1200 killed, many more injured in Israeli attacks in Gaza

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Dream » Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:51 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:I understand what your idea is about, but if we're going by your analogy, it's more so like feeding the ants, expecting them to like you better than the queen.

You disagree that the way to destroy a movement like HAMAS is to remove its popular support and give those it "leads" a better alternative? You've flying in the face of a lot of world history there.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby yoni45 » Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:59 am UTC

Dream wrote:You disagree that the way to destroy a movement like HAMAS is to remove its popular support and give those it "leads" a better alternative? You've flying in the face of a lot of world history there.


Not at all, you're simply assuming that dumping goodwill upon the Gazans without any checks or expectations will actually remove Hamas's popular support - something that much more so flies in the face of history, and recent history at that.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Dream » Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:05 am UTC

No, a large part of my plan would involve removing and addressing legitimate grievances. Like the lifting blockade. Like rebuilding the schools and infrastructure. If the object is to get the people of Gaza to like Israelis enough to forgive them, actions must be the means to attain that object. It is not dumping goodwill. I'm not talking about airdropping food and blankets. You're totally underestimating the impact a serious rebuilding program would have.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby yoni45 » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:24 am UTC

Dream wrote:No, a large part of my plan would involve removing and addressing legitimate grievances. Like the lifting blockade. Like rebuilding the schools and infrastructure. If the object is to get the people of Gaza to like Israelis enough to forgive them, actions must be the means to attain that object. It is not dumping goodwill.


Uh, I'm not sure what your definition of goodwill is, but that pretty much would be dumping goodwill. It's an argument of semantics from there.

Dream wrote:You're totally underestimating the impact a serious rebuilding program would have.


If by 'underestimating', you mean 'not assuming that Hamas will not take full advantage of such a program to their benefit, spin it off as a victory where possible, while blocking any efforts that cannot be spun off as such a victory', then you might have a point.

You're forgetting that your entire plan will be run under the government of Hamas. Why exactly do you assume they will allow you to do *anything* in a manner which doesn't put them in a positive light?

That means that while Hamas continues firing rockets unabated while developing and building bigger and stronger ones, your aid trucks will be coming in with Hamas logos on the side, with Hamas officials handing it out, while your shiny new science center will be the Martyrs' Stronghold of Quranic Sciences.

Even if a significant chunk of the populace starts "seeing through", and actually pushes to do something about it (which is such a huge stretch of the imagination, I'm surprised I'm even entertaining the idea), Hamas still has a significant indoctrinated core base. In the thousands, with supporters in the tens of thousands. These aren't guys who are going to care that there's more food now. If anything, it'll be considered a gift from Allah for fighting the Zionist enemy.

At best, you're looking at a bloody civil war that'll claim the lives of thousands. As far as historical precedents are concerned, fanatic Arabs have had little issue with slaughtering each other. This isn't Israel that will care to use pinpoint missiles to limit casualties. Look at any one of the countless massacres of the Lebanese civil war if you need an example.

At worst (and more likely), your plan fails, and simply delays the inevitable as the IDF has to face off against a much stronger Hamas. As a result, more civilians, both Israeli and Palestinian die, more so on the Palestinian side. Frankly, this isn't really even the 'worse' scenario, as far fewer civilians would likely die in an Israeli incursion than in a Palestinian civil war.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby 3.14159265... » Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:17 pm UTC

Yoni, I don't think Israel is in bad shape.

I have been to more than a couple of Israel on Campus meetings to know how proud Israeli's are of Israel, how much they promote living there, and how little they let terrorism affect their lives. If it's a nice place to live in, it doesn't need a solution.

Palestine however needs a solution. Thats why I was asking for solutions. The only solution I proposed is the Palestinians should try to produce intellectuals in the fields possible.

Don't accuse me of biases I don't have.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

Obsidius
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:43 pm UTC

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Obsidius » Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:48 pm UTC

william wrote:
Obsidius wrote:-The Arabs intended to kill all the Jews. some might call that "Genocide"

Please do not use the term "The Arabs" like that. If you mean Hamas, say Hamas.


I'm sorry, I should clarify:
By "Arabs", I mean Hamas, Iran,and the neighboring Arab countries.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby 3.14159265... » Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:48 pm UTC

Iran is not an Arab country. In fact they are rather sensitive about being confused with Arabs.

Middle eastern ethnocentrism, learn it.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

Obsidius
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:43 pm UTC

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Obsidius » Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:53 pm UTC

Nitpicking my words. It doesnt much matter. Iran HAS stated they want the israelis dead.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby fjafjan » Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:21 pm UTC

Obsidius wrote:
william wrote:
Obsidius wrote:-The Arabs intended to kill all the Jews. some might call that "Genocide"

Please do not use the term "The Arabs" like that. If you mean Hamas, say Hamas.


I'm sorry, I should clarify:
By "Arabs", I mean Hamas, Iran,and the neighboring Arab countries.

haha
"Sorry, by Arabs I mean Arabs, and Persians."
I mean seriously, your ignorance is hillarious, not only grouping all Arabs together, but non arabs too!
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

Obsidius
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:43 pm UTC

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Obsidius » Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:44 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:
Obsidius wrote:
william wrote:
Obsidius wrote:-The Arabs intended to kill all the Jews. some might call that "Genocide"

Please do not use the term "The Arabs" like that. If you mean Hamas, say Hamas.


I'm sorry, I should clarify:
By "Arabs", I mean Hamas, Iran,and the neighboring Arab countries.

haha
"Sorry, by Arabs I mean Arabs, and Persians."
I mean seriously, your ignorance is hillarious, not only grouping all Arabs together, but non arabs too!



