Senate Israel/Palestine

How do you even know who DB is?

 

Someone who contributed a lot more to the forums?

 

What?

What do you mean Wockstifier? I was asking how someone relative new to teh JC knew of darth "smh" boy.

dp4m Rogue_Ten Mr44 Saintheart Violent Violet Menace Oissan - keen to hear your respective thoughts on the tunnels analysis piece on the previous page.

 

It's going to take me a while to make it through the entire journal piece but you're right, it's fascinating reading so far.

 

It means I think for his faults darth_boy still helped add character to the place, and sometimes made good contributions. wannasee is more consistently negative and less consistently constructive.

 

It's obviously biased in favor of Israel.

Look at the first sentence: "Hamas killed hundreds of children in the construction of its extensive tunnel network....

Is that the way an impartial person would explain work-related deaths? that the workers were killed by the party in charge?

of course not. come on.

probably because i never actually break the rules.

 

Well if you took the time to read the piece, wannabee, you would see that yes - HAMAS is responsible by way of electing not to enforce basic safety in the tunnels and for using children in the first place. 160 child deaths are the direct responsibility of HAMAS due to inadequate planning and insufficient safety.

 

Because I lurked Ender. For the longest time. Do I have to keep doing this over and over?

 

No, I didn't know this.

 

Well now you know.

 

I read the piece and it only got worse. Here are a couple examples:

a complaint is not evidence of coercion. Unless the rules of logic are other than i understand them to be, this guy is just lying.

seriously? first he makes up that there is evidence of coercion and now the coercion has become "likely child slavery."

When you have a compelling story to tell, you don't need to lie. so i ask myself, why is this guy lying?

The author is a disgrace.

 

He writes for the Economist, you troll to maintain an erection.

Sorry, how do you even get to comment? Off you go, wannabee, you're boring.

 

firstly, i would caution wannasee (lol look at me "cautioning" wannasee) for using the rape metaphor. obviously situations involving entities the size of state-level actors, with the internal contradictions and controversies that entails, are not so easily comparable to the level of the individual. comparisons of state level actions of this complexity to a rape is crass, and, frankly, played. finally, its unnecessary, when there are state actor-scale examples of atrocities like interment/concentration camps, or apartheid, or ghettoization, to call upon in describing the actions of the israeli government

i would also caution you against playing ender's game (lol, ender's game) by defending "hamas" rather than the palestinian people. i am skeptical of the article as well, given the source, shallow analysis, as well as the vast amount of deluded and often easily disproven propaganda my israeli friends like to put on facebook. furthermore, stories of this nature are often aimed at dehumanizing the palestinians, as if that somehow makes the israel government's mass, indescriminate slaughter in gaza acceptable, or makes the stark difference in terms of loss of civilian life easier to get one's head around. but in the final analysis, there's really no call to defend hamas' actions. the fact is that the palestinian people are the ones being subjected to mass murder by israel. hamas is just another governing body, and is only tolerated because it stands against israel and allows generations of interned palestinians a chance at hoping for an end to their imprisonment and brutalization by the israeli settler state (settler state is a term describing places like rhodesia, israel, or taiwan, im not referring narrowly to the west bank settlements here). hamas is not the end-all be-all of palestinian resistance nor of palestianian governance, and its ideology is frankly repugnant. it is possible to be critical of hamas and israel simultaneously. the palestinian people are the ones worth defending here, not any governing party

 

Maik, I really wish you'd read it.

 

Rogue_Ten, do you want to go read the piece before I start quoting it, because it doesn't do what you said it does...

 

you can quote it man that's fine

 

Thing is, it just didn't do what you said and I'm disappointed you quoted it that way. The article was pretty much as objective an analysis of facts as it could be and it takes as given that Israel is strangling Gaza deliberately. No pro-Israeli publication will do this.

But I mean, this paragraph alone...

