wtf is a person supposed to actually do about israel murdering hundreds of innocent civilians.

[Rubin Farr]

stop supporting bagels.

[doublename]

stop supporting bagels.

Be reasonable.

[Guest M360]

stop supporting hummus

[jhonny]

it's always a good idea to get news about the conflict from from qatar controlled al jazeera who also happens to fund and support hamas...

 

nevertheless, i've heard of the strike, but let's wait for details and context from more independent sources,

happy now?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28468526

[Lane Visitor]

(youtube dot com/watch?v=fcrWy3PT6zc)

 

hamas straight up admitting they use human shields as tactics, when you have the UN actually admitting and reporting they've found rockets under schools (multiple times in just this recent conflict), when you have verified news reports of hamas leaders actually calling for civilians to stay put inside of buildings and areas that the idf has dropped leaflets warning for civilians to leave because the twisted leadership says "it's better to die together than to be a part" or whatever it was, when you have a society that encourages the genocidal killing of it's neighbors (youtube dot com /watch?v=0ORAM-usqhQ ), i think it's as simple as the fact that when you have a leadership that is recognized by the european union, the u.s., and other places as a terrorist group, (and at the very least recognized by most of the rest of the world as a fundamentalist extremist militant group), who runs military, educational and social services, it's not shocking to have a scenario where this leadership will do whatever means possible to push their neighbors into the sea (written in their charters and openly admitted to), whether that's putting their own people in danger, using suicide bombers, etc. They have an incredibly brilliant propaganda campaign- let their own people die by not sheltering and protecting their civilians, by leading them to weapon caches, and setting up infrastructures inside of hospitals, schools, etc, by firing rockets from civilian homes, and then pointing fingers at the other side when civilians die, and exploiting not only the entire conflict for their gain, but also exploiting and murdering their own people in the name of a liberation movement. They have been using innocent palestinian people as pawns forever, it's insane. Of course israel's leadership makes mistakes, and civilian casualties occur in such a mess of a conflict, but i think sometimes people forget that gaza and the west bank is ruled by a straight up terrorist organization. Terrorists use any means possible to further their cause, even if that means killing or putting their own people in danger, and we have living proof everywhere that this is what they do. it's horrific and extremely sad that innocents are getting slaughtered, and it's the obligation of every leadership to protect it's people, not put them in harm's way, and use their deaths as political tools.

one of the main reasons the deaths on israeli side is so low comparatively is because they have a barriers, anti-rockets, defense, etc. if the thousands of rockets hamas sends in indiscriminately went into any country that didn't have bulletproof protection, there'd be mass deaths, so the whole numbers game is a farce, and does not represent this conflict accurately. One leadership protects it's people, the other leadership does the opposite.

[eugene]

to jhonny.

 

yeah. but what are you trying to say exactly with posting of that story? that war is bad and many people suffer or are you implicating idf with a war crime?

[peace 7]

I think you're forgetting the comedown peace...

Last time I tripped on LSD was on November 19, 1999. I haven't come down since. With LSD, there is the opening of doors, and if kept open, the truth can be grasped for life. And with MDMA- sure there is comedown if you're raving fucking hard weekly, but hi-q shit taken rarely-- it is pure magic. --Those 2 combined-- doors open, Love presented-- 100% win. Granted, some people might get hurt from tripping on 10 tabs equivalent of LSD or someshit crashing a car (can't really control the dose at the worldwide drop level, and I actually know of people who have died from car crash and LSD), BUT... Hopefully people are smart enough to stop doing anything. Gotta combine the 2 so the MDMA hits first.

 

Of course, I do realize my idea sounds inconsiderate and irresponsible, but I think letting millions more suffer and die- PERPETUALLY- is far worse than 1 day of chaos (and the following weeks where all infrastructures of mankind are re-planned).

[Guest skibby]

Anything that can be said about the situation will either sound glib or justify one side or the other. Because any snapshot is actually pretty stupid. But this is an ages old strategy thing, and most people don't know why that area has been contested since time immemorial.

 

To me, the whole middle east situation looks like a clear case of the east and west civilisations arguing about who controls the minds of the humans. (via religion, trade, magic, whatever)

 

Anything that can be said will be glib. Reckins the real meaning of all this happens in secret societies.

