IDF have told The Times they expect to invade Gaza this weekend.

[syd syside]

No it actually isn't. You say it like it's important who made the first hit. Point is that it isn't. The situation was pretty bad before the declaration of the Jewish state with both antisemitism and anti-arab sentiments running wild.

 

And even though the Brits knew the situation was problematic, they supported the declaration anyways. The sick thing is, all parties knew they were getting themselves into.

 

Also, following your logic, the African-Americans are to blame for the '67 riots in Detroit as well.

 

If I keep on trolling you, and you bite the bait, is the blame on you?

 

Well one side was willing to live with the other and the Arabs attempted to kill them off before and after Israel was declared a state. So yeah, the violence started there. If the Arabs hadn't gone on an offensive the region would not be in this back and forth situation. It's pretty relevant because that is where the trust between the two was broken. Which is what this conflict boils down to.

 

After Israel was declared a state the Arabs left the region because they anticipated an attack on the Jews. They weren't kicked out.

 

So you choose a starting point, the riots, and forget about anything happening before, during and after? Sure, the Palestinians are idiots who just happened to feel like rioting as if they were some Vancouver hooligans after some lost game. Are you going to tell me the shooting of Franz Ferdinand caused the entire WW1 as well?

 

I really don't understand your argument at all. The point is there was a Jewish community in the region, many of them were non-religious. Arab religious beliefs is what led to the destabilization of the region. It's pretty simple. The fact you want to call this irrelevant or a wash shows a clear disconnect with the historical events. You can't just ignore the historical background and if you want to go further back then bring forth some actual historical facts.

[goDel]

?

 

So many Jews were non-religious and Arabs all have religious beliefs? The simple world of non-religious Jews and religious Arabs. Yes, it's that simple.

 

Compson, I have no interest in having this discussion.

 

So, there: you're right. I'm stupid and have no argument. I'm done.

[eugene]

Well, let me just say that there was and is no solid ground for the past and thus the current situation. It was already a mess before the declaration of the Jewish state. I'd rather put the focus on this fact than al the other facts. No matter how good some current stats are, the lack of that initial solid ground is still there. And issues won't be resolved without taking that lack into account.

 

The whole discussion about who is to blame is uninteresting, imo. Currently it's about initiative and intentions. It's obvious both sides don't trust each other. And both have their justified reasons. But the fact remains that it is still called the "Occupied Palestinian Territory". Therefore, it's the occupier who has the initiative and should make clear what it's intentions are (by actions!! ... settlements in the West Bank, anyone?).

 

Actually, I don't see what the problem is AT ALL.

i think you lost me when i was talking of "solid ground", i meant factual solid ground regarding the discussion of the conflict in this thread (or any other place of discussion), meaning, not slipping into half-assed theories/narratives that are based on poor research.

 

"both sides don't trust each other" is a massive understatement, you have no idea how deep it goes, but i also think that israel should make the first step.

 

I think I know pretty well what you meant. And I believe you still have know idea what I'm talking about. But please keep sticking to the facts you want to stick to. I've told you in many ways why I think those are irrelevant. I even told you the whole point about who is to blame, or whose side to pick is irrelevant as well (which was the whole reason you brought these solid facts into the discussion). By sticking to your solid ground, you sidestep the discussion.

 

And thanks for telling me I have no idea how deep the distrust goes, even though I said it was obvious there is distrust from both sides. What's your point really? Dismiss my point of view, but confirm and agree with it anyways? I hope you feel you scored the final point in this discussion.

 

what sensible discussion can you have when israel is "worse than nazis and perpetuates genocide against the palestinians" (or something of that ilk) ? i think history, the nature of the conflict and the general current situation should be presented as accurate as possible in order to have a sensible discussion, how can that be irrelevant ? i think that the fact that the 47 partition plan favored jews is just as important as the fact that the outbursts of violence in the beginning of the century were coming mainly from arabs, for example.

 

i simply don't believe that it is easy for non-israelis to fathom the level of distrust that exists, especially following the 2nd intifada. that belief of mine doesn't dismiss the main point of your argument.

