Israel, Hamas and a dozen dead people...

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Hamas has deported some journos for reporting on missile launches.

[Ddrak]

Hamas has deported some journos for reporting on missile launches.

If you follow the links to the source: http://www.fpa.org.il/index.php?categoryId=73840

Statements basically say both sides are harassing journalists.

The difference is the United States of America has a clearly delineated border and is recognized as a sovereign country. Palestine, or the Land of Israel, The Holy Land, the Southern Levant, Canaan, etc. etc. was just a geographic region and never recognized as a country.

You'd be better off saying New Mexico was creating settlements in Arizona.

I disagree there's no borders. The British Mandate of Palestine had distinct borders, and was broken up (nonsensically) in 1947 by the UN into two distinct states with distinct borders. Israel itself has claimed borders and moved them at will with each new round of settlements, Arab aggression or Israeli aggression.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

For me, the settlements in the West Bank are by far the biggest indication of bad faith on Israel's part.

Dd

Unfortunately the West bank boundaries are that way because of the vantage point it gave the terrorists to fire rockets in to Jerusalem. When your opponents goal is your absolute destruction, its best not to give them that sort of advantage.

Fallakin Kuvari wrote:
Hamas has deported some journos for reporting on missile launches.

If you follow the links to the source: http://www.fpa.org.il/index.php?categoryId=73840

Statements basically say both sides are harassing journalists.

Which is wholly unsurprising.

[Kulaf]

Hamas has deported some journos for reporting on missile launches.

If you follow the links to the source: http://www.fpa.org.il/index.php?categoryId=73840

Statements basically say both sides are harassing journalists.

The difference is the United States of America has a clearly delineated border and is recognized as a sovereign country. Palestine, or the Land of Israel, The Holy Land, the Southern Levant, Canaan, etc. etc. was just a geographic region and never recognized as a country.

You'd be better off saying New Mexico was creating settlements in Arizona.

I disagree there's no borders. The British Mandate of Palestine had distinct borders, and was broken up (nonsensically) in 1947 by the UN into two distinct states with distinct borders. Israel itself has claimed borders and moved them at will with each new round of settlements, Arab aggression or Israeli aggression.

Dd

That's easy......If we accept that the U.N. was correct in establishing the State of Israel, then it has been Arab aggression which led to Israel winning territory in several wars.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

The problem therein is that they would have to accept that the U.N. did in fact establish the State of Israel. This is something they do not accept and would need to be, as I see it, the first step in any peace process.

[Ddrak]

Unfortunately the West bank boundaries are that way because of the vantage point it gave the terrorists to fire rockets in to Jerusalem. When your opponents goal is your absolute destruction, its best not to give them that sort of advantage.

Which cuts to the root of the problem: Israel is collectively punishing a population for the actions of a few. You're basically saying that a town built on a hill can confer military advantage so Israel should occupy it with settlers and displace anyone that was there before?

That's easy......If we accept that the U.N. was correct in establishing the State of Israel, then it has been Arab aggression which led to Israel winning territory in several wars.

Up to '67, sure. Then what? You can't call Israel an aggrieved innocent party after the crap that went on during the "Iron Fist" era. The problem they have is they are treating the whole problem as a military one and have no viable endgame to play to, with no viable de-escalation either that doesn't depend on a completely untrustworthy opponent.

Dd

[Ddrak]

Happy to see the Israeli government calling this protest for the atrocity it is:

https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/24748 ... s/?cmp=ydn

Lehava spokesman and former lawmaker Michael Ben-Ari denounced Jews intermarrying with non-Jews of any denomination as "worse than what Hitler did," alluding to the murder of six million Jews across Europe in World War II.

And what sort of father says this (assuming it's in context):

Of his now son-in-law, [the bride's father] said, "My problem with him is that he is an Arab."

That's the very definition of racism.

Dd

[Kulaf]

I wonder if he would have married her if she had not converted to Islam. I fail to see how the headline has any meaning. If she had remained in the Jewish faith and he had remained a Muslim.......that would be love conquering religion.

He said he was angry that his daughter had converted to Islam.

[Ddrak]

Maybe they did rock-scissors-paper-lizard-spock to figure out who would convert?

Yeah - I saw she converted. Was a fairly non-traditional Islamic wedding dress by the looks though?

