2012 Israeli/Palestinian Conflict[views:16956][posts:72]______________________________ [Nov 19,2012 2:10pm - ark ""] this also happened during the gulf war, if you can replace iraq with hamas (it's tough for me to say how the situation is much different): Iraq hoped to provoke a military response from Israel. The Iraqi government hoped that many Arab states would withdraw from the coalition, as they would be reluctant to fight alongside Israel.[56] Following the first attacks, Israeli Air Force jets were deployed to patrol the northern airspace with Iraq. Israel prepared to militarily retaliate, as its policy for the previous forty years had always been retaliation. However, President Bush pressured Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir not to retaliate and withdraw Israeli jets, fearing that if Israel attacked Iraq, the other Arab nations would either desert from the coalition or join Iraq. i guess my point is they need to wait and see what the governments in syria and iran will look like in the near future before israel makes a move it can't backtrack on. |
| ____________________________________ [Nov 19,2012 2:15pm - arilliusbm ""] ark said:hamas is not palestine. Indeed. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ZER403A.html Thoughts? |
| ______________________________________ [Nov 19,2012 2:17pm - arkadelphia ""] oh yeah. taken from the CIA playbook in the "Making Sure You Always Have Enemies to Fight" chapter. |
| ______________________________ [Nov 19,2012 3:20pm - Yeti ""] where's Ben Affleck and Morgan Freeman when you need them? |
| ___________________________________ [Nov 19,2012 4:16pm - Boozegood ""] I just can't believe all these arm-chair do-goods are trying to stop two tribes from settling things the proper way. Life-worshippers. Chains are worse than bayonets (and that applies to both sides). |
| ______________________________________ [Nov 19,2012 4:22pm - arkadelphia ""] the jew tribe has rights to it then. if only it was as simple as tribal. one tribe has newks. |
| ___________________________________________________________ [Nov 19,2012 8:06pm - Big bag of assorted nigger parts ""] ITT: [img] |
| _____________________________________ [Nov 20,2012 12:17am - arilliusbm ""] bennyhillifier |
| _________________________________ [Nov 20,2012 11:36am - Burnsy ""] Apparently they've reached a truce to take place at 5:00 PM today. |
| ___________________________________ [Nov 20,2012 11:43am - chrisREX ""] aka: kill as many people as you can by 5 |
| _________________________________ [Nov 20,2012 12:19pm - Burnsy ""] Apparently I posted that pretty preemptively. "Minutes after a Hamas official told Reuters that Palestinians and Israeli had agreed to an Egyptian-brokered cease-fire, a spokesman Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that no agreement had been reached yet. Mark Regev, the Israeli spokesman, told CNN that the negotiations are still going on. An Israeli source told Hala Gorani of CNN that Israel is insisting on 24 hours of “calm” before agreeing to a deal. Emilie Baujard, a Radio France correspondent in Gaza, reports on Twitter that a Hamas official is due to speak on local television in just over an hour about the negotiations." |
| ____________________________________ [Nov 20,2012 6:19pm - Alx_Casket ""] [img] |
| ________________________________________________________ [Nov 20,2012 6:34pm - DYA is CHISWICK, FRESH HORSES ""] lol, propaganda |
| __________________________________ [Nov 20,2012 8:09pm - ShadowSD ""] Boozegood said:What does any of that even mean? A pity case? Who cares. Painting themselves as the victim while being the bigger dog in the fight, even when they start the conflict like they did this time, is how they have maintained as much unconditional support among the public here for as long as they have, even though that support is slowly slipping over time. Thing is, it hasn't slipped enough yet to become a minority opinion. Among younger voters it has, among voters who read various news sources online it has, among voters who always opposed the Iraq War on the libertarian right and progressive/center left it has, but you look at the overall numbers and the sympathies are still illogically lopsided against Israel compared to the events, even though it's strongest among a diminishing group of older white Republican voters who aren't exactly the cutting edge of where this country is going in terms of demographics. Still that aside, it's still a majority of Americans who sympathize with Israel even when given the option of sympathizing with both or neither group: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...aeli-attacks-in-gaza-are-justified/ Part of that misconception is shit coverage - like when I said before the AP did a good job in one article highlighting that an Israeli killing of a Palestinian leader started the latest round of fighting, I spoke too soon in saying that was a trend; all the televised coverage and articles since then fail to acknowledge the chronology of events (even that CNN article I just linked), so people think the Palestinians started with the rockets without provocation and then were retaliated against. Of course Israel is the sympathetic one in that case, and the Palestinians look batshit crazy - too bad it's not what actually happened. And so you have the sign, to try and break those misconceptions of sympathy in a few words. Boozegood said:The point is that Palestine shouldn't cry every-time Israel retaliates against one of their attacks. I think that's an oversimplification. There are fighters on both sides who fight, and civilians on both sides (way more of them than there are fighters) who always cry when attacked, and deservedly so, because whether it's a Palestinian rocket or a Israeli bomb coming at you from the sky - you're a civilian about to die who can't do shit to put up a fight against the armament about to blow your face to shreds in a second and a half, or living under that fear. In the case of Palestine in particular, the oversimplification of lumping in everyone together as crybabies is especially problematic because they don't actually have a sovereign country; in the case of Israel, you can at least argue those civilians had a right to vote and petition their government to use its sovereign powers and resources in a more peaceful way, but if your a Palestinian, all you can do is vote for a powerless government that will be assassinated - you're pretty much fucked on that front. This article explains it perfectly in the best first-person account I've read about this: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/news...