Israel Assassinations?

[ack44]

The problem is why the naval blockade is there in the first place. Its purpose is to suffocate the local economy.

[Progmetty]

Why don't we stop talking about it, I feel weaker and weaker the more I know, it's seriously sickening, I stopped asking Palestinian people who work at the rig about what's happening back there, talking about this is pointless and redundant, Israel wants it to be that way and I really wanna give in.

[rumborak]

Can we rename this the Official Anti-Israel Thread?

My post was not meant anti-Israel. I just don't understand what possible credibility Israel was hoping to achieve with this report.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

Can we rename this the Official Anti-Israel Thread?

My post was not meant anti-Israel. I just don't understand what possible credibility Israel was hoping to achieve with this report.

rumborak

I wasn't referring to your post at all, and in fact I thought yours was really reasonable.  I'm more referring to the fact that every so often I see the thread title "Israel murdering?" pop up in my unread replies window, and it's an absolute eyesore.

[ack44]

Why don't we stop talking about it, I feel weaker and weaker the more I know, it's seriously sickening, I stopped asking Palestinian people who work at the rig about what's happening back there, talking about this is pointless and redundant, Israel wants it to be that way and I really wanna give in.

At least there's some information circling. But the people who bother me the most are those on both sides who want the violence and political instability to continue. My grandpa told me recently that he believed that if a Palestinian state were ever created, the Palestinian Christians would lose their religious freedom and possibly even be killed (hence implying that there should never be a Palestinian state). It's a totally ridiculous justification of the occupation. The bottom line is, though, that the extremists on both sides are not willing to compromise. Arafat's rejection of the peace deal at Camp David is one extreme examples of this. For Israel, it's the unwillingness to go back to 1967 borders. There are many justifications, but what it really comes down to is "we want this land."

People who want the conflict to continue will emphasize the "problems" to the point where they seem unsolvable. These are usually the people who put "spiritual" twists to the conflict in a way as to establish one side as good and the other evil. I see a conflict that is very solvable, though. It's a conflict of land and a conflict of identity. There is no good v.s. evil. There is no Yahweh v.s. Allah. Just people fighting over sand.

[Super Dude]

Well no, it is deeper than that.  I'm too lazy to really go into depth, but it's a deep cultural antagonism now.  The extremists on the side of the Palestinians continue the fight because of a history of military humiliation on the part of Israel; they want to square things with them and have their revenge.  On the Israeli side of the things, whether extremists or not, there is always the issue of security and trust (granted the extremists are also the "all of Israel" Bible thumpers); after so many years of continuous war, many Israelis will have a hard time trusting Palestinians, whatever the case.  It's like in America, with the black-white dichotomy: racism is no longer a legal institution and is considered a "bad thing" in society at large, but there are still a lot of people who are afraid of black people or "the 'hood."

[ack44]

I don't really disagree with what you said, except some of the wording. But your black-white analogy is silly. It's not like anybody has to pledge allegiance to the Anglo-Saxon or Christian state in America.

[Super Dude]

Nobody *has* to pledge alliance to a Jewish state, it's simply a state based on Jewish law.  I agree that it's a problem, but that's another issue in my mind.

And listen dude, I spend a good amount of time with three generations of Jewish family; the Israeli and Jewish distrust of Palestinians is every bit like white paranoia.

[ack44]

I was talking about Avigdor Lieberman's loyalty oaths. It's pretty nuts imo.

On 10 October 2010 the Israeli cabinet approved a loyalty oath bill requiring all future non-Jews applying for an Israeli citizenship to swear loyalty to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. However, on October 18, current prime minister Netanyahu ordered Justice minister Ya'akov Ne'eman to extend Cabinet-level debate on the bill in order to add amendments which make the loyalty oath universal to both Jewish and non-Jewish citizens of the state, including Jewish immigrants who seek citizenship.

Also, what makes you say that Israel is based on Jewish law? I'm sure there were Jews that wanted to revive the old theocracy-type government, but that's not at all what Israel turned out to be.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Hey. Ack. Just because it's BASED on Jewish Law doesn't automatically make it a theocracy. One could argue that a lot of our laws are based on Christain teachings, but that doesn't make us a Christain theocracy

[ack44]

I was actually making the opposite point - that Israel isn't based on Jewish law but rather Western democratic values. I mentioned theocracy just as a side note that some Orthodox Jews were hoping for that type of system.

But if you want to say that Israel is based on Jewish law, I'd be interested in your points. If you mean Jewish law as in "do not kill" and "do not steal" etc., then I won't argue (they're also universal law). I don't believe that any laws that were distinctive for Hebrews/Jews are applied in Israel, though.

[Super Dude]

Well for starters, Israeli law follows the Halachic law that forbids anyone but Orthodox Jews obtaining a legal marriage license. As much as you may view me as an extremist, I do believe that there are things seriously wrong with the country, as with any other country in the world.

[ack44]

Well for starters, Israeli law follows the Halachic law that forbids anyone but Orthodox Jews obtaining a legal marriage license. As much as you may view me as an extremist, I do believe that there are things seriously wrong with the country, as with any other country in the world.