And it still doesnt change the fact that israel's neighbors want nothing more than to see them dead.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby fjafjan » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:27 pm UTC

Obsidius wrote:
fjafjan wrote:
Obsidius wrote:
william wrote:
Obsidius wrote:-The Arabs intended to kill all the Jews. some might call that "Genocide"

Please do not use the term "The Arabs" like that. If you mean Hamas, say Hamas.


I'm sorry, I should clarify:
By "Arabs", I mean Hamas, Iran,and the neighboring Arab countries.

haha
"Sorry, by Arabs I mean Arabs, and Persians."
I mean seriously, your ignorance is hillarious, not only grouping all Arabs together, but non arabs too!



And it still doesnt change the fact that israel's neighbors want nothing more than to see them dead.

Okey, let's stop this stupid generalization and stick to the facts if you want to make a serious argument
Israel has enemies in Lebanon, namely Hezbollah. That is a problem, it is caused by Israel repeatedly invading Lebanon, and thus effectively disenpowering the legitemate government which has no real problems with Israel.
Jordan have no open ambitions of conquoring Israel, that is not to say they are an Israeli ally, but if you want to say the want Israel dead you're going to have to cite a source.
Egypt have had normalized relations with Israel for quite some time.
Iran have claims that Israel is an illegitamate state, but in reality they don't care about Israel other than as a very real threat to ITS existance and as a propaganda tool.
Syria see Jordan
So to summarize, you said
-Hamas, Iran, and the Neighboring Arab states intended to kill all the Jews. some might call that "Genocide"

Intended to kill => Genocide? No
So I'm sorry, where is your factual basis for this? Oh, none?
Well that seems about right.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

Fett42
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:52 pm UTC

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Fett42 » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:36 pm UTC

Jordan and Egypt both have peace treaties with Israel and residents are reglarly tourists between those countries. Lebanon is an odd government that is more worried about itself than Israel, though Hezbollah certainly want's Israel gone, as does Syria and Iran. But it's definitely incorrect to say that all of the Arab nations or even all of Israel's neighbors want to see it gone.

User avatar
Schmendreck
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:18 pm UTC
Location: New York

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Schmendreck » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:10 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:citation is here

relevant quotes:

74. On 22 November 1967, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 242 (1967), which emphasized the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war and called for the "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict", and "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency".


The General Assembly, Reaffirming its resolution ES 10/13 of 21 October 2003, Guided by the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
Aware of the established principle of international law on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,


Recalling in particular relevant United Nations resolutions affirming that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development as well as those demanding the complete cessation of settlement activities,



I don't think the UN is a solution. They have a long and prominent record of ineffectiveness on anything security related (at least in more modern times.) It also has a very strong anti-Israel slant.

anti-Israel slant? No they look at international law, and they usually come to the conclusion that hey, Israel is breaking that law. Obviously so do Hamas and most of the people Israel fight, and those are typically condemned aswell. But you see everyone condemns Hamas for killing innocent people, and when the UN, using the principle of reciprocity etc, also condemn Israel for its violations people think that's being "anti Israel". No it's not. But more to the point
I also find it very hard to believe that, the Palestinians would accept any offer of land that the Israelis would consider reasonable. Their stated goal is to kill every single Israeli, not more land.

I don't know what the answer to this senseless violence is and I won't pretend I do know. I just wish that it never had to be this way.

...¨
Look, again, if you want to find out, go read a book like Beyond Chutzpah by Norman Finkelstein. He lays out the basic facts. The truth is a clear majority of Palestinians support a state along the '67 borders.


I UN is the most fang-less organization ever to be created. Time after time U.N. peace keepers have become more of a liability than an asset such as in Kosovo and Bosnia where they have been linked to prostitution and in Rwanda where a genocide was allowed to occur and the UN barely lifted a finger. I don't know when passing resolutions started counting as actions.

Additionally, if the UN is not anti-Israel, why is Israel the only country in the entirety of the U.N. that cannot hold a seat on the security council?

Thirdly, governing bodies derive their power from the mandate of the people. Despite their apparent majority , the more moderate Palestinians allow their radical governments to rule without so much as a word of disapproval. Such actions only show that they support the goals of their governments.
A critic is a person who creates nothing of their own and therefore feels entitled to judge others.
-Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
william
Not a Raptor. Honest.
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Contact:

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby william » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:26 pm UTC

Schmendreck wrote:Additionally, if the UN is not anti-Israel, why is Israel the only country in the entirety of the U.N. that cannot hold a seat on the security council?

If it weren't for the fact that Israel is often the 2 in a 180-2 vote that still doesn't pass(because the US has a veto) I'd be more concerned.
SecondTalon wrote:A pile of shit can call itself a delicious pie, but that doesn't make it true.

User avatar
roc314
Is dead, and you have killed him
Posts: 1356
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:48 am UTC
Location: A bunker, here behind my wall
Contact:

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby roc314 » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Schmendreck wrote:Additionally, if the UN is not anti-Israel, why is Israel the only country in the entirety of the U.N. that cannot hold a seat on the security council?
No. That's just wrong. The security council has five permanent members who have veto power: Great Britain, France, the USA, China, and Russia (formerly the USSR). Ten other members are voted in for two year terms by their region, with the caveat that at least one Arab nation needs to be on the council. There is nothing saying Israel cannot hold a seat on the security council.

Israel has not yet been voted in, but that does not mean they are disallowed.

(source)
Hippo: roc is the good little communist that lurks in us all
Richard Stallman: Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.
suffer-cait: roc's a pretty cool dude

User avatar
Schmendreck
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:18 pm UTC
Location: New York

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Schmendreck » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:45 pm UTC

roc314 wrote:
Schmendreck wrote:Additionally, if the UN is not anti-Israel, why is Israel the only country in the entirety of the U.N. that cannot hold a seat on the security council?
No. That's just wrong. The security council has five permanent members who have veto power: Great Britain, France, the USA, China, and Russia (formerly the USSR). Ten other members are voted in for two year terms by their region, with the caveat that at least one Arab nation needs to be on the council. There is nothing saying Israel cannot hold a seat on the security council.