[goDel]

what sensible discussion can you have when israel is "worse than nazis and perpetuates genocide against the palestinians" (or something of that ilk) ? i think history, the nature of the conflict and the general current situation should be presented as accurate as possible in order to have a sensible discussion, how can that be irrelevant ? i think that the fact that the 47 partition plan favored jews is just as important as the fact that the outbursts of violence in the beginning of the century were coming mainly from arabs, for example.

 

i simply don't believe that it is easy for non-israelis to fathom the level of distrust that exists, especially following the 2nd intifada. that belief of mine doesn't dismiss the main point of your argument.

 

The sensibile thing would be to not take those statements seriously. And you can pinpoint me to where those statements have been made in any non-trolling fashion, in this thread.

 

If you want to have a sensible discussion, you don't start addressing all kinds of points which may, or may not have been made somewhere in this universe. If you want to keep a solid ground, keep to the arguments actually being made in this thread (instead of some supposed general opinion).

 

The point about the distrust which I'd make, is that the distrust is equally deep on both sides as far as I'm concerned. Whether or not I realise how deep it is, may be relevant in your eyes. In my eyes, the distrust is so deep, both sides are hardly able to sympathise with the other side. IMO, it's beyond rational thinking (which is not to say the distrust has no rational basis). That's how deep I see the distrust. From a psychological point of view, that's more than enough, I'd think.

 

edit.: final point - this conflict won't be solved if -at least- one side of the conflict is able to see behind their distrust. Which is to say, that as long as Israelis keep sticking to their "facts" of amount of rockets shot from Gaza, or whatever, this issue won't get solved.

[eugene]

what sensible discussion can you have when israel is "worse than nazis and perpetuates genocide against the palestinians" (or something of that ilk) ? i think history, the nature of the conflict and the general current situation should be presented as accurate as possible in order to have a sensible discussion, how can that be irrelevant ? i think that the fact that the 47 partition plan favored jews is just as important as the fact that the outbursts of violence in the beginning of the century were coming mainly from arabs, for example.

 

i simply don't believe that it is easy for non-israelis to fathom the level of distrust that exists, especially following the 2nd intifada. that belief of mine doesn't dismiss the main point of your argument.

 

The sensibile thing would be to not take those statements seriously. And you can pinpoint me to where those statements have been made in any non-trolling fashion, in this thread.

i was exaggerating obviously, but nevertheless the general trend of vast ignorance is strong in this thread.

 

If you want to have a sensible discussion, you don't start addressing all kinds of points which may, or may not have been made somewhere in this universe. If you want to keep a solid ground, keep to the arguments actually being made in this thread (instead of some supposed general opinion).

yeah well, i don't remember any serious arguments to be honest, i was mostly fending various bouts of ignorant idiocy.

 

The point about the distrust which I'd make, is that the distrust is equally deep on both sides as far as I'm concerned. Whether or not I realise how deep it is, may be relevant in your eyes. In my eyes, the distrust is so deep, both sides are hardly able to sympathise with the other side. IMO, it's beyond rational thinking (which is not to say the distrust has no rational basis). That's how deep I see the distrust. From a psychological point of view, that's more than enough, I'd think.

the distrust issue is mostly an israeli issue, the palestinians have much less to lose than israelis after all, imo. but i don't really want to get too deep into this as i can only understand the israeli side well enough.

 

edit.: final point - this conflict won't be solved if -at least- one side of the conflict is able to see behind their distrust. Which is to say, that as long as Israelis keep sticking to their "facts" of amount of rockets shot from Gaza, or whatever, this issue won't get solved.

yeah, i sort of agree, israel should step out of this mode of "managing conflict" and start "managing" a possible solution.

[syd syside]

?

 

So many Jews were non-religious and Arabs all have religious beliefs? The simple world of non-religious Jews and religious Arabs. Yes, it's that simple.

 

Compson, I have no interest in having this discussion.

 

So, there: you're right. I'm stupid and have no argument. I'm done.

 

Bad phrasing on my side. Not all Arabs, and not most jews, but yes Islamic activism is what fueled the conflict, while Jews/Israel are/is more secular.

[Alcofribas]

eugene, you're facts are bogus for one simple reason: Israel is an illegal occupying power. there's no point discussing the exemptions of its military service, debating the conditions of arabs in the wb, etc. if you're approach, so concerned with "truth" as you claim it to be, doesn't start with this rudimentary fact -- that Israel is an illegal occupying power -- than you simply can't pretend to care about truth.