[roasty]

how about this: the israelian state ceases to exist under international agreement, palestinians get their land back. end of story?

or other solutions?

[MisterE]

oh look it only took 3 pages for someone to say what a lot of people are thinking

[chenGOD]

There's an interesting (and not too long) article by Aaron David Miller in FP about why Israel and Hamas need each other.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/16/israel_and_hamas_need_each_other_palestine_gaza

 

Not sure if that's paywalled or not, so copy/pasta here.

 

 

In her fascinating book A History of God, Karen Armstrong posits that the reason people believe in God is because God "works for them." That is to say, God is compelling because the idea of a divine being serves a useful purpose in people's lives. That utilitarian argument may be masked beneath a deep layer of spiritual devotion -- but it's a pragmatic decision all the same.

 

The same logic works, to a large degree, in explaining the motives and interests of Israel and Hamas toward one another. As the current Gaza conflict proves once again, these two actors -- in a perverse way -- need each other.

 

That's not to deny the enmity that marks the ties between Hamas and Israel, or the existential rhetoric that drives the tone of their public accusations. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that if Israeli and Hamas leaders had one wish, it would be to destroy the other. But in the practical world of Israeli-Palestinian politics, getting rid of one another is neither achievable -- nor perhaps even desirable. Indeed, because it's not an option, Israel and Hamas have not only made do with each other's existence, they have tried to figure out how to derive the maximum benefit from one another.

 

The Israeli-Hamas bond goes back to the very inception of the Palestinian Islamist organization. Israel didn't create Hamas in 1987, but in an effort to counter the more secular Fatah and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the 1970s, it gave a variety of Islamist groups political space and leeway. It even granted an operating license for an organization created by Hamas's founder, Ahmed Yassin. Paradoxically, Hamas's very reason for being depended on the existence of Israel -- even though its main aim was to destroy it.

 

One way to look at this is as a Middle Eastern form of mutually assured destruction. Hamas cannot destroy Israel, and Israel knows that it cannot reoccupy Gaza and eradicate the Islamist organization at a cost that it is willing to bear. So each actor uses the other for its own purposes.

 

For Israel, Hamas is a convenient address to achieve many of its short-term goals. In the strange world of controlled military confrontation, when it wants a cease-fire, it goes to Hamas, not to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. When it wants Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit released from captivity, it goes to Hamas, not Abbas. And when it needs to strike out in response to the brutal murders of three Israeli teens in the West Bank, it cracks down on Hamas -- whether or not the movement's leadership authorized the action. Hamas is a convenient target of attack -- and having applauded the kidnapping of the three boys, it is probably deserving as well.

 

Second, Israel needs Hamas in Gaza. Of course, it doesn't want a militant terrorist organization launching rockets at its cities and citizens. But a Hamas that maintains order there and provides a hedge against even more radical jihadi groups is preferable to a lawless vacuum. Indeed, fewer rockets were fired from Gaza in 2013 than in any year since 2001. I've often pondered why al Qaeda has never been able to set up shop in an effective manner in Gaza, or undertake a terrorist extravaganza in Israel.

 

The absence of an al Qaeda presence is not only a result of the Israeli security presence -- it's due to the determination of Palestinians not to allow the jihadists to hijack their cause.

The last thing Israel wants is a vacuum in Gaza. In fact, Giora Eiland, former head of Israel's National Security Council, argues that it's in Israel's interest that Gaza be stable, with a strong economy and central authority. Indeed, Eiland argues, a statelike structure can be held responsible in the event of a confrontation: Israel could attack national infrastructure, not just rocket launchers.

 

Third, Hamas presents a wonderful bogeyman for those Israelis looking to avoid dealing with the questions of how to make the two-state solution a reality. Hamas's hostile and frequently anti-Semitic rhetoric is a gift to Israeli right-wingers, providing them with any number of talking points about why Israel can never trust Palestinians.

 

The problem posed by Hamas is not just a piece of propaganda by the Israeli right. The fact is that the absence of a monopoly over the organized use of violence in the Palestinian territories poses a legitimate threat to a two-state solution. What Israeli is going to make what are regarded as existential concessions to Mahmoud Abbas -- a Palestinian leader who lacks the power to silence all the guns and rockets of Palestine?