Israel has not yet been voted in, but that does not mean they are disallowed.

(source)


I withdraw my point. It seems that my information was out of date. Nevertheless it is not the only body where the bias exists.

For example the UNHRCs recent decree denoucing Israeli attacks on Gaza (which i agree with) but not Gazan attacks on Israel.
A critic is a person who creates nothing of their own and therefore feels entitled to judge others.

-Robert A. Heinlein

++$_
Mo' Money
Posts: 2370
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:06 am UTC

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby ++$_ » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:59 pm UTC

Schmendreck wrote:For example the UNHRCs recent decree denoucing Israeli attacks on Gaza (which i agree with) but not Gazan attacks on Israel.
Here are some alternative reasons that the UNHRC might have made that choice:

1. Because it's trivially obvious that in no way would anyone condone the rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. On the other hand, people argue about whether or not we should condone the attacks on Gaza, which are (at least nominally) targeted at militants. The UN needs to make a statement on the latter, but there's no need for the former. That said, it sends an unfortunate message. It's like when a kid is teasing his brother, and so the brother punches him in the face. The parent comes over and punishes the one who punched. While that makes sense -- his violation was the more severe -- it doesn't make sense to ignore the other violation. So I recognize the problem here, but I don't think it necessarily represents bias. It might just be bad "parenting."
2. Because the attacks on Israel are not perpetrated by a recognized national entity.
3. Because the UN has absolutely no leverage with regard to the Palestinian terrorists who are perpetrating the rocket attacks, but believes itself to have leverage with regard to Israel.

I don't actually know which of the above is relevant, if any, but it's not necessarily the case that the UNHRC is anti-Israel.

To look at it another way, the UNHRC has not denounced the pirate attacks off of the Somalian coast. Does this mean that they support piracy, or that they're anti-shipping? Of course not.

User avatar
Schmendreck
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:18 pm UTC
Location: New York

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Schmendreck » Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:29 pm UTC

++$_ wrote:
Schmendreck wrote:For example the UNHRCs recent decree denoucing Israeli attacks on Gaza (which i agree with) but not Gazan attacks on Israel.
Here are some alternative reasons that the UNHRC might have made that choice:

1. Because it's trivially obvious that in no way would anyone condone the rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. On the other hand, people argue about whether or not we should condone the attacks on Gaza, which are (at least nominally) targeted at militants. The UN needs to make a statement on the latter, but there's no need for the former. That said, it sends an unfortunate message. It's like when a kid is teasing his brother, and so the brother punches him in the face. The parent comes over and punishes the one who punched. While that makes sense -- his violation was the more severe -- it doesn't make sense to ignore the other violation. So I recognize the problem here, but I don't think it necessarily represents bias. It might just be bad "parenting."
2. Because the attacks on Israel are not perpetrated by a recognized national entity.
3. Because the UN has absolutely no leverage with regard to the Palestinian terrorists who are perpetrating the rocket attacks, but believes itself to have leverage with regard to Israel.

I don't actually know which of the above is relevant, if any, but it's not necessarily the case that the UNHRC is anti-Israel.

To look at it another way, the UNHRC has not denounced the pirate attacks off of the Somalian coast. Does this mean that they support piracy, or that they're anti-shipping? Of course not.


In addition Israel is the only country that it has ever condemned. Countries like Sudan have only been looked at with deep concern. This has even been noted as a problem by Kofi Annan.

Source
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking/i ... idqlauojsn
A critic is a person who creates nothing of their own and therefore feels entitled to judge others.

-Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Dream » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:11 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:Even if a significant chunk of the populace starts "seeing through", and actually pushes to do something about it (which is such a huge stretch of the imagination, I'm surprised I'm even entertaining the idea)

You know all those wars throughout the entire of history that ended, and now there is peace between the former enemies? That was because people entertained the idea of peace with their enemies. That means those enemies can go from a situation of hating, to a situation of not hating. It has happened time and again throughout history.
yoni45 wrote:At best, you're looking at a bloody civil war that'll claim the lives of thousands. As far as historical precedents are concerned, fanatic Arabs have had little issue with slaughtering each other.

You know the way you blame this on Arab fanatisicm, in spite of that being entirely groundless racism? That is the kind of dehumanising of your enemy that perpetuates these conflicts, and allows you to sleep well while hundreds are slaughtered and thousands are maimed in your name.

Attitudes like yours, that there can never be and end to the killing, that it is the other side's fault because they're just like that, these are where the real blame lies. Second to the military commanders, and tubthumping bandwaggoning politicians, (on both sides) YOU are to blame for this. That's right, I lay the responsibility for this situation at your feet, in a very real sense. You disgust me.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby aleflamedyud » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:17 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:
apeman5291 wrote:I doubt that Hamas will be able to say "Look, you're thriving under our rule, kill the evil Zionists!" while at the same time receiving aid publicly from them.


Why not? They *are* the ones who will be twisting the facts to fit their needs, and not only that, they'll have results to show for it. Heck, upto now, they've not only been getting aid, but they've been *stealing* considerable chunks of it, and even that hasn't done much to turn anyone against them...

I concur. As long as Hamas remains even slightly less utterly fucking corrupt than Fatah, they will be seen as the more righteous and beneficial party for Palestinians. Their incorruptibility, which derives from their religious fanaticism, is precisely the problem here. The whole problem is that, in Palestinian society, getting to nice to Israel is considered corruption just like stealing tax dollars. Such people are described as sucking at the Zionist teat instead of fighting for True Palestinian Freedom (ie: "kul filistina", the whole land of Israel+Palestine).

