan that was conjured up by either side. The UK was in control and it was their Royal Commission that came up with the plan. There is no appeasement because it wasn’t about one side appeasing the other, it was simply the UK trying to come to a consensus for both sides. Its not about appeasement at all, unless you think any time in the last 60 or 70 years, whenever the Palestinians have been offered something, that’s appeasement
No, they have not. Both sides at times have competing preconditions. Some are actually worthwhile (not all preconditions are the same). Saying that Israel must be recognized not only as a state but a Jewish state is a stupid precondition. Saying that Israel must stop building settlements that cut into the proposed land in a future Palestinian deal is a GOOD precondition.
Wanting them to die isn’t the same as killing them, or did you miss the fact that desires don’t always match the outcome? Israeli leadership wants the Palestians to die, but they cannot kill them. The retribution would be horrible and swift, and even the US would be forced to move against them.
Its a stupid argument too. I guess you believe that Pakistan doesn’t want to drop nukes on Israel because it hasn’t happened yet, or North Korea doesn’t want to blow up Seoul cause it hasn’t happened yet, or the US doesn’t want to kill Castro because it hasn’t happened yet. None of those things would take a great deal of effort, but to do it successfully with minimal repercussions isn’t easy. Israeli leaders like Avigdor Lieberman have said on the record that they would rather kill the Palestinians than grant them a state. Has that happened yet?
You mean end the Israeli dream of destroying the Palestinians? Sorry, that’s above my pay grade, I don’t know how they’d do that without retribution. Israel, though, has a much easier route. They’ve managed to beat back every attack since their creation. Give the Palestians their state, don’t worry about what the extremists say to consolidate their base, and declare war on the state of Palestine if they ever attack Israel. Right now, Israel’s position is bad, they are fighting against a people who have essentially no state, so they can’t really declare war on them, and has the majority support of most of the world. If they allow Palestine to become a state, then Israel would be the sympathetic party in a conflict. But Israel must fully withdraw from Palestine and allow them to form their own independent state for that to happen
:rolleyes:
Depends on if Bob is knife-proof
It shouldn’t matter what I think if that is a real quote
Why don’t you look at the UN resolutions that have condemned Israel for its disproportionate response to the Palestinians and tell me how Israel was right to kill all those people? Active subjugation includes building a wall that surrounds disputed or actual Palestinian territory, naval blockades, continuous building of settlements, punishing family members for what one member of the family has done, indiscriminant killing (btw, I don’t give Hamas a pass on this but we’re talking about Israel right now) and retaliation.
Refusal to honestly negotiate with Palestine on a 2-state solution and disproportionate killing of Palestinians.
Here’s what Israel should do in order to become a better country. First, accept the Palestinian state as it stands now. There are areas controlled by them and areas controlled by Israel, make those the borders. Disputed regions such as Jerusalem can be worked out later. Accept Palestinian statehood and allow them full independence. That’s really all there is to it. After that, any conflicts can be resolved through actual diplomatic channels between them or through the UN. Right now Israel’s basically seen as a bully punishing people who are freedom fighters. By giving in to Palestinian statehood, there will no longer be that perception. Even Iran supported us after 9/11 because we were attacked. People aren’t going to be able to get riled up if Palestine becomes its own state and THEN attacks Israel
Israel is generally not expected to agree to giving up Jerusalem in any future negotiation (and never was), but the notion that such a refusal indicates the Israelis are forever closing the door on a 2 state solution, or have some nefarious plan to “deal with” the Palestinan population (insert ominous sounds of DOOM!) is over-egging the pudding, somewhat.
A rather large middle is being excluded …
Not that I expect Bibi to make any progress towards the 2 state goal.
Someone else’s unsupported, unsupportable, paranoid rantings… which you quote and cite, with zero effort or elaboration of your own. Do you plan on enlisting this latest author to debate with us on the Dope, or is this more an admission that your argument will be about as cogent and responsive as a canned partisan zealot’s ravings on the web? Red, just because someone hates Israrel and Israelis as much as you do, doesn’t mean that whatever they say is true. I mean, seriously, does it not give you pause to quote someone claiming that Israel’s national policy is to completely remove all the Palestinians from the area? Or is your hatred of Israel simply so totally divorced from reality, that you think that’s an accurate claim?
Does it not strike you, at least one some level, that finding an opinion piece to support your argument because you won’t even write your own opinion and regurgitating it… well, that it might not be as strong an argument as actually knowing what you’re talking about? Perhaps, that there’s something wrong with posting something about the “real world” when your cite is simply to flights of fantasy and fiction rather than the truth?
No? Really?
Okay. The person-whose-opinion-you-chose-to-post-because-you-won’t-write-your-own-words has paranoid delusions about ethnic cleansing. That’s his damage. Do you want to deal with the truth now, Red, or can you find us a cite for another person-who-you-chose-to-quote-because-you-won’t-write-your-own-words, and tell us that the “real world” is that the Israelis really plan to eat the Palestinians?
I think that’s basically the main point. And since his re-election is almost guaranteed, who knows what the area is going to look like by the time he is done.
Except, of course, that wasn’t the point Pfaff made (funny, that… if you can tell us the main point, why can’t you type it? And why do you have to rely on someone else’s words in the first place?) Of course, that you’re now telling us that Netanyahu’s administration is the “main point” is interesting, considering what you actually bolded.
Now, of course, you’d like to tell us that isn’t the main point at all. Why, you bolded it because the sun was in your eyes. You were tired. Best two out of three?
I can understand why just regurgitating someone else’s opinions might be preferrable under such circumstances… when they’re shown to be not just wrong, but stupid, willfully ignorant and wrong, you can begin to ‘interpret’ them or change the subject. Much harder to do if someone was asking you to provide proof for your own claims. This way you can say “Gee gorsh, Pfaff isn’t a Doper. I guess we can’t actually debate him. Funny, then, why I’m posting his words in a forum for debate instead of my own. Anyways, let me post someone else’s words now and change the subject.”
So, do you have any actual facts on your side to support your claim (let’s not play games, we all know why you quoted and bolded it) that Israel is in the process of ethnically cleansing “all of the land given by the U.N. in 1948 to make parallel Jewish and Arab homelands”? Can you support your claim, at all?
If they really are at peace, yes. Please link to a copy of the signed peace agreement and to evidence that Israel has engaged in subsequent economic warfare against Gaza.
Also, please answer my question from before:
Is it always petty to punish? Or only when Israel does it? I am trying to figure out the principle behind your assertion that Israel is “petty” for (allegedly) punishing the Palestinian Arabs.
Lol, well let’s see if that’s true.
I’m skeptical of your claim. Please show me proof that (1) Israel used Cluster Bombs and then denied having done so; (2) Israel used White Phosphorus and then denied having done so; (3) and blamed the Arabs for having done so.
What exactly did Israel deny having done? And what exactly were Israel’s actions which it denied any responsibility for? I am trying to understand your position here.
What exactly did Israel deny? And exactly what actions did Israel refuse to accept responsibility for? Please give me specifics, not more conclusions.
What exactly is the poor behavior? Assassinating a terrorist? Forging documents?
Exactly what are the international norms Israel violated? Please source them.
I could try, but I’ve been mainly going on common sense. I take it you dispute that appeasing aggressors is bad policy?