 

Finally, Hamas -- particularly its military wing -- also thrives on the existence of Israel. Hamas's very legitimacy is derived from an ideology and strategy steeped in confrontation and resistance. However self-destructive the ideology may be, the movement represents to many Palestinians an effort to preserve their national identity and to resist Israel and its ongoing occupation. Abbas has his peace process -- or what's left of it -- and his international campaign to drum up recognition of Palestinian statehood. Hamas has its resistance. It's in the nature of its very reason for being.

 

There is a good chance that the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation is going to escalate, perhaps to include an Israeli ground incursion as well. But even if that's the plan, the odds don't favor Israel's success in breaking Hamas as an organization or ending its control over Gaza. More than likely, it will only mark another bloody phase in a long struggle between two parties who can't seem to live with one another -- or apparently without one another either.

 

[Dale]

does eugene believe that Israelis have a divine, God given right to expand their settlements into Palestinian territories and pursue aggressive military action against Palestinians on behalf of their Jewish religion?

[roasty]

what's a zionist media machine?

 

[Guest unteleportedman]

lol

[Lane Visitor]

wow, i hope roasty is just trolling... but even if so, that was ignorant, dude.

[MisterE]

game set match

[Guest unteleportedman]

there is SOME truth to it even though it is hateful. I mean with the whole jewish owned rap labels etc.

[Rubin Farr]

Israel is shelling schools? Do these people not have any conscience???

[eugene]

 

what's a zionist media machine?

 

 

lol

 

 

There's an interesting (and not too long) article by Aaron David Miller in FP about why Israel and Hamas need each other.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/16/israel_and_hamas_need_each_other_palestine_gaza

 

Not sure if that's paywalled or not, so copy/pasta here.

 

 

In her fascinating book A History of God, Karen Armstrong posits that the reason people believe in God is because God "works for them." That is to say, God is compelling because the idea of a divine being serves a useful purpose in people's lives. That utilitarian argument may be masked beneath a deep layer of spiritual devotion -- but it's a pragmatic decision all the same.

 

The same logic works, to a large degree, in explaining the motives and interests of Israel and Hamas toward one another. As the current Gaza conflict proves once again, these two actors -- in a perverse way -- need each other.

 

That's not to deny the enmity that marks the ties between Hamas and Israel, or the existential rhetoric that drives the tone of their public accusations. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that if Israeli and Hamas leaders had one wish, it would be to destroy the other. But in the practical world of Israeli-Palestinian politics, getting rid of one another is neither achievable -- nor perhaps even desirable. Indeed, because it's not an option, Israel and Hamas have not only made do with each other's existence, they have tried to figure out how to derive the maximum benefit from one another.

 

The Israeli-Hamas bond goes back to the very inception of the Palestinian Islamist organization. Israel didn't create Hamas in 1987, but in an effort to counter the more secular Fatah and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the 1970s, it gave a variety of Islamist groups political space and leeway. It even granted an operating license for an organization created by Hamas's founder, Ahmed Yassin. Paradoxically, Hamas's very reason for being depended on the existence of Israel -- even though its main aim was to destroy it.

 

One way to look at this is as a Middle Eastern form of mutually assured destruction. Hamas cannot destroy Israel, and Israel knows that it cannot reoccupy Gaza and eradicate the Islamist organization at a cost that it is willing to bear. So each actor uses the other for its own purposes.

 

For Israel, Hamas is a convenient address to achieve many of its short-term goals. In the strange world of controlled military confrontation, when it wants a cease-fire, it goes to Hamas, not to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. When it wants Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit released from captivity, it goes to Hamas, not Abbas. And when it needs to strike out in response to the brutal murders of three Israeli teens in the West Bank, it cracks down on Hamas -- whether or not the movement's leadership authorized the action. Hamas is a convenient target of attack -- and having applauded the kidnapping of the three boys, it is probably deserving as well.

 

Second, Israel needs Hamas in Gaza. Of course, it doesn't want a militant terrorist organization launching rockets at its cities and citizens. But a Hamas that maintains order there and provides a hedge against even more radical jihadi groups is preferable to a lawless vacuum. Indeed, fewer rockets were fired from Gaza in 2013 than in any year since 2001. I've often pondered why al Qaeda has never been able to set up shop in an effective manner in Gaza, or undertake a terrorist extravaganza in Israel.

