Gaza Debate Goes Virtual 644
Ian Lamont writes "The war of words over the conflict in Gaza has moved from the real world to the Internet. Besides a furious stream of mini-debates on Twitter between supporters of and critics of Israel's military actions, there have also been demonstrations in Second Life at an Israel-themed sim and a collection of Facebook applications, including 'QassamCount' and 'Stop Israel's war crimes in Gaza.' Another project — 'mapping the war in Gaza' — was launched by Al Jazeera and takes user-submitted reports, tweets, and Microsoft Virtual Earth to track the number of casualties and other developments."
In addition to this, the series of website defacements we discussed a few days ago has now extended to sites controlled by NATO and the US Army.
Re:"Furious stream of mini-debates on Twitter"? (Score:5, Informative)
In a submission I made that didn't get accepted, I linked the New York Times [nytimes.com] article on Israel's use of Twitter to give their side (israelconsulate page) [twitter.com]. Favorite response?
israelconsulate: we R pro nego[tiation]. crntly tlks r held w the PA + tlks on the 2 state soln. we talk only w/ ppl who accept R rt 2 live."
Israel's right to exist (Score:1, Informative)
There can be no peace with people that don't even recognise Israel's right to exist.
Re:correction (Score:5, Informative)
Yep - you definitely should have, but you more than make up for it by attempting to counter the Israeli government's attempts to portray Jewish = Supporter of Israeli Government. To provide a little balance, there are some pretty nasty people who pretend that they represent the Arab people when they clearly are some its worst enemies (Egyptian rulership, I'm looking at you). Would it kill the Egyptians to open the Gaza gate and let some aid and supplies through? Well no, it wouldn't, but it might cost them some favours from the US government.
Re:correction (Score:3, Informative)
How nice of you to tell people what the Jews of Israel really believe. It's a pity that you got that off stormfront rather than reality. Israel doesn't try to exclude non Jews the way Muslim nations do to non-Muslims. They live in a bloody war zone, surrounded by Arabs that have been trying to ethnically cleanse since WW1. When "Zionists" were legally migrating back to their old homeland and buying up land from the Ottoman Empire, it was considered worthless wasteland until they developed it into garden. After WWI, the local Muslims were offered most of the land, but demanded the land the Jews controlled as well. They declared war and tried to genocide the Jews. They failed and continued to reject co-existence and every attempt at peace.
Israel was later established after WW2 and expanded it's territory after the Arab nations tried to destroy it. Millions of Jews were kicked out of Muslim nations after the creation of Israel and many were leaving Europe after the Holocaust. They went to Israel.
A "Zionists" is just a guy wanting to live in his own home in Israel. If you were born there, I guess that makes you a Zionists too. It's just a cheap word used to make people hate Jews even though non-Muslims live in Israel as full citizens and enjoy more rights than anyone else in the entire middle east, including any Muslims living in Muslim nations just next door.
Irony.
Re:Why is it always violence? (Score:5, Informative)
Try everyday in small villages no one gives a shit about. Read Palestinian media and Arab news and you'll see plenty of non-violent protests (one sided reporting of course).
What happens at these non-violent protests, such as demonstrations against the construction of the "security wall" in the West Bank? The protesters get stoned by right wing Israeli settlers, or are dispersed by tear gas and rubber bullets from the Israeli army.
Re:correction (Score:4, Informative)
No sir. Israel abandoned their colonies but they still occupy Gaza. That's what gives them power to deny Gaza any trade whatsoever and invade whenever they wish. You can't enter or leave Gaza without permission from Israel. Israel even denies Gazan firshermen the ability to fish in Gazan or International waters. So long as the government in Gaza has no control over it's borders or other functions of a soverign state, it's occupied by Israel.
In fact, Israel has been careful to say that they have simply "disengaged." It's a "disengagement" plan. Gaza is disengaged but occupied. You have to admit, "disengagement" is the true genius in Sharon's legacy.
Re:Israel's right to exist (Score:1, Informative)
in the real world a state derives power from use of force and compounds that power until such time that the crimes of said state become unbearable to it's subjects and violent revolution or secession forms a new state to begin concentration of power until it is overthrown.
the alternatives are too little power accumulation and conquest by a hostile neighbor or collapse of the central government due to ineffective internal control.
Re:One state solution (Score:3, Informative)
You need to ask yourself why Israel has kept the West Bank and Gaza territories occupied for so long rather than integrating them into Israel. For an explanation you don't need to look much further than the demographic makeup and guess how interested Israeli politicians are in having that many Palestinian voters. The same applies to the right of return for Palestinian refugees; integration of the displaced populations would mean the end of Israel as a democratic Jewish state.