You're right, certain family-related laws are Halchic. But that's not really different from priests getting their marriage license in European countries.

I don't consider you an extremist anymore and won't label you as such as long as there's no trusting Israel's decisions because its Israel or labeling people anti-Semitic for no good reason.

[Super Dude]

No, I mean you can't get married unless you're Orthodox.

Thank you.  I feel very strongly about Israel as you can tell, and I do have my issues with your own views, but it's not like I don't understand them either.  And honestly, I don't trust Israel's decisions simply because it's Israel; I trust them because when it comes down to it, I really can't see any way to make things work for both Israelis and Palestinians, at least not for a very long time.

[rumborak]

Well, the newly leaked report certainly doesn't help Israel's image.

rumborak

[emindead]

Well, the newly leaked report certainly doesn't help Israel's image.

rumborak

Link?

[ack44]

They were documents leaked to Al-Jazeera who dubbed it the "Palestinian papers"

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/the-palestine-papers-al-jazeera-trumps-wikileaks-1.338875

Basically, Mohammad Abbas was trying to make a peace deal where, in the mind of the average Palestinian, Israel would end up winning big. The Israeli government rejected it anyways. It shows a Palestinian leadership which is desperate for a peace deal and an Israeli administration that suffers very little consequences, and in fact is gaining slowly yet surely, from the prolonged political instability.

[Super Dude]

It wasn't clear based on the wording of the article, but to depart from that for a second, let's consider two options. First, Israel could agree to that deal and maintain its image as a bully looking only for land grabs and marginalization. Or it could reject the deal, claiming it unfair to Palestinians and negotiate a more balanced future for both. Also you must keep in mind the catch-22 nature of constituencies on both sides: for the Palestinians, even if the leadership is willing to make such generous concessions doesn't mean the whole or even the majority of the populace is singing the same tune. I can see why Israelis might fear a terrorist backlash for accepting a treaty that further humiliates Palestinian extremists.

Then there's the Israeli populace to consider. Like it or not, the religious right extremists have as much a strangehold on Israeli politics, especially with regards to this conflict, as do Hamas and other extremist constituencies always have had. Just as there are one-state Palestinians, so there are Orthodox Israelis who are willing to send every last Israeli but themselves to fight and die and recover every last inch of their ancient kingdom. In addition of course are the security and trust concerns I've often made mention of, and no agreement no matter how sincere can provide a solid guarantee on that.

[Super Dude]

There is more and I'm willing to go on if you'd like, but I would like to conclude on a positive note: there could very well be peace in our lifetimes or those of our children.

[rumborak]

I don't see that, at all. To quote a BBC interviewee's response to the question "so, after this leak, is the peace process dead?",
"It was never alive."

Only the most idealist moron could see any progress in the last 20 years. Frankly, neither side is tired yet of the bloodshed, so the only solution is to keep bombing and blowing up each other until both sides want nothing but peace. As long as land is seen more important than peace, there will be none.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

That's because the peace is not going to be political, it's going to be economical.  I'm too lazy to get into it right now, so remind me some time.  Much of it has to do with the fact that Israel's economy is expected to boom in the next few years.

[ack44]

It wasn't clear based on the wording of the article, but to depart from that for a second, let's consider two options. First, Israel could agree to that deal and maintain its image as a bully looking only for land grabs and marginalization. Or it could reject the deal, claiming it unfair to Palestinians and negotiate a more balanced future for both.

Israel is the one that has the power, and they would never reject a deal from Palestinian leadership because they think it's unfair for Palestinian citizens. They may reject it because they think it will spark terrorism, but that's clearly not the case. It may have been unfair for many Palestinians if such a deal was signed, but it still would have been a peace deal, and in the long run it would have been a positive thing, imo. Besides, I don't see the Palestinians getting much of a better deal in the future. One thing's for sure though - if this leads to more militarism and support for violence in Palestinian communities or for more support for Hamas, the blood is on the hands of Netanyahu and his right wing supporters. Their claim that "there is no peace partner" is now baseless. Palestinians may not have a leader as moderate as Abbas for a long time...

Only the most idealist moron could see any progress in the last 20 years. Frankly, neither side is tired yet of the bloodshed, so the only solution is to keep bombing and blowing up each other until both sides want nothing but peace. As long as land is seen more important than peace, there will be none.

Well according to this "solution" Palestinians have to go back to killing a lot more Israelis like they were doing in the early 2000's. I'd rather see the decline of violence as a sign of progress. Israel pulling out of Gaza was also be a sign of progress imo. Sure things weren't ideal and they still aren't, but in the long-run it was definitely a good choice.

[Super Dude]

Your biggest mistake is seeing Israel as having power.  What you must understand about this conflict is that for varying and complex reasons, neither of them have power.

[ack44]

In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel has the power. Economic, political, military and in most areas that matter they have more than enough power. Looking at casualty figures from the last Gaza war gives you a pretty good picture of that. The analogy of Israel the little David surrounded by giant Goliath Arab nations may have been relevant in the past, but now not at all.