 

The absence of an al Qaeda presence is not only a result of the Israeli security presence -- it's due to the determination of Palestinians not to allow the jihadists to hijack their cause.

The last thing Israel wants is a vacuum in Gaza. In fact, Giora Eiland, former head of Israel's National Security Council, argues that it's in Israel's interest that Gaza be stable, with a strong economy and central authority. Indeed, Eiland argues, a statelike structure can be held responsible in the event of a confrontation: Israel could attack national infrastructure, not just rocket launchers.

 

Third, Hamas presents a wonderful bogeyman for those Israelis looking to avoid dealing with the questions of how to make the two-state solution a reality. Hamas's hostile and frequently anti-Semitic rhetoric is a gift to Israeli right-wingers, providing them with any number of talking points about why Israel can never trust Palestinians.

 

The problem posed by Hamas is not just a piece of propaganda by the Israeli right. The fact is that the absence of a monopoly over the organized use of violence in the Palestinian territories poses a legitimate threat to a two-state solution. What Israeli is going to make what are regarded as existential concessions to Mahmoud Abbas -- a Palestinian leader who lacks the power to silence all the guns and rockets of Palestine?

 

Finally, Hamas -- particularly its military wing -- also thrives on the existence of Israel. Hamas's very legitimacy is derived from an ideology and strategy steeped in confrontation and resistance. However self-destructive the ideology may be, the movement represents to many Palestinians an effort to preserve their national identity and to resist Israel and its ongoing occupation. Abbas has his peace process -- or what's left of it -- and his international campaign to drum up recognition of Palestinian statehood. Hamas has its resistance. It's in the nature of its very reason for being.

 

There is a good chance that the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation is going to escalate, perhaps to include an Israeli ground incursion as well. But even if that's the plan, the odds don't favor Israel's success in breaking Hamas as an organization or ending its control over Gaza. More than likely, it will only mark another bloody phase in a long struggle between two parties who can't seem to live with one another -- or apparently without one another either.

 

 

that's a very common sentiment among the israeli decision makers tbh, i.e "we don't want to topple hamas completely, just to hurt it enough to make it stop the rocket attacks. we need some more or less reliable force controlling gaza to bar al-qaeda/isis types from occupying gaza"

[eugene]

Israel is shelling schools? Do these people not have any conscience???

there have been already two admissions by unrwa that they found tens of rockets in those schools, don't just feed on headlines without getting into context.

http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools

[MisterE]

can we pray to baal or asmodeus or beelzebub?

[LimpyLoo]

Boycotts are effective.

[chenGOD]

 

 

 

There's an interesting (and not too long) article by Aaron David Miller in FP about why Israel and Hamas need each other.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/16/israel_and_hamas_need_each_other_palestine_gaza

 

Not sure if that's paywalled or not, so copy/pasta here.

 

 

In her fascinating book A History of God, Karen Armstrong posits that the reason people believe in God is because God "works for them." That is to say, God is compelling because the idea of a divine being serves a useful purpose in people's lives. That utilitarian argument may be masked beneath a deep layer of spiritual devotion -- but it's a pragmatic decision all the same.

 

The same logic works, to a large degree, in explaining the motives and interests of Israel and Hamas toward one another. As the current Gaza conflict proves once again, these two actors -- in a perverse way -- need each other.

 

That's not to deny the enmity that marks the ties between Hamas and Israel, or the existential rhetoric that drives the tone of their public accusations. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that if Israeli and Hamas leaders had one wish, it would be to destroy the other. But in the practical world of Israeli-Palestinian politics, getting rid of one another is neither achievable -- nor perhaps even desirable. Indeed, because it's not an option, Israel and Hamas have not only made do with each other's existence, they have tried to figure out how to derive the maximum benefit from one another.

 

The Israeli-Hamas bond goes back to the very inception of the Palestinian Islamist organization. Israel didn't create Hamas in 1987, but in an effort to counter the more secular Fatah and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the 1970s, it gave a variety of Islamist groups political space and leeway. It even granted an operating license for an organization created by Hamas's founder, Ahmed Yassin. Paradoxically, Hamas's very reason for being depended on the existence of Israel -- even though its main aim was to destroy it.