Some Israeli politicians even go so far as to suggest administratively transferring Arab Israeli citizens to the West bank to prevent political shifts. So you see, a one state solution is unlikely to happen.
Re:No actually it isn't --- The First Place? (Score:1, Informative)
It's a lot harder to play the victim when you chose the path of violence in the first place.
Where/When was the first place?, and by who?
I think it's pretty obvious that the Israeli government has "played the victim" definitely its fare share throughout history, but if you don't know much about the history well then it can be hard to distinguish who is the victim and who is the agressor....
Okay now before we begin I would like to say that the whole conflict deeply saddens me, but you have to take an objective look at the history.
Now if you want to go way back to the biblical/Torah references all you have to look at is exodus in which Moses led the Jews out of enslavement in Egypt, upon which Joshua took over leadership and attacked and exterminated (genocide) the Canaanites in order to secure the "promise land"
1. Part of it wasn't the Jews to begin with
2. They killed people in order to get it.
3. This is in Jewish text.
History did not begin in 1948 as the Israeli government wants everyone to believe.
Now really the modern day conflict begins around in the early 1900's with the Zionist congress in Switzerland,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Zionist_Congress [wikipedia.org]
but let's move forward to 1937 with the Peel commission. The land now that encompasses modern day Jordan and Israel was then known as the British Mandate of Palestine. That's where the Palestinians get their name.
Now due to an influx of Jewish immigration (encouraged by the Zionist Congress) to the area this sparked lots of conflicts between the resident Arab population leaders and the new Jewish immigrants. Hostilities flared up on both sides and as the Mandate was soon to expire granting sovereignty to the region an agreement was to be sought. Given the populations at this time the Peel commission met to formulate the arrangement and this is what was proposed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peel_map_pd.png [wikipedia.org]
As you can see from the map it looks very different from today's common recognized maps of the region. The peel commission was not agreed upon by the Arabs or the Jewish immigrants as both sides wanted more than what was offered. The largest mistake was in part due to the Arab leaders stating that they could not assure the protection of the Jewish immigrants.
Now as we move forward in history this was debated back and forth as skirmishes still continued to flare up by both sides attacking the other until World War II broke out.
Now Britain, who still claimed the land as a province, was in dire need of financing for it's war with Germany. Members of the Zionist Congress in Switzerland helped in financing Britain's economic needs under pretense that a more favorable arrangement could be made regarding the Jewish Settlements.
In the meantime massive Jewish immigration began
to descend upon the British Mandate of Palestine exploding the population.
This of course sparks more conflicts with Arab leaders and residents in the area.
Now once the dust settles on WWII the British Mandate of Palestine expires and the moment it ends Israel declares it's independence. on May 14th, 1948. Now this declaration of independence doesn't sit well with the Arabs in the region as it was still thought to be up for discussion and arrangement.
With the aid of the British forces in the region whom the Arabs had no reason to believe would be allied with the Jewish population they were able to maintain there independence by defeating any aggressive forces put forth by the Arab population.
Here is a UN partition plan for Israel in 1947 a year before independence was declared.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png [wikipedia.org]
Now what followed after that were a few short wars in which Is
Re:Israel's right to exist? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:correction (Score:1, Informative)
Dude, what are you smoking? Israel has left Gaza in 2005. Left, as in there wasn't a single Israeli there for 3 and half years (until the current action). How is that occupying? By that logic, England is still occupying US.
Re:You are wrong (Score:1, Informative)
It's one or the other, and Palestinians chose violence.
There are millions and millions of Palestinians - each with his or her own unique world view. Some Palestinians have tried non-violent approaches and some Palestinians have tried violent approaches.
What you seem to be saying is that unless every single one of the millions and millions of Palestinians renounce violence then, according to your definition, all Palestinians are using violent approaches.
...or give lame idiotic excuses for why non-violence won't work.
Your definition of non-violence (that every single one of the millions and millions of Palestinians renounces violence) is going to be almost impossible to achieve - given the number of Palestinians who have had friends and relatives killed and otherwise mistreated by the Israelis.
Eventually, world opinion will almost certainly turn against Israel and Israel can either go the way of apartheid South Africa (a somewhat peaceful renunciation of discrimination and segregation) or it can become increasingly radicalized and eventually get destroyed in a nuclear war with much of the rest of the world.