I think that Dream's solution can work in the West Bank, but not in the Gaza Strip. Gaza is controlled by fanatical tyrants who have enough of a grip that they can freely ignore the will of the people. If it were otherwise they would never have provoked this war with Israel, would have held to the cease-fire agreement by not firing rockets, and would have received the reward of Israel lifting the blockade on Gaza, dramatically improving the lives of the common people there.

So here's my proposal for peace...

Hamas is annihilated. Any Palestinian who can show no allegiance to Hamas is allowed to move to the West Bank, from which Israel withdraws. A Palestinian state is declared that includes the entire West Bank beyond the security wall/fence and the region of Northeastern Israel referred to as the Arab Triangle (because it contains most of the Israeli Arab population). The border is patrolled by an international force containing neither Israeli nor Palestinian troops. In exchange for giving the Arab triangle to the Palestinians, Israel keeps Jerusalem undivided (this is more a practical matter than an ideological one; as splitting the city just lets either side's extremists shoot each other back and forth over the border*). This deal, particularly the transfer of the Arab Triangle to Palestine, works out mutually beneficial because the Palestinians get a sizable state, and Israel no longer needs to worry about becoming demographically overwhelmed with Arabs (which is mostly a paranoid fantasy anyway, but hey). If Palestine negotiates well, they could also receive a segment of Israel's eastern deserts, which thorough science can turn into valuable farmland.

Access to religious sites by anyone of any nationality would be allowed provided normal arrangements for a visitation visa were made, in both states. Any terror attack by anyone in a holy place would result in that holy site closing to everyone for a negotiated length of time -- this would deter terrorism at holy sites. Israel would give Palestine monetary aid, a negotiated sum for each Palestinian repatriated (not just from Gaza but from Europe or America, similar to Israel's Law of Return) within a negotiated period, provided that internationally-observed and Israeli-audited reports show the aid is used for building schools, hospitals, and other useful infrastructure. Any terror attack by a Palestinian will result in loss of aid for a number of Palestinians equal to the number of Israelis hurt or killed in the attack. The Israeli audits will also provide valuable information for the common Palestinian people on how clean or corrupt their leaders are, enabling them to clean up their politics.

Arabs and Jews who end up on the "wrong" side of the border can choose to move to their own state or to maintain their residence, provided that they follow the laws of the state they live in. This means that Israeli settlers could stay in "Palestine", though Israel would not protect them nor defend their interests. If the Palestinian state decided to strip these settlers of their personal property and evict them from their homes, the settlers' only recourse would be to move to Israel proper. Only killing such Jews could justly warrant an Israeli response, as such people chose to live on their holy land in a Palestinian state rather than in a slightly different part of their holy land in a Jewish state.

After the negotiated period of aid from Israel to Palestine ends, the two countries sign a trade agreement. A negotiated time after this, the two sides can use their own men to patrol their borders and the international army can be phased back to international observers, who will eventually be phased out altogether.

Any officially-sanctioned military aggression by either side, not including defense against terror attacks, will result in immediate termination of that party's rights under the peace deal while maintaining their obligations. Precisely what measures a state can take to defend itself against terror attacks under the peace treaties will be negotiated, and must take into account that while ideally the Palestinian state would handle prosecution of terrorists, they cannot be expected to immediately wipe out the terrorist groups, who will no doubt object to being obsoleted by a Palestinian state when it actually happens.

* -- The neighborhoods of West Jerusalem bordering East Jerusalem were slums before the Six-Day War, because Arab soldiers would shoot at the residents as they went about their lives. Hence, splitting any city built on a series of hills is a bad idea. Jerusalem isn't all that great anyway.

Questions? Comments? Counterproposals? Flames go to /dev/null, so speak reasonably.

EDIT: Oh, and both countries have to put "Germany Clauses" in their constitutions or basic laws stating that no "Death to X!" parties can run for political office in country Y.
Last edited by aleflamedyud on Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:39 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Schmendreck
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:18 pm UTC
Location: New York

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Schmendreck » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:25 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:
yoni45 wrote:
apeman5291 wrote:I doubt that Hamas will be able to say "Look, you're thriving under our rule, kill the evil Zionists!" while at the same time receiving aid publicly from them.


Why not? They *are* the ones who will be twisting the facts to fit their needs, and not only that, they'll have results to show for it. Heck, upto now, they've not only been getting aid, but they've been *stealing* considerable chunks of it, and even that hasn't done much to turn anyone against them...

I concur. As long as Hamas remains even slightly less utterly fucking corrupt than Fatah, they will be seen as the more righteous and beneficial party for Palestinians. Their incorruptibility, which derives from their religious fanaticism, is precisely the problem here. The whole problem is that, in Palestinian society, getting to nice to Israel is considered corruption just like stealing tax dollars. Such people are described as sucking at the Zionist teat instead of fighting for True Palestinian Freedom (ie: "kul filistina", the whole land of Israel+Palestine).

I think that Dream's solution can work in the West Bank, but not in the Gaza Strip. Gaza is controlled by fanatical tyrants who have enough of a grip that they can freely ignore the will of the people. If it were otherwise they would never have provoked this war with Israel, would have held to the cease-fire agreement by not firing rockets, and would have received the reward of Israel lifting the blockade on Gaza, dramatically improving the lives of the common people there.

So here's my proposal for peace...

Hamas is annihilated. Any Palestinian who can show no allegiance to Hamas is allowed to move to the West Bank, from which Israel withdraws. A Palestinian state is declared that includes the entire West Bank beyond the security wall/fence and the region of Northeastern Israel referred to as the Arab Triangle (because it contains most of the Israeli Arab population). The border is patrolled by an international force containing neither Israeli nor Palestinian troops. In exchange for giving the Arab triangle to the Palestinians, Israel keeps Jerusalem undivided (this is more a practical matter than an ideological one; as splitting the city just lets either side's extremists shoot each other back and forth over the border*). This deal, particularly the transfer of the Arab Triangle to Palestine, works out mutually beneficial because the Palestinians get a sizable state, and Israel no longer needs to worry about becoming demographically overwhelmed with Arabs (which is mostly a paranoid fantasy anyway, but hey). If Palestine negotiates well, they could also receive a segment of Israel's eastern deserts, which thorough science can turn into valuable farmland.