[Super Dude]

Don't ignore the world stage.  Israel's every move is constrained by the world public (as in your) and many nations' incessant need to see Israel as the bad guy, not to mention the unreasonable demands of the Orthodox constituency.  When you are unable to act in your state's interest, I'd say that's a deficit of power.  Israel as a nation wants peace; that doesn't mean they can just drop everything and do it.

[ack44]

The world public's opinion is hindering Israel from acting in it's interest? I'm going to need specific examples for that one. Israel may not enjoy popular support but that does very little to hinder its massive political and economic support it gets from the West.

[Super Dude]

Massive political support?  The only ally that ever backs its responses to terrorist attacks is the US.  Why not watch BBC next time Hezbollah invades and Israel is forced to respond to that?

[ack44]

Why are you mentioning BBC? I just made a clear distinction between political and popular support, and BBC is clearly in the latter category.

[Super Dude]

Alright well the facts remain the same: America is the only Western power that explicitly expresses its support for Israel, especially with regards to its responses to terrorism. Israel has no other allies in the UN, and countries such as the UK and other European states (Germany being an occasional exception, as in the last Hezbollah war) routinely condemn Israel. And while most of the West recognizes Israel's right to exist, most of these countries and their official media outlets tend to portray Israel as this big bully, like I've said. The best example of this in fact is the Gaza conflict in early 2009, in which America was seen defending Israel and Germany reprised its rare support, while most other Western states laid heavy criticism on Israel, advocating for what amounted to no response at all to terrorist violence.

[rumborak]

Germany is a huge supporter of Israel. But there is a difference between indiscriminate support and friendly criticism. Former, US. Latter, Germany.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

I didn't mean it as a knock on Germany. But from what I've seen, Merkel is the biggest friend Israel has in Germany.

[rumborak]

It's not really so much Merkel, but the fact that she is the chancellor. As the head of state of Germany, you have to support Israel, simple as that. There would be a huge European outcry if there was a publicly Israel-critical person at the head of Germany.
So, it's the opposition that plays a bit femme fatale with its criticism, but to some degree also says what Merkel thinks but can't say.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

I'm not sure there's such pressure from Europeans; it seems to me more logical to expect such outcry following criticism of Palestine.

[ack44]

And while most of the West recognizes Israel's right to exist, most of these countries and their official media outlets tend to portray Israel as this big bully, like I've said. The best example of this in fact is the Gaza conflict in early 2009, in which America was seen defending Israel and Germany reprised its rare support, while most other Western states laid heavy criticism on Israel, advocating for what amounted to no response at all to terrorist violence.

There was no reason to "portray" Israel as a big bully in the Gaza war. 10 Israelis died, more than 1500 Palestinians died. The criticism was not that the IDF was responding to rocket fire, it was that they were bombing of schools and businesses. It was the disproportionate military response that resulted in hundreds and hundreds of civilian death. Not to mention that the use of white phosphorus against civilians which is against International Law, which obviously no country would support. I can't remember if the Bush administration fully supported that war, but the Obama administration wouldn't have. No democratic country would support what Hamas was doing, so it's just blatantly obvious to me that nobody would support the IDF's military operations... unless there's some "unconditional support" mumbo jumbo.

Anyways, Israel has more than enough political support for a country with nukes (which European countries helped it obtain btw) against the NPT. I just don't see any truth in a claim that Israel lacks power to act in its own national interest.

[Super Dude]

1. More Germans than Americans died in WWII, does that make them a big bully?  You really can't decide moral questions on whose side had more deaths; Israelis are just better at keeping their people safe.  Not surprising when terrorists actually try to gather civilians in places where bombs are falling, a great boon to their public image and an easy way to save their own skin.

2. The obvious political cost of attacking schools and businesses is not lost on me.  It probably isn't lost on the Israeli military either however, and I highly doubt they did so out of malice or because they hate brown people.  Given reports at the time of terrorist stashes and militants hiding in schools and hospitals, it's clear that there was some objective purpose for the bombing, although to call it mishandled and a debacle is to be generous.  And I'm not saying that the ends justify the means; I'm merely saying that you can't criticize their intentions, only their execution.

3. I can concede to that; white phosphorus was a bad choice.  However the military response was not disproportionate; all targets were military and terrorist, and there's evidence in vast abundance of the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties being due to Hamas actions, not Israeli ones (i.e. the human shield bit, and I've got YouTube videos of that if you're curious).

4. Obama actually did defend the Israelis.  Perhaps you'll recall a speech he made at the time, about if some terrorists attacked America from the Mexican border, that we'd be demanding their heads on a pike.  And it wasn't a war, at least not between states.  Israel has no beef with Palestine, just its terrorist groups (the aforementioned Hamas).

5. In a practical sense, Israel does have the power to act in its own interest.  Thing is they would be facing the entire UN coming down on them with sanctions and other penalties, not a very good position for a country that is literally surrounded by countries whose constituencies are still calling for Israel's annihilation, even when their governments desire friendly cooperation to take down rising power in Iran.

I would like to stress that I'm not saying that Israel's plan there was infallible; I'm sure there are ways that could have been handled better, without the international media and public outcry.  I'm sure there was a way to minimize casualties.  Just realize there is another side to the story.