To date, Gaza’s mercantile elite and foreign donors have looked to intra-Palestinian reconciliation and the reestablishment of PA control inside Gaza to end Israel’s five-year blockade. But even in the most favorable of circumstances, it is hard to see how trade and labor markets can return to their pre-2000 highs. Despite significant improvement following Operation Cast Lead, truckload entries in February 2012 represented less than half the average 2005 monthly entry of 10,400 trucks. Moreover, even if Israel fully opened its crossings, tunnel operators might continue to enjoy some inbuilt advantages over formal trade, including the ability to smuggle subsidized Egyptian produce and the absence of red tape. As long as Gaza is vulnerable to the vagaries of Israel’s use of economic tools to cajole Gaza’s rulers, the tunnels will likely remain a strategically important safety valve and back door.

I fail to see how this is dehumanising Palestinians.

Or this?

All told, the tunnels have been a mixed bag for Hamas. While its detractors praise—albeit begrudgingly—its success in reducing the impact of Israel’s stranglehold, perceptions of corruption inside the organization have intensified. During the renewed fuel shortages of spring 2012, there were widespread allegations that Hamas leaders received uninterrupted electricity and that gasoline stations continued to operate for the exclusive use of Hamas members. True or not, they fed a growing mood of recrimination that Hamas had profited from the siege.

I mean, the entire conclusion is basically that the tunnels created modest economic foundations which had limitations (ban on exports from gaza caps growth; corruption flourishes thanks to HAMAS, and south of Gaza booms whilst the North wastes away in recession) and have likely created a market for even greater overland trade. I can keep going but I mean, it was fairly silly to claim it "dehumanised Palestinians".

 

Chicago sorted this whole thing out over an "It's Just Lunch" date in front of the Illinois building a few minutes ago.

In one corner, the pro-Palestinian protesters



In the other corner, pro-Israel protesters:



Mediating the discussion:



The horse is clearly making a heroic effort to remain impartial and luckily found himself unable to do a face palm gesture upon reading the "Terrorism Won't Bring Peace" posters.

 

Ender Sai

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel

This seems closest to my own POV? -- bad things on both sides, fundamentally incompatible worldviews, one side decidedly has different intentions, etc.

PS - settlements bad!

 

He speaks very prettily, but these are the reasons he gives, essentially:

1) the arabs are animals
2 if Israel ever does anything bad, it's because the arabs make them
3) israel is not as bad as other countries
4) israel could kill more if they wanted to. they should be applauded for their restraint
5) waaaaaah Israel is such a victim

bwhahahhaha what a clown.

The reason he doesn't criticize israel is because he supports israel. Because he's jewish. This a fine reason to support Israel of course, but he should just come out and say that.

If anyone else gave his reasons as a serious defense for any crime, they would be laughed at.

 

Speaking of clowns, that there is some epic trolling wannabee.

Read the paragraph where he said Israel shouldn't exist?

 

He said he doesn't think Israel should exist as a jewish state, which is different than saying Israel shouldn't exist at all.

anyway, my post was focused on his reasons for not criticizing Israel. his position on what the nature of the Israeli state should be is irrelevant.

 

I think it's an affront to reasoning to suggest your post contained it, wannasee. Honesty is the best policy; why not come clean yourself?

 

if you see a flaw in my reasoning you are welcome to point it out at any time.

 

Your argument that his ethnic Jewishness is grounds for not criticising Israel is frankly stupid. Not surprising, but, utterly idiotic.

Fundamentally, what he's done is pick a side based on liberal values, not on his Jewishness:

"This incompatible religious attachments to this land has made it impossible for Muslims and Jews to negotiate like rational human beings, and it has made it impossible for them to live in peace. But the onus is still more on the side of the Muslims here. Even on their worst day, the Israelis act with greater care and compassion and self-criticism than Muslim combatants have anywhere, ever."

This is a completely reasonable approach to take - by the bedrock values of our society, Israel has performed to a higher standard that the Palestinian government has. However, where I would differ from him on this is that I would actually put onus back on Israel for the simple reason that as the state, Israel is far more able to affect a mutually beneficial outcome and is bound by customary international law in a way substate actors are not. Equally, though, I recognise that Israel simply cannot step back and pursue peace in an idealistic context whilst HAMAS remain in power. Though, the Palestinians cannot in good conscience shift their allegiance to the PA over HAMAS when the PA has not achieved the bare minimum results.