 

it's one thing to ride on the dick of military colonialism, it's something else entirely to pretend that to do so is some righteous act.

[Guest RadarJammer]

Do most Israeli citizens believe in the biblical view of their right to that land? How do you feel about that stuff eugene?

[Alcofribas]

i'm really tired of seeing you ridicule people on this site and argue over stupid shit like how often Israel commits war crimes compared to Hamas or whether israel's rule of conscription includes 100% of the population or some fantastic bullshit about the jews being worse than hitler.

 

all the while you completely gloss over the fundamental issue -- Israel is an illegal occupier. it is backed diplomatically, militarily and financially by the us. what it has done to the palestinains is completely fucked up. and the onus is on israel to end its occupation, withdraw from the territories, etc.

 

you can't just pretend what is happening is ok.

[Guest yikes]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

bingo

[eugene]

eugene, you're facts are bogus for one simple reason: Israel is an illegal occupying power. there's no point discussing the exemptions of its military service, debating the conditions of arabs in the wb, etc. if you're approach, so concerned with "truth" as you claim it to be, doesn't start with this rudimentary fact -- that Israel is an illegal occupying power -- than you simply can't pretend to care about truth.

 

it's one thing to ride on the dick of military colonialism, it's something else entirely to pretend that to do so is some righteous act.

the facts are facts, if you don't know them, if you don't have a more or less clear idea of what led to current situation it would be pointless to talk to you about it. this conflict obviously doesn't start with israel's occupation of west bank, it's just one of its symptoms. now if you want to know why there's occupation, what are the possible solutions

 

i'm really tired of seeing you ridicule people on this site and argue over stupid shit like how often Israel commits war crimes compared to Hamas or whether israel's rule of conscription includes 100% of the population or some fantastic bullshit about the jews being worse than hitler.

 

all the while you completely gloss over the fundamental issue -- Israel is an illegal occupier. it is backed diplomatically, militarily and financially by the us. what it has done to the palestinains is completely fucked up. and the onus is on israel to end its occupation, withdraw from the territories, etc.

 

you can't just pretend what is happening is ok.

if you want to slab this "illegal occupier" here and be done with it ok, but on what basis do you believe that the withdrawal will end the conflict ? do you seriously think the reality would neatly line up according to international law once israel withdraws ?

the fundamental issue is the clash between nations and their aspirations.

 

Do most Israeli citizens believe in the biblical view of their right to that land? How do you feel about that stuff eugene?

 

zionism in general presupposes some connection of jews to the land but it doesn't draw exact borders of the jewish state.

i think it would be best if i just presented the current political situation thru the last election polls to give you an idea about the political affiliations/beliefs of israelis in regards to the status of west bank:

http://en.wikipedia...._election,_2013

 

33/120 - likud and israel beitenu joint list - (33 knesset (parliament) members) - likud is 70% secular, israel beitenu is completely secular but both also come from revisionist zionism tradition (west bank must be israeli, pro settlement and so on..), both sort of agreed to partial withdrawal from west bank, but right now it seems as if they are just stalling the negotiations.

 

24 - labor - completely secular, pro-withdrawal according to clinton initiative

 

10 - shas - sephardi religious party, more recently they tended to go right-wing but in the past they also supported rabin. they have some leadership fluctuations and are generally considered very corrupt and therefore flexible.

 

6 - utj - ashkenazi religious - very sectorial party, mainly interested in the well being of its electorate. as far as i understand they don't have a concrete opinion regarding west bank, many of them oppose zionism in general.

 

13 - national union and jewish home - religious zionism and strong revisionist zionism - 100% pro settlement and against the formation of the palestinian state on the territory of "land of israel". those are the the main opposition to peace initiatives.

 

6 - meretz - same as labor but even more ideological and serious, strong anti-settlement sentiment.

 

11 - yesh atid - a new centrist party of a popular news anchor/journalist, it's pro-withdrawal and pro 2-state solution, but it's unclear what exact plan they are proposing.