 

One way to look at this is as a Middle Eastern form of mutually assured destruction. Hamas cannot destroy Israel, and Israel knows that it cannot reoccupy Gaza and eradicate the Islamist organization at a cost that it is willing to bear. So each actor uses the other for its own purposes.

 

For Israel, Hamas is a convenient address to achieve many of its short-term goals. In the strange world of controlled military confrontation, when it wants a cease-fire, it goes to Hamas, not to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. When it wants Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit released from captivity, it goes to Hamas, not Abbas. And when it needs to strike out in response to the brutal murders of three Israeli teens in the West Bank, it cracks down on Hamas -- whether or not the movement's leadership authorized the action. Hamas is a convenient target of attack -- and having applauded the kidnapping of the three boys, it is probably deserving as well.

 

Second, Israel needs Hamas in Gaza. Of course, it doesn't want a militant terrorist organization launching rockets at its cities and citizens. But a Hamas that maintains order there and provides a hedge against even more radical jihadi groups is preferable to a lawless vacuum. Indeed, fewer rockets were fired from Gaza in 2013 than in any year since 2001. I've often pondered why al Qaeda has never been able to set up shop in an effective manner in Gaza, or undertake a terrorist extravaganza in Israel.

 

The absence of an al Qaeda presence is not only a result of the Israeli security presence -- it's due to the determination of Palestinians not to allow the jihadists to hijack their cause.

The last thing Israel wants is a vacuum in Gaza. In fact, Giora Eiland, former head of Israel's National Security Council, argues that it's in Israel's interest that Gaza be stable, with a strong economy and central authority. Indeed, Eiland argues, a statelike structure can be held responsible in the event of a confrontation: Israel could attack national infrastructure, not just rocket launchers.

 

Third, Hamas presents a wonderful bogeyman for those Israelis looking to avoid dealing with the questions of how to make the two-state solution a reality. Hamas's hostile and frequently anti-Semitic rhetoric is a gift to Israeli right-wingers, providing them with any number of talking points about why Israel can never trust Palestinians.

 

The problem posed by Hamas is not just a piece of propaganda by the Israeli right. The fact is that the absence of a monopoly over the organized use of violence in the Palestinian territories poses a legitimate threat to a two-state solution. What Israeli is going to make what are regarded as existential concessions to Mahmoud Abbas -- a Palestinian leader who lacks the power to silence all the guns and rockets of Palestine?

 

Finally, Hamas -- particularly its military wing -- also thrives on the existence of Israel. Hamas's very legitimacy is derived from an ideology and strategy steeped in confrontation and resistance. However self-destructive the ideology may be, the movement represents to many Palestinians an effort to preserve their national identity and to resist Israel and its ongoing occupation. Abbas has his peace process -- or what's left of it -- and his international campaign to drum up recognition of Palestinian statehood. Hamas has its resistance. It's in the nature of its very reason for being.

 

There is a good chance that the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation is going to escalate, perhaps to include an Israeli ground incursion as well. But even if that's the plan, the odds don't favor Israel's success in breaking Hamas as an organization or ending its control over Gaza. More than likely, it will only mark another bloody phase in a long struggle between two parties who can't seem to live with one another -- or apparently without one another either.

 

 

that's a very common sentiment among the israeli decision makers tbh, i.e "we don't want to topple hamas completely, just to hurt it enough to make it stop the rocket attacks. we need some more or less reliable force controlling gaza to bar al-qaeda/isis types from occupying gaza"

 

 

Right, but there has to be some way to do it without violating international humanitarian law.

Which the Israeli army is (in terms of proportionality and distinction).

Edit: Yes Hamas is also violating the LOAC.

 

Also important to recognize the other side's argument: Hamas needs Israel to maintain legitimacy and power. By ceding to many of their demands, Israel would actually lessen the authority that Hamas currently enjoys.

 

Also: an interesting hypothesis - Israeli operations actually cause an increase in the number of rocket attacks. (study from 2012, interesting if anyone wants to add data to the current round)

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/dissecting-idf-propaganda-the-numbers-behind-the-rocket-attacks.html

[eugene]

Boycotts are effective.

...in convincing more israelis that the world hates them and doesn't understand its needs to defend itself against hamas and thus turning them to vote for more right wing parties.

[Guest M360]

Fight fire with lox