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Dd,

Here's a pretty good article on how Anti-zionism can be equated with Anti-semitism - http://t.co/4XRzQSbuAz

[Ddrak]

My position is that not supporting Israel's policies is not Anti-Semitic. Zionism is a whole different thing, but simple mathematical logic says that stating Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitic means someone that is not a Zionist is therefore not a Jew. I disagree with labelling all non-Zionists as non-Jews.


I'd have to say the article is more full of logical fallacies than a FCFS rant.

#1 - Composition/Division and Anecdotal. The supermarket shelf thing getting out of hand has nothing to do with anything. I'd argue people pulling stuff off shelves without the supermarket's permission are criminals and should be locked up. I still don't support Israel's policies.
#2 - Black or White. Being against Israel's policies is not denying Israel's right to defence, just their right to that specific method of defence.
#3 - Black or White. Being against Israel's policies does not mean any approval of Hamas or PLO policies.
#4 - False Cause. The PLO's refusal to accept "peace offerings" means Israel has to behave the way it does.
#5 - Black or White. Muslims killing other Muslims in Syria doesn't mean Israel is good for killing fewer Muslims in Gaza.

There's a ton more, but I thought I'd had enough. Fundamentally, you can oppose Israel's policies in exactly the same way you can oppose US policies or Australian policies without having any racial beef with the population of the nation. I strongly oppose my own government's policies on illegal immigrants in boats, but it doesn't mean I hate Aussies. It's just race baiting.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Race baiting does seem to be what the media has devolved to recently.

While there are quite a few logical fallacies in the article itself, it does highlight how its possible to equate the two. Certainly I don't agree that its an always type thing, but can be applicable in certain situations.

[Ddrak]

I find true Anti-Semitism really weird. I get the Xenophobia when people look/dress differently but for the most part in western cultures it's impossible to tell if someone is Jewish unless they actually tell you. How do people go from "yeah, he's another person" to "now I know he's of a certain religion I really don't like him"?

Dd

[Arathena]

I find true Anti-Semitism really weird. I get the Xenophobia when people look/dress differently but for the most part in western cultures it's impossible to tell if someone is Jewish unless they actually tell you. How do people go from "yeah, he's another person" to "now I know he's of a certain religion I really don't like him"?

Dd

Religion does a very, very good job of dividing the world into an in group and an out group. The in-group is safe. The out group is dangerous, unless it's sanitized by going through the entrance rituals to become a part of the in-group. How much of a problem you have with the out group then depends on how closed your in group is, history with specific out groups, and how much you've been trained to be afraid of outsiders as a child. Historically, Western Christianity has blood libel and usury to prime the pump for individuals that are already inclined to be hateful to the outsider...

[Embar Angylwrath]

This is a misconception; The Palestinian goal, as we have already proved, is the the total destruction of the Jewish state. Their leaders have also admitted that they'd rather see the land in ruin than be successful under Jewish rule. If the Palestinians dropped these views, accepted the Jewish people and their country there would be abundant prosperity in the region. This is evident during the rather peaceful 20 year period between 1967 and the First Infitada. (which also proves that past aggression is important to the points I've raised)

You've "proven" nothing of the "Palestinian goal", and are using ridiculously broad over-generalisations. Hamas has recently stated it would be sufficient to return to the 1967 boundaries and allow the return of the displaced peoples from the founding of Israel (obviously not something Israel would or could agree to). A sane approach would be to actually engage them in direct talks - they are a complex organisation and a careful policy of strengthening the moderates would certainly be better than continually terrorising and radicalizing the entire population. Worked for the PIRA...

As for "rather peaceful 20 year period", I assume you mean ignoring the entire "Iron Fist" policy along with regional inaction which systematically drove the entire Palestinian people into the position of unrepresented cheap labour with no effective rights. Persistent Israeli aggression throughout the period was a clear factor in the boilover that was the first Intifada.

Israel has every right to defend themselves, I think everyone can agree on this; They were not, and have not, been the instigators in these conflicts. There has always been some action by Hamas (who runs the Palestinian state) that has elicited a response from Israel.

The other side has exactly the same story. Does Palestine have the exact same right to defend itself that Israel does? In fact, if Russia (for example) came in and created a Palestinian state and displaced Israel would you call the Israelis terrorists if they fought back from internment camps?

Does Russia have the right to come in and carve out an Aboriginal State from Australia?