Access to religious sites by anyone of any nationality would be allowed provided normal arrangements for a visitation visa were made, in both states. Any terror attack by anyone in a holy place would result in that holy site closing to everyone for a negotiated length of time -- this would deter terrorism at holy sites. Israel would give Palestine monetary aid, a negotiated sum for each Palestinian repatriated (not just from Gaza but from Europe or America, similar to Israel's Law of Return) within a negotiated period, provided that internationally-observed and Israeli-audited reports show the aid is used for building schools, hospitals, and other useful infrastructure. Any terror attack by a Palestinian will result in loss of aid for a number of Palestinians equal to the number of Israelis hurt or killed in the attack. The Israeli audits will also provide valuable information for the common Palestinian people on how clean or corrupt their leaders are, enabling them to clean up their politics.

Arabs and Jews who end up on the "wrong" side of the border can choose to move to their own state or to maintain their residence, provided that they follow the laws of the state they live in. This means that Israeli settlers could stay in "Palestine", though Israel would not protect them nor defend their interests. If the Palestinian state decided to strip these settlers of their personal property and evict them from their homes, the settlers' only recourse would be to move to Israel proper. Only killing such Jews could justly warrant an Israeli response, as such people chose to live on their holy land in a Palestinian state rather than in a slightly different part of their holy land in a Jewish state.

After the negotiated period of aid from Israel to Palestine ends, the two countries sign a trade agreement. A negotiated time after this, the two sides can use their own men to patrol their borders and the international army can be phased back to international observers, who will eventually be phased out altogether.

Any officially-sanctioned military aggression by either side, not including defense against terror attacks, will result in immediate termination of that party's rights under the peace deal while maintaining their obligations. Precisely what measures a state can take to defend itself against terror attacks under the peace treaties will be negotiated, and must take into account that while ideally the Palestinian state would handle prosecution of terrorists, they cannot be expected to immediately wipe out the terrorist groups, who will no doubt object to being obsoleted by a Palestinian state when it actually happens.

* -- The neighborhoods of West Jerusalem bordering East Jerusalem were slums before the Six-Day War, because Arab soldiers would shoot at the residents as they went about their lives. Hence, splitting any city built on a series of hills is a bad idea. Jerusalem isn't all that great anyway.

Questions? Comments? Counterproposals? Flames go to /dev/null, so speak reasonably.


I like the idea but I don't think it provides enough protection against religious nutjobs acting against the will of the governments. It might stop state sponsored terrorism but it has little power against anything else. It's hard to come up with incentives that will stop suicide bombers, to blow your self up you have to be at least partly mentally unstable.
A critic is a person who creates nothing of their own and therefore feels entitled to judge others.

-Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Dream » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:59 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:So here's my proposal for peace...

I realise that this is a serious proposal, and I am treating it as such. However, it has a couple of fatal flaws. It involves resettlement of the population of Gaza. That will simply open more wounds, and create more grievances. If you throw people out of their land, it will raise the spectre of 1948, no matter how necessary you believe that resettlement is. Jerusalem is not a problem that can be solved by giving it all to Israel. Aside from giving away a supremely important holy site and religious symbol, it would normalise the conquest of territory by force, and as such would be unacceptable to Palestinians and to anyone who is attempting to fairly broker such an arrangement. It involves a large security force from an international third party. Israel has historically been very resistant to having such an entity on its soil, so it would likely go the way of UNIFIL in Lebanon. Ineffectual and ignored by both sides, but expected by Israel to somehow magically stop any attacks from originating in its territory. It would be a political tool of the stronger side, and a political football for everyone. It would need international observers, but not border guards.

There is a lot more to discuss in your proposal, but I believe that any of these alone would most likely sink it.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby yoni45 » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:00 am UTC

Dream wrote:You know all those wars throughout the entire of history that ended, and now there is peace between the former enemies? That was because people entertained the idea of peace with their enemies. That means those enemies can go from a situation of hating, to a situation of not hating. It has happened time and again throughout history.


You know what else happens to be highly correlated to that phenomena?

The fact that prior, in cases of unresolvable differences, one side clearly won, and the other side lost. I can entertain peace with my 'enemies', it's hardly an issue. I just don't assume that giving that enemy everything it needs to further my destruction will actually achieve it.

Dream wrote:You know the way you blame this on Arab fanatisicm, in spite of that being entirely groundless racism? That is the kind of dehumanising of your enemy that perpetuates these conflicts, and allows you to sleep well while hundreds are slaughtered and thousands are maimed in your name.


You know those ideals that sweep away unpleasant facts of reality under the curtain of "we shouldn't think like that, it's racist"? Those are part and parcel of why Hamas is in this position in the first place.

Arab fanaticism (its actually more so Islamic fanaticism, I guess, it's just highly correlated with the Arab world) has nothing to do with racism. It happens to be a phenomena among a significant chunk Arab world, due to a number of reasons, and with more than enough evidence to show for it.

And unfortunately, those ideals tend to be highly correlated to a blissful ignorance. Instead of actually addressing points made against them, people tend to just reply with useless ranting such as:

Dream wrote:Attitudes like yours, that there can never be and end to the killing, that it is the other side's fault because they're just like that, these are where the real blame lies. Second to the military commanders, and tubthumping bandwaggoning politicians, (on both sides) YOU are to blame for this. That's right, I lay the responsibility for this situation at your feet, in a very real sense. You disgust me.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Dream » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:19 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:The fact that prior, in cases of unresolvable differences, one side clearly won, and the other side lost.