 

10 - for arabic parties (which are very different, but the pollers tend to mash them together) - complete opposition to settlements, pro withdrawal, 2 state solution and so on. though the communist party (usually 3-4 mks) sort of supports the one state solution actually. (what's interesting is that the population of arabs in israel is about 20%, while the arabic parites make up 8.33% of the knesset, to some degree it's something to do with demographics, but still, a signifficant proportion of arabs do not vote for arabic parties)

 

3 - whole nation - this one is very new, but it looks like a left-wing version of shas.

 

i already mentioned that i personally support meretz.

[goDel]

Can you tell us anything about the current thoughts on the outcome of the last week?

 

Around here, Hamas and Egypt are considered to be the winners.

 

The big loser is Abbas. He played no role in the past week whatsoever, so he appears to have lost his credibility.

 

And Netanyahu, well, he got lots of support going into the week, but the general consensus appears to be that the people don't think he's done enough. But in the coming elections, the issues talked about will be more Arab-Israeli conflict related and less about the weak economy. Which, from an Israeli perspective, might be an ever bigger threat and is Netanyahu's actual problem.

[eugene]

"haven't done enough", "capitulation", "they'll start shooting rockets again in a couple of months" and so on.

netanyahu and liberman (head of israel beitenu) are obviously losing support given such sentiments, you can easily see it in the polls.

 

the feeling in the public was that there's no alternative to netanyahu in regards to security problems, so as long as he manages to emphasize that his victory is assured. there's a clear hierarchy of issues, and security is always first. but then now you have this "capitulation" and a lot of his supporters go rightward. if the cease fire holds until elections he might regain some support.

so netenyahu is kinda fucked both ways at the moment, he both "capitulated" vis a vis hamas and can't deal with the economic issues and the costs of living and such.

 

the thing is that it doesn't matter much, the head of largest party doesn't automatically get to form the new government, it's based on blocks, the one who has the best chance of building a properly functioning coalition (61+ knesset members) will be the head of the government (im simplifying, but it's mostly like that). last elections kadima with tzipy livni was the largest party but likud managed to build a proper coalition.

 

for the left to win it must find a way to grab votes from current right wing supporters, that's why shelly yachimovitch (the head of labor) avoids speaking against religious and settlements clearly and tries to present herself and her party as centrists. she didn't show much willingness to be in a coalition with likud, but if this happens it opens up a lot of possibilities.

[goDel]

And what about the situation on the West Bank? It's not in Israels' interest if Abbas is losing ground and Hamas gains support over there as well. I'm currently hearing about protests on the West Bank?

 

If the West Bank grows out of control and the home-made rockets will be landing in the fields in the south again, Netanyahu is in deep trouble. Deeper than he imagines, I assume.

[eugene]

And what about the situation on the West Bank? It's not in Israels' interest if Abbas is losing ground and Hamas gains support over there as well. I'm currently hearing about protests on the West Bank?

 

If the West Bank grows out of control and the home-made rockets will be landing in the fields in the south again, Netanyahu is in deep trouble. Deeper than he imagines, I assume.

 

only the left and centre sees the abbas and west bank issue as you put it, especially tzipy livni that's going to announce her new party this week. there were some protests but it seems that it's over.

 

there is no realistic alternative to netanyahu in the eyes of the more moderate right wingers, he might lose some votes to national-religious party if the scenario you present will come to life, but he's still the strongest contender among the right wing by a large margin. rockets, bombings and violent riots have never made the israeli public go left.

[Alcofribas]

eugene, what a load of bs. do i think the reality would match up neatly to international law? um, how about we start with law international law and proceed from there? as it stands it's not lining up with any standard of law. this is the second time you're glossing over israel's flagrant disregard for law and claiming it's ok bc it somehow preempts a worse possibility....erm, a worse possibility based on law and in which israel isn't committing war crimes, however little and excusable you'd like them to be....ok man...

 

and if you're so concerned with truth, how come none of the issue you've taken up with me are untrue? how come you remain completely silent when compson says all kinds of bullshit in this thread? he claimed israel did not expel arabs, they left of their own accord. i though you were concerned with the facts bro. guess not!