-bombing-in-gaza-city.html#comments Boozegood said:If you are hiding amongst civilians; expect some civilians to die when you are attacked. True. Speaking of which, 3 dead Israelis and 100 dead Palestinians over the week. I'd suggest that's a matter of armaments, not a lack of fighting spirit. Boozegood said:This sign-holder should be doing something productive. He could learn a thing or two from Finland; all of Palestine could. True... but again, Finland has a country. From your own link: "Hostilities ceased in March 1940 with the signing of the Moscow Peace Treaty. Finland ceded 11% of its pre-war territory and 30% of its economic assets to the Soviet Union.[31] Soviet losses were heavy, and the country's international reputation suffered.[32] Soviet forces did not accomplish their objective of the total conquest of Finland,[33][need quotation to verify] but did gain substantial territory along Lake Ladoga, providing a buffer for Leningrad, and territory in Northern Finland. The Finns, however, retained their sovereignty and enhanced their international reputation." That last sentence is key, which is why it's the conclusion sentence to the paragraph. You can't rally around the key goal of retaining sovereignty if you don't have it in the first place. The story with Israel/Palestine right now begins where the Finland story would have ended in defeat that they never experienced; with the enemy ALREADY occupying all their land. This is an important point though because it raises one of the problems of expecting any total peace in that area before the Palestinians have their own sovereign country; without a recognized government or resources, it's impossible for the Palestinians leadership to guarantee security for anyone, because they don't have the power to enforce anything among their own populace. Boozegood said:Also it is absolutely mind boggling that people can't understand that if Hamas had the capabilities of Israel; Israel and all the civilians there-in would be wiped off the face of the earth. If they got them instantaneously going from no weapons to nukes overnight, yeah, maybe as a last resort they would - but no one goes from zero to sixty overnight when it comes to weaponry. Had Palestinians been closer to parity with Israel in arms over all the years, there wouldn't have been the desperation and resentment to create such a sentiment. The only people to use a nuclear bomb in the history of the world aren't Arabs, FWIW. Boozegood said:Liberals/The Left Wing/Whatever you want to call them will not believe that we are at war/have an enemy until someone is in their bedroom slitting their throat with a Shamshir. That argument is outdated by the facts; the left in America is why we killed Bin Laden and most senior Al Qaeda instead of dicking around invading countries and creating more terrorists than we can kill according to our intelligence estimates under the previous admin. It's a no contest who has been more successful killing our enemies and who has been better at just getting our guys killed when it comes to the two sides of the political spectrum over the last ten years. |
| ____________________________________________________________ [Nov 20,2012 10:30pm - Big bag of assorted nigger parts ""] Alx_Casket said:[img] Let's see, one is a snivelling cowardly rat training her offspring to be a snivelling cowardly rat, the other is a murderous cowardly rat training her offspring to be a murderous cowardly rat. Let them all kill each other, what on earth makes more sense? Pretty much everything else in this thread: [img] |
| _____________________________________________ [Nov 21,2012 2:39pm - ancient master nli ""] [img] |
| ___________________________________ [Nov 21,2012 2:47pm - Boozegood ""] So what is the point of that chart? That Israel has a stronger military? |
| _____________________________________________ [Nov 21,2012 2:54pm - ancient master nli ""] hmm wonder why they would need such a strong military? |
| ___________________________________ [Nov 21,2012 3:03pm - Boozegood ""] ancient%20master%20nli said:hmm wonder why they would need such a strong military? Because they live in the worst neighbourhood in the world where literally everyone wants to wipe them off the face of the earth? |
| ________________________________ [Nov 21,2012 3:06pm - Burnsy ""] Okay NOW they've agreed to a cease fire. |
| __________________________________ [Nov 21,2012 4:13pm - ShadowSD ""] Yup, very good news: "The accord says that 'Israel shall stop all hostilities on the Gaza Strip, land, sea and air, including incursions and targeting of individuals,' Egypt’s state-run Ahram Gate reported. It also says that 'all Palestinian factions shall stop all hostilities from the Gaza Strip against Israel, including rocket attacks and attacks along the border.' " http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-21/i...arting-today-after-egypt-talks.html The longer both sides can hold this cease-fire, the better; it's in the best interest of both Israel and the Palestinians to make a long-term two state solution peace treaty during this administration. The slow trickle of Israel into further isolation and the fact that Palestinians will end up with a less sympathetic US President in four years no matter which party wins next time are reasons for both to deal now before their hand gets weaker, letting the resolution of this immediate crisis become a larger opportunity, |
| ____________________________________ [Nov 21,2012 4:14pm - Alx_Casket ""] Big%20bag%20of%20assorted%20nigger%20parts said: Let them all kill each other, what on earth makes more sense? I posted the pic as flamebait, this line sums up my stance. |
| __________________________________ [Nov 21,2012 4:38pm - ShadowSD ""] I would agree with both of you 100% if we weren't arming one side and it wasn't this point in history. Otherwise, my general philosophy in the past has been a similar fuck 'em all outlook; all the extremists are the problem, let them kill each other because each of the religions has its fundies fucking up life for the rest of society, that's what I've said before now including in this forum - but at this moment in history when the US is pulling out of invaded countries and voting neocons out of office in electoral landslides as a repudiation of wars and occupation we can't afford, there's something really fucked about immediately turning around to authorize and pay for wars and occupations by neocons in other countries. Glad that didn't happen, and we stepped in and put a stop to the bullshit, at least for now. |