Someone posted above a list of the Arab nations with which Israel is not at war. That was not always the case. Israel has made peace with many Arab nations, and many other just aren't involved. Kind of flies in the face of your way of thinking.

You know those ideals that sweep away unpleasant facts of reality under the curtain of "we shouldn't think like that, it's racist"? Those are part and parcel of why Hamas is in this position in the first place.

You shouldn't think like that, it's racist.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby aleflamedyud » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:21 am UTC

Dream wrote:
aleflamedyud wrote:So here's my proposal for peace...

I realise that this is a serious proposal, and I am treating it as such. However, it has a couple of fatal flaws. It involves resettlement of the population of Gaza. That will simply open more wounds, and create more grievances. If you throw people out of their land, it will raise the spectre of 1948, no matter how necessary you believe that resettlement is. Jerusalem is not a problem that can be solved by giving it all to Israel. Aside from giving away a supremely important holy site and religious symbol, it would normalise the conquest of territory by force, and as such would be unacceptable to Palestinians and to anyone who is attempting to fairly broker such an arrangement. It involves a large security force from an international third party. Israel has historically been very resistant to having such an entity on its soil, so it would likely go the way of UNIFIL in Lebanon. Ineffectual and ignored by both sides, but expected by Israel to somehow magically stop any attacks from originating in its territory. It would be a political tool of the stronger side, and a political football for everyone. It would need international observers, but not border guards.

There is a lot more to discuss in your proposal, but I believe that any of these alone would most likely sink it.

A) Unfortunately the Gazans will just have to take the resettlement. Egypt doesn't want the Gaza Strip, it's too small to become independent, and Israel can't integrate people who hate Israel. Millions of Mizrachi Jews had to resettle in Israel when the Arab countries they had lived in kicked them out after the Israeli War of Independence. This would be the last such resettlement anyone in the area would have to endure, and I personally think one last bit of pain is worth it for a permanent peace arrangement.
B) We already agreed that everyone from both countries would have the right to visit any holy site they pleased. This includes holy sites in Jerusalem.
C) You think that giving Jerusalem to Israel normalizes the conquest of territory by force? I say giving any part of it to the Arabs does exactly that. There's a reason that it's called "Jerusalem", an Anglicization of the Hebrew "Yerushalayim" or "Yerushaleim" (vowels slip around like that quite easily in Semitic tongues without loss of meaning). The Arabs call it "Al-Quds", "The Holy [City]", acknowledging its history. To give up Jerusalem normalizes the notion that conquest is OK as long as you did it hundreds of years ago, but that taking back territory conquered is never OK. Israel even granted the Jerusalemite Arabs citizenship when it annexed Jerusalem, and at least under my plan they could maintain that citizenship if they so chose. Jerusalem is the capital city of the entire Jewish civilization and the largest Israeli city in both population and land area, but for the Arabs it is merely another holy site and another glorious conquest of the past. Good luck getting Jews or Israel to budge on it. Perhaps there is something you believe we could exchange for Jerusalem?
D) I demand an international force enforcing the border between Israel and Palestine to make sure that extremist, psychopathic settler-type Jews can't perform terror attacks across the border and to make sure that the newly-declared Palestinian state does something better with its early years than to attempt to conquer Israel. What alternative to an international force can take care of both these concerns?
E) You say Israel would cripple an international force. I honestly think that this displays a rather unnecessary and unintelligent bias in favor of the Palestinians: you seem continually optimistic in regards to Palestinian actions (you think they would prosper in Gaza rather than be forced by Hamas to attack Israel if Israel would only let them) yet continually pessimistic in your predictions of Israeli actions (as when you predict their crippling of an international force). Optimism or pessimism is fine, but negotiating with someone who thinks their side always does right and the other side always wrong makes it difficult to concoct a plan that can work for both sides. I've admitted that Israel often acts in a morally incorrect fashion and that Palestinians deserve a better life than the one they currently lead. In return, please try to accept that sometimes Israel will do right and that a check on Palestinian, Saudi-surrogate, and Iranian-surrogate violence will be necessary to make any peace plan work in the long term. You yourself have said that Israel has made peace with Arab states before; give them a chance to do it again while remaining secure!

Please remember that this is a negotiation. Saying "X, Y, and Z would sink it" is useless. You have to come up with a better idea, or the wars will just continue until one side slaughters the other. And by "one side" I mean Israel, and by "the other" I mean Palestinians, at least the way things look now.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby yoni45 » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:27 am UTC

Dream wrote:Someone posted above a list of the Arab nations with which Israel is not at war. That was not always the case. Israel has made peace with many Arab nations, and many other just aren't involved. Kind of flies in the face of your way of thinking.


Read carefully now:

"You know what else happens to be highly correlated to that phenomena?

The fact that prior, in cases of unresolvable differences, one side clearly won, and the other side lost..."

Israel has peace with Egypt and Jordan. Prior to that, when differences were otherwise unresolvable, Israel clearly won the wars fought between them, while Egypt and Jordan clearly lost. History, both Israel's and otherwise, tends to go along with my statement.

Dream wrote:You shouldn't think like that, it's racist.


And you're wrong, and it's already been elaborated upon. If you're going to further claim racism, it's upto you to support it. Good work on avoiding addressing the crux of the argument by uselessly running behind "racism". Almost as amusing as watching hard-rightists run behind "anti-semitism" at the first sight of anti-Israeli criticism.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Gears
Bulletproof
Posts: 1593
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 3:31 am UTC
Location: Japan

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Gears » Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:19 am UTC

Make awkward sexual advances, not war!