[Alcofribas]

you'll also remember that compson said israel ceased using human shields in 2005. when i provided evidence to the contrary from 2010 you chose to argue with me about whether israel used more human shields than hamas. are we to assume you would have corrected compson had i not done so? lol dude, you need a wake up call. you're a poseur. you don't give a fuck about the truth.

[GenghisPwn]

Read this whole thread..

 

[awepittance]

I'm curious about 2 things, did Eugene serve in the IDF based on the compulsory requirement? And Eugene says he's lived in Israel for 17 years, if so this might mean he hasn't been called for duty yet if he is only 17 years of age (which seems unlikely). IF you had/have to serve at some point Eugene my sympathies go out to you.

[Alcofribas]

seriously, compson posts a video in which a communist/Arab conspiracy is claimed to be carried out in the UN. just take a look at these resolutions, does anyone see a trend...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel

 

ps, the first UN resolution in 76 condemns israel's support for...ahhh yes, South Africa.

 

I'm glad you were here, eugene, to sort out the truth about that video, while still having time to attack Robbie's sister. bravo!

[awepittance]

well to be fair she did make a factual error that should cost her the entire media career she's worked for. By saying that Israel 'forces' people to join the military when in fact they have legally required compulsory military service that ends up 'forcing' only 70% of the population.

[Alcofribas]

yeah man, that fucked up. we better kill some Palestinians to rectify this atrocity.

[awepittance]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd6WLDQqWuk&feature=relmfu

 

Abby interviewed the PM's spokesperson

 

i wish she would have called him on the bullshit usage of the word 'terrorists' and 'terrorism' which he uses repeatedly a classic dehumanizing propaganda tactic, but you could tell he (and her) was pretty pissed off. Surprisingly tame interview though even after she accuses his government of intentionally targeting aka murdering journalists

 

edit: he also invites her to come to Israel reversing what he said in the letter

[eugene]

eugene, what a load of bs. do i think the reality would match up neatly to international law? um, how about we start with law international law and proceed from there? as it stands it's not lining up with any standard of law. this is the second time you're glossing over israel's flagrant disregard for law and claiming it's ok bc it somehow preempts a worse possibility....erm, a worse possibility based on law and in which israel isn't committing war crimes, however little and excusable you'd like them to be....ok man...

 

and if you're so concerned with truth, how come none of the issue you've taken up with me are untrue? how come you remain completely silent when compson says all kinds of bullshit in this thread? he claimed israel did not expel arabs, they left of their own accord. i though you were concerned with the facts bro. guess not!

im not saying it's ok, im saying there are reasons behind israeli actions people need to understand.

you must understand that there is some sense in attributing the buildup of 2nd intifada to oslo accords, and similarly the withdrawal from gaza to the current situation where hamas can cover half of israel with rocket fire. it's easy to say "israel should withdraw and then we'll see what happens", there are painful precedents.

 

you'll also remember that compson said israel ceased using human shields in 2005. when i provided evidence to the contrary from 2010 you chose to argue with me about whether israel used more human shields than hamas. are we to assume you would have corrected compson had i not done so? lol dude, you need a wake up call. you're a poseur. you don't give a fuck about the truth.

yeah, if there would be no one else to correct compson i would probably do it, but i thought it would be kinda fun to see him dealing with the counterargument.

the expulsion of arabs by jews in 48 is well known, that docu godel posted also mentions it. the idf human shield incident during "cast lead" is well known as well. what you tried to do is to equal the use of idf of human shields to hamas, which is obviously way off, so i felt like correcting you.

[eugene]

I'm curious about 2 things, did Eugene serve in the IDF based on the compulsory requirement? And Eugene says he's lived in Israel for 17 years, if so this might mean he hasn't been called for duty yet if he is only 17 years of age (which seems unlikely). IF you had/have to serve at some point Eugene my sympathies go out to you.

why the sympathies ? there are many different things to do in the army.

 

well to be fair she did make a factual error that should cost her the entire media career she's worked for. By saying that Israel 'forces' people to join the military when in fact they have legally required compulsory military service that ends up 'forcing' only 70% of the population.

look, it's just an indication that the person doesn't really know the subject he's discussing, it's an extremely charged issue in israel which is hard to ignore if you're researching the topic/israel in general seriously.

you really don't have to take any exaggeration of mine seriously.