In that sense, all the approaches (both violent and non-violent can be said to have worked - eventually). At the moment, though, nothing anyone has tried can be said to have worked.
Re:correction (Score:5, Informative)
Pst. It isn't their old homeland. Even if you read the bible god expelled the jews from the area. They have never owned or run any land in the area, they lived in the region sure. Oh and the orriginal Zionists were terrorists that carved a chunk out of muslim land for themself. After the holocaust nobody could politically say anything bad about the jewish people. And they were pitied so they were given land which had been promised to return to muslims. The borders were more than shaky since its inception and have since that date ever increased in israels favour thanks to them being significantly richer than their neighbors. Oh and as for expulsion, arabs have been expelled from israel more than a few times, the arabic population in israel is much much smaller than it was in the 80s obviously.
Re:Here's the bottom line (Score:5, Informative)
And plenty of Arabs (and every other culture) live in Israel. The point of the Israelis is that Jews needed (historically - um, just look it up) a place where they can go live without being slaughtered for being Jewish. Enough of the world agreed with that proposition to actually set it up that way half a century ago.
The Israelis aren't saying who may or may not live in Palestine - they're only saying that whoever it is, or whatever mix of people it is, can't be allowed to shoot thousands of missiles across the border and into residential areas for the specific purpose of randomly killing civilians, for years on end, without a response that finally ends it. The Palestinians have shown that they cannot even form a coherent voice and functioning government within their own population - even when dozens of other countries pay for and help to run their elections. How can Israel have a sustained, peaceful relationship with a neighbor when half of that neighbor's elected government body is willing to shoot the other half down in the street in order to preserve the latitude to act on one of their stated, foundational tenets: that Israel should be destroyed, and its Jewish residents all killed.
There is only one party in the conflict between Israel and the militant, missile-lobbing terrorists in Gaza that operate on a principle of race- and culture-based segregation and extermination: that would be Hamas and its Islmaist backers.
There are millions of people in the region and each of those millions of people has their own unique world view.
So what? Some world views are objectively better than others. Hamas wants to cling to a world view that embraces a backwards-looking, mysoginistic, medievalist militant theocracy-by-sword. They get cash and weapons from groups that think women shouldn't be able to read, or which would stone them to death for having been raped by a stranger. La la la, just another world view, right?
If the Palestinians put down their weapons there would be no Palestine.
Israel pulled every last resident and military person out of Gaza explicitly on the Palestinian promise that the attacks out of Gaza would end, and that Gaza wouldn't be a base camp for Hamas terrorism and violence. The Palestinians never had a better chance to simply take control of that territory through a peaceful and democratic government that wanted to actually become the nation that everyone wants to see. But instead, Hamas took control of it, and the Palestinian people are too scared to put them out of power. Just like the majority of Iraqis were too worn down and scared to death of the Baathists and of Saddam to get rid of him - even when his actions brought more and more sanctions and hardship and death. Israel (and the rest of the world, if they weren't so chickenshit about the faux diplomatic issues) must do to Hamas in Gaza what the coalition did to Saddam. Make them go away so that a working civic society has a chance to take hold, just as it gradually is in Iraq, only a few years later.
Hamas can't survive unless they can posture themselves as the defiant heros, fighting off Israel. But ever since Israel removed everything of theirs from Gaza, Hamas has had no enemy there to valiantly fight. So what do they do? Spend months making thousands of cowardly missiles launches at random civilian targets in order to provoke the military response they need in order to have some way to prove their worth. They're getting more than they asked for, and have mis-interpretted what happened recently with Hezbollah in Beirut. If the Palestinians force Hamas to stop attacking Israel, the conflict will stop. But Hamas kills Palestinians who want it to stop, don't they? So Israel's hand has been forced, and they're doing it the hard way. And they still send out leaflets telling Palestinian civilians to get away from areas wh
Re:correction (Score:4, Informative)
Bullshit.
According to your account, Israel and Egypt just don't want to open their borders with Gaza.
That's all fine and dandy and no-one says they have to, but there's this big fucking blue thing called the Mediterranean sea that Gaza backs on to. Presumably, if Gaza is "free", that counts as an open border 12 miles from the coast.
Oh wait... it isn't? I wonder why that is. Oh it's because it is being blockaded by Israel. Free borders my ass.
And there your whole argument is exposed for the pathetic bullshit it is. Presumably, according to your logic, if the US refused to open its border with Canada, and in addition stationed battle fleets to blockade the entire Canadian coast, it would somehow just be a case of the US exercising its own rights.