Make content filled posts, not this!
General_Norris wrote:I notice a lack of counter-arguments and a lot of fisting.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:11 am UTC

Obsidius wrote:Nitpicking my words. It doesnt much matter. Iran HAS stated they want the israelis dead.


Source?

If you can't find a good one, realize that you have a bias.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Maurog
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:58 am UTC

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Maurog » Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:13 am UTC

You don't consider Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a good source?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo

Go on, tell me with a straight face that the crowd chanting this hate slogan actually means "relocate the Israelis and remove Israel as a political entity" instead of "kill them all". I dare you.
Slay the living! Raise the dead! Paint the sky in crimson red!

Fett42
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:52 pm UTC

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Fett42 » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:52 pm UTC

Israel has peace with Egypt and Jordan. Prior to that, when differences were otherwise unresolvable, Israel clearly won the wars fought between them, while Egypt and Jordan clearly lost. History, both Israel's and otherwise, tends to go along with my statement.


With Jordan this is true, but if you view war as an extension of political means rather than just in terms of casualty comparisons it is not difficult to argue that Egypt 'won' the Yom Kippur War in the south, while Syria was cleary beaten in the north. After all, Israel was not going to return the Sinai to Egypt but after Egypt crossed the Suez canal on October 6th they were never repulsed and the war ultimately resulted in the negotiations that gave Sinai back to Egypt.

User avatar
zombie_monkey
Posts: 644
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:26 pm UTC
Location: Bulgaria

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby zombie_monkey » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:30 pm UTC

It's not like Israel controlling Sinai was in any way in Israel's interest, you know. What exactly did they need it for an what warranted the effort that would take?

Fett42
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:52 pm UTC

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Fett42 » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:48 pm UTC

Israel wanted to keep the Sinai after the Six-Day War because they thought that by building the Bar-Lev Line along the Suez canal they would have a border that was a) more naturally securable and b) further away from their population centers. By controlling Sharm al-Sheikh on the southern tip of Sinai they also were able to make sure Egypt didn't close the passing to Israeli shipping and cut off the port city of Eilat as they had previously. Lastly, there is oil in the Sinai. Overall however, Israel thought it gave them better security. Conventional wisdom was that attacking across the Suez was suicide, but when Egypt succesfully managed to do so with a unique combination of suprise, adapted technology, antiaircraft from the Soviet Union, and excellent planning they demonstated to Israel that their security policy in this manner was flawed. On the other hand, Syria validated Israel's security policy with respect to the Golan Heights in the north when the Syrians, outnumbering the Israelis by about 10:1 on Infrantry and tanks and 20:1 artillery along with air protection from Soviet guns were unable to take that ground.

(The Yom Kippur War is the topic of my thesis.)

User avatar
westcydr
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:20 pm UTC
Location: By my computer
Contact:

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby westcydr » Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:33 pm UTC

The fact that Iran, with a population that often sees Arabs as acceptable joke topics in the way that bigots in the US see people from the south, Poland, etc.. Spends millions to arm said Arabs to kill Jews, shows that for hate, "racial" barriers can be overcome...... If you want sources, look up IRGC, and it's Al Quds division, a government agency in Iran dedicated to exporting militant Islam to the rest of the world, and named after the Islamic name for Jerusalem...
---------------------------
ICQ/AIM 5683738
יששכר
"Who needs a quote in a signature, anyways?"

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby 3.14159265... » Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:48 am UTC

Maurog wrote:You don't consider Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a good source?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo

Go on, tell me with a straight face that the crowd chanting this hate slogan actually means "relocate the Israelis and remove Israel as a political entity" instead of "kill them all". I dare you.


Tell me that he is saying "Death to Israelis". I dare you. Why are they not yelling "Marg bar Yahood" (Death to Jews) or "Marg bar Izraaeeli ha"(Death to Israelis)?

He is being less hateful than American presidents have been towards his country. Further, he is correct in his assertion that most countries are "condeming" Israel.

Do you know what "Long live" and "Death to" mean? those are literal translations of phrases in persian. Phrases have meanings that are usually different from the literal translations.

Persian lesson:

When my friend makes fun of me. My reply to him is "marg" or in English "Death". No I am not calling for his death, it's more like "fuck you dude" without the swearing. When my friend helps me out with something I say "Zanda Bashi" or "May you live". That is more like me saying "Thanks bud". "Marg bar ...." and " ... Zenda baad" have their meanings in the above context.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby aleflamedyud » Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:54 am UTC

3.14159265... wrote:
Maurog wrote:You don't consider Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a good source?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo

Go on, tell me with a straight face that the crowd chanting this hate slogan actually means "relocate the Israelis and remove Israel as a political entity" instead of "kill them all". I dare you.


Tell me that he is saying "Death to Israelis". I dare you. Why are they not yelling "Marg bar Yahood" (Death to Jews) or "Marg bar Izraaeeli ha"(Death to Israelis)?

He is being less hateful than American presidents have been towards his country. Further, he is correct in his assertion that most countries are "condeming" Israel.

Do you know what "Long live" and "Death to" mean? those are literal translations of phrases in persian. Phrases have meanings that are usually different from the literal translations.

Persian lesson:

When my friend makes fun of me. My reply to him is "marg" or in English "Death". No I am not calling for his death, it's more like "fuck you dude" without the swearing. When my friend helps me out with something I say "Zanda Bashi" or "May you live". That is more like me saying "Thanks bud". "Marg bar ...." and " ... Zenda baad" have their meanings in the above context.

So he's just saying "FUCK YOU ISRAEL". That's just great, really makes him not look like a complete douchebag.