Fact is, Israel has been in instigator in every conflict and Hamas (and the PLO for that matter) sure ain't innocent either in their methods of instigation.

I would argue that every action of support for Palestine, whether it be positive news coverage or funding, drives the Palestinians to more terrorism and asymmetric warfare against Israel. Everytime they cause a conflict in the region, they get more money. In order for them to continue to propel their welfare state it requires them to cause conflict in the region.

Nah. Israel's policies of massive collective punishment and escalating reprisal are a much larger factor here, especially when you consider Israel receives a ton more foreign aid than Palestine.

Actually the harsh truth for Israel is that world opinion, mainly driven by the Main Stream Media, is against them. This is the Antisemitism machine at work. There is other media out there, though, that is positive when it comes to Israel and its efforts to defend itself... sadly it is a serious minority when compared to the rest of the world's agenda.

Race baiting again. Being anti-Israel is not being anti-Semitic and the US media is comically pro-Israel. Israel's actions are not "defence" in any case - they were all about an attempt to terrorize the Gazan population into submission, which has never worked in the history of warfare.

I believe Israel's end game in the region is peace and prosperity for all in the region, unfortunately this will not be achievable until the leaders of the Palestinian people can accept the Jews of the region and bless them.

So tell me, how does that work in your mind? Two state solution with free access between Gaza and the West Bank and all settlements torn down? Wall moved back to the recognised border, maybe? How about Jerusalem? Maybe even Palestine incorporated into Israel, with Palestinians as full citizens?

Israel's policies are no better than those of Hamas from every piece of news and intel I've read. For me, I say a pox on both their houses.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Dont know why that didn't work.

Dd.. does Russia have the right to carve out an Aboriginal State in Oz?

[Ddrak]

Dd.. does Russia have the right to carve out an Aboriginal State in Oz?

Nope, nor would I likely term Aussies "terrorists" if they fought back from internment camps (depends on methods though).


Some extra thoughts:

After Strike on Family, Fate of Hamas Commander Is Unknown
If we presume the IDF has the right to go after the family home of a Hamas leader, does Hamas have the right to go after the family home of an Israeli politician?

Is there a moral equivalence between Hamas launching missiles at Israeli citizens and Israel launching missiles at Palestinian citizens, both using the best technology available to hit their intended targets?

(I tend towards "no equivalence" on each).


Palestinians Live What Israelis Fear
Again, thought provoking use of somewhat forced moral equivalences.

Dd

[Kulaf]

http://www.voanews.com/content/hamas-le ... 24775.html

Also Friday, Hamas claimed responsibility for kidnapping and killing three Israeli teenagers in June - the incident that led to the current war in Gaza.

Hamas leader Saleh Arouri told a conference in Turkey that Hamas' military wing carried out the operation with the goal of starting an uprising.

Speaking in Arabic at the International Union for Muslim Scholars in Istanbul, Arouri said Hamas aimed to "ignite an intifada" by Palestinians in the West Bank and Jerusalem. He said that effort "reached a peak in the heroic operation that the Al-Qassam Brigades carried out by capturing the three settlers in Hebron."

Al-Qassam Brigades is Hamas' military wing. Until Arouri's comments Friday, Hamas had not said directly that it staged the kidnapping and killing of the three young Israelis.

[Ddrak]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... m-brigades

Hugh Lovatt, Israel and Palestine coordinator at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said that while al-Arouri was a significant Hamas figure – serving as the group's most prominent representative in Turkey – the former militant could have an ulterior motive for making his claim.

"Given the timing I would be very suspicious about his claim. I still don't believe Hamas as an organisation and its upper echelons sanctioned the kidnappings – something that Israeli intelligence also believes," he said.

Lovatt said that al-Arouri may be trying to claim credit for the actions of others in an attempt to demonstrate his own continued sway in the West Bank and Hamas's ability to hit Israel after failing to secure significant concessions after six weeks of violence in Gaza.

"A second, more remote possibility, is that al-Arouri is telling the truth and that he has operated on his own initiative – a development with very worrying repercussions as it would imply a serious power struggle and splintering within Hamas," he said.

Hadn't Mossad basically decided it was an unsanctioned operation?

Dd

[Kulaf]

IF they have it was probably through information obtained from informants:

Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip have executed 18 Palestinians accused of collaborating with Israel.

Or "former" informants.