Honestly, I'm glad the man's a figurehead and will be removed soon when the elections come. Let's see what the Iranian people think of "Marg bar Yahood". Personally, I think they'll feel a bit more concern for their civil rights and the state of their economy than for having some ranting fucker provoking the most militarily powerful (and edgy as hell) country in the region. Why, we may even see diplomacy and civility break out between the two countries.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby fjafjan » Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:27 am UTC

Schmendreck wrote:
fjafjan wrote:citation is here

relevant quotes:

74. On 22 November 1967, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 242 (1967), which emphasized the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war and called for the "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict", and "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency".


The General Assembly, Reaffirming its resolution ES 10/13 of 21 October 2003, Guided by the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
Aware of the established principle of international law on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,


Recalling in particular relevant United Nations resolutions affirming that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development as well as those demanding the complete cessation of settlement activities,



I don't think the UN is a solution. They have a long and prominent record of ineffectiveness on anything security related (at least in more modern times.) It also has a very strong anti-Israel slant.

anti-Israel slant? No they look at international law, and they usually come to the conclusion that hey, Israel is breaking that law. Obviously so do Hamas and most of the people Israel fight, and those are typically condemned aswell. But you see everyone condemns Hamas for killing innocent people, and when the UN, using the principle of reciprocity etc, also condemn Israel for its violations people think that's being "anti Israel". No it's not. But more to the point
I also find it very hard to believe that, the Palestinians would accept any offer of land that the Israelis would consider reasonable. Their stated goal is to kill every single Israeli, not more land.

I don't know what the answer to this senseless violence is and I won't pretend I do know. I just wish that it never had to be this way.

...¨
Look, again, if you want to find out, go read a book like Beyond Chutzpah by Norman Finkelstein. He lays out the basic facts. The truth is a clear majority of Palestinians support a state along the '67 borders.


I UN is the most fang-less organization ever to be created. Time after time U.N. peace keepers have become more of a liability than an asset such as in Kosovo and Bosnia where they have been linked to prostitution and in Rwanda where a genocide was allowed to occur and the UN barely lifted a finger. I don't know when passing resolutions started counting as actions.

Additionally, if the UN is not anti-Israel, why is Israel the only country in the entirety of the U.N. that cannot hold a seat on the security council?

Thirdly, governing bodies derive their power from the mandate of the people. Despite their apparent majority , the more moderate Palestinians allow their radical governments to rule without so much as a word of disapproval. Such actions only show that they support the goals of their governments.

Not, there have been a number of success, despite failing in Rwanda and Bosnia (and Bosnia now has peace)
The Un have done well in Both East Timor and Cambodia. And it's not like anyone I have ever seen have presented an alternative that does either include killing everyone, or shitting all over Palestinian rights. Not to mention be completely unrealistic, much like a plan developed by someone looking at the issue for half an hour and decide they were friggin experts.

And Israel is not the only nation not being able to seat the security council, where did you even get that from? Such an obscure lie.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby 3.14159265... » Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:33 am UTC

He is saying "Fuck you Israel", without the cursing and in the same manner as I would to a friend who made fun of me.

Please don't quote me out of context. Stop trying to make me look like an asshole. No one is here for a PR campaign, we are here to learn from each other. I speak Persian, you don't. Learn, don't demonise. Got it?
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby aleflamedyud » Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:36 am UTC

If the UN has no anti-Israel slant, why have they never allowed Israel admission to full membership in a Regional Group, and thereby the ability to serve in UN bodies like the Security Council? Why have they passed a resolution that declares "Zionism is Racism"?

He is saying "Fuck you Israel", without the cursing and in the same manner as I would to a friend who made fun of me.

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that he's being friendly when he flames Israel. Hopefully the next Iranian president won't be such an anti-social dick if he intends friendship -- which I hope he does!
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Mabus_Zero
Posts: 245
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:30 am UTC

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby Mabus_Zero » Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:40 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:M_Z, while this is just going to go back down the road of pointing blame, I think it's a very safe statement with plenty of citation, that various heads of various PLO factions want Israel wiped from the map. No mistranslations. No 'American right wing conspiracy'. But it is worth pointing out that the struggle of the Palestinians shouldn't be shouldered by them alone.


Also, I would like to point out that I am not placing any more blame on America then America is due. Iran is our Frankenstein Monster. A direct consequence of some of our failures in directing foreign policy. We drove them to popular revolution, and then were baffeled when we could not subdue them as easily as we assumed that we ought to be able to. The fact that the majority of Americans, which our media panders to, is not aware of these circumstances, and how the past has shaped these particular circumstances, is our policy has changed little, and we will continue not to learn from the errors we made in regards to the Iranians.

The point isn't to blame. It's to push people to think. Perhaps there were other options for Israel, perhaps there weren't, but it seems rather heavy handed and sloppy of them to further legitamize Hamas in what will inevitably prove to be an incomplete attempt to root them out. And the sycophantic manner in which my nations respresentatives pander to a lobby very faithful to Israel, whatever they may choose to do, is evidence that no further developments have arisen in the thinking processes involved.

It seems empty to quote from a source such as an animation, but to quote Swarzchwald in 'Big O', 'Human beings that cannot think possess no value'. The danger here is not one of a direct foreign threat, but being pushed to self-destruction by cognitive and social stagnation. There should remain the capacity to respond to diverse considerations with more cunning of responses.
Image

Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Re: 200 killed, 700 injured in Israeli air attack on Gaza

Postby 3.14159265... » Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:54 am UTC

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that he's being friendly when he flames Israel. Hopefully the next Iranian president won't be such an anti-social dick if he intends friendship -- which I hope he does!
Anti-social? He wanted to visit ground zero in New York. He has constantly asked for mutual talks between Iran and the US so long as the US administration isn't being condescending (this is a condition I usually use before getting into a debate with someone about anything). This is after the US created a dictatorship of the Shah when the Iranians had established a democracy in 1953. I know this stuff k?

Let me explain to you plainly what you don't like about him? He stands up to Israel.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests