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.
Second life sim (Score:5, Insightful)
there have also been demonstrations in Second Life at an Israel-themed sim
...and it's only a matter of time until the virtual Islamic trolls fire virtual rockets and bomb their virtual busses while cowardly hiding amongst virtual women and children.
Re:Second life sim (Score:4, Funny)
correction (Score:5, Insightful)
I should have said "virtual Zionists" instead of "virtual Jews" since a lot of Jews, including Israeli ones, have courageously condemned Israel's actions.
Israel, the Jewish state, wants to conflate itself with all Jews, and obfuscate the reality, but the fact is, it doesn't speak for all Jews anymore than Saudi Arabia speaks for all Muslims.
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:5, Insightful)
As Egypt has consistently pointed out, Gaza is occupied by Israel so it's up to Israel whether the border is opened. Ignoring Israel would jeopardize the peace they have found with them.
also (Score:3, Insightful)
That's true, but it's also convenient for Egypt to keep things this way because it gives the Egyptian government (like the other Arab governments in the region) a very convenient distraction from all of its domestic problems. Hey, Egyptians, ignore our mismanagement of the economy, the torture that goes on in our prisons, and the pervasive corruption in our government -- instead, get angry at what the Israelis are doing to our Palestinian brethren! In the end these governments don't really want to help th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not. Israel pulled out in 2005 or so.
Israel decides when Egypt is to open its borders?
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:correction (Score:5, Interesting)
Just to add some supporting information to illustrate their point, some might be surprised to know that US soldiers are currently stationed in Egypt where they patrol that country's border with Gaza, making sure neither people nor food supplies can pass.
Re:correction (Score:5, Interesting)
Switzerland is free to trade with it's neighbors and make arrangements for open (or closed) borders between them as it sees fit. Is Gaza in the same position?
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.
Re:correction (Score:5, Interesting)
Explain to me how this works, please? Swiss, being 100% surrounded by other countries, is occupied by them? or did I miss some leap of logic?
If one of Switzerland's neighbours blocked off all its borders, including those of its other neighbours, and periodically bombed and invaded it, that would be a much better comparison.
Occupation means presence at the territory in question.
No, it doesn't. The question of whether the Gaza Strip is occupied territory from a legal perspective looks interesting, but I think there's a good argument that it is.
The so called occupation hamas keeps on about is the occupation of so called palestinian territories pre-1947 - virtually all of the israeli state. That is why their charter still denies israel's right to exist. "So called", BTW, because back then there was no political entity correlating to the current palestinians.
Errm... that region had been called Palestine for about two millenia. To put things in perspective, that's longer than Islam has existed. (I think that's also rather longer than it was called Israel for, but it's hard to be sure.)
There was no political entity corresponding to the current Palestinians, yes - mainly because it's only recently that there have been countries in that part of the world. It was, however, a distinct region with varying degrees of autonomy.
The uncomfortable fact remains that the current Palestinians were indeed living in Palestine (the original definition of it), and did have their land and their homes taken from them to form the Jewish state of Israel. (There are people still alive who can remember this, even with the atrocious healthcare and life expectancy in the Palestinian territories.) They were about as happy with it as could be expected - which is to say, very angry. I think you'd get the same reaction in any Western country.
Re:correction (Score:5, Interesting)
Israel responded by throwing out anyone inside its borders which seemed to be stabbing them in the back.
This isn't quite true. The Arab population living in "refugee camps" were generally not sent there by the Israeli, quite the contrary, in the lead-up to the 1948 war Golda Meir traveled all over trying to stop the Arabs from leaving. The Arab population (Palestinians as they call themselves today) fled the area because they were told to do so by the Arab military command leading up to the 1948 war. A handful were expelled from two cities between the Jewish area and Jerusalem to secure the transport of aid to the embattled Jewish population inside Jerusalem.
The refugee problem was created by the Arabs. It has consciously and cynically been maintained by most of the Arab countries ever since. The reason they do it is simple. With a population angry over the "Palestinian issue" nobody notices that a huge number of these states are run by corrupt, nasty megalomaniacs who only exploit their population for their own gain.
The reality is that if the Palestinian problem was ever solved with peace the regimes of the middle east would tumble like dominoes as people realized that their own leaders are the source of their misery, not Israel. The leaders of these regimes obviously don't want that, and the easiest way to prevent it is to make absolutely sure that the refugees from 1948 and their descendants live in poverty and misery.
The main benefactor of a peace with the Palestinians would be Israel, and they desire nothing else. Sadly the Palestinian leaders have never wanted peace and every peace agreement they have ever signed they have subsequently abandoned, some quite immediately.
Re:correction (Score:4, Insightful)
You conveniently forgot the ethnic cleansing (your post below is complete BS). You conveniently forgot that the Jews were far less than a majority of the population of Palestine and only owned a very small portion of the land, and yet were given 55% of the territory of Palestine in the partition.
You conveniently forgot the fact that there were very few Jews in Palestine circa 1920 and the only reason there were more in 1948 was the fact that the colonial authority was letting them in en masse against the wishes of the locals. And there's the Jewish terrorism and collusion with the British in the 30s to suppress the Arab revolt (a revolt caused by the fact that the British were selling out their country from under them to a bunch of foreigners).
Neither side covered itself in glory at the time, and nor have they since. That does not change the fact that the Arabs were treated shabbily so that Europeans could recompense Jews for a crime that Europeans committed.
Israeli historians have been writing about this for 20 years. It's not like we all don't know. Frankly, the majority of informed people are sick to death of hearing the bullshit that people like you spout.
Look, it is extremely unlikely, even given the truth about the past, that any eventual settlement will constitute a full right of return for the Arabs to their lands (and they are theirs under any reasonable interpretation of history). Given that fact, there is no point bullshitting about the crime committed against the Arabs of Palestine. It was horrific and were it to happen today, condemnation would likely be universal.
The past has very little to contribute to the solution of current problems, which is basically two giant refugee camps of insanely pissed people with very limited life prospects that nobody wants, and who aren't going away. As every sane person knows, we have the best shot of solving it with a two state solution based on the 1967 borders (with some land swaps). It might not work, but it's the best chance there is.
Whining about whose fault it was half a century ago is in practical terms of only academic interest. As it happens, you are wrong, but it doesn't matter anyway, because it has little to do with solving the problem.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
England is still occupying US.
And thank God for that. If they weren't, it would be impossible to get a proper crumpet here.
Re:correction (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, Yes it would kill them. Probably not as bad as the gazans but letting gazans escape into Egypt without israels permission (which it wont give). Could very well jeopardize Egypts safety. Israel has given them very stern warnings about this, and no body wants to be israels next target. Cowardly? Sure. But they are doing it so the barrel doesnt swing south west.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps I am some sort of dim bulb but I see the Gaza situation as being quite simple. People who live in Israel understand that the existence of Israel is not popular with many Arabs. That will never change but it does nothing to confront the reality that Israel will persist in its existence for some time to come.
The second thought that I think would occur to most people is that any nation that is under fire from rockets has the right to inv
Re:correction (Score:4, Funny)
...Frankly in twenty or thirty years I seriously doubt that Israel can survive....
Which is diametrically opposed to countless passages in the Bible, specifically the Old Testament. There it is predicted that the Jewish people would be scattered among the nations, who would hate them. Furthermore we read in these sacred texts that Jerusalem would be under Gentile control until the time of the Gentiles (nations) is fulfilled.
It is also prophesied that near the end of history, these people would be gathered again into the very real estate promised to Abraham. It also states that Jerusalem would once again come under Jewish rule.
The last, final scattering happened in 70AD under the auspices of the Roman General Titus Vespasian. There was no nation of Israel for all the intervening centuries until 1948 and Jerusalem was under the domination of a number of gentile rulers, none of them Jews. That changed in 1967 when that city once again became part of Israel, after having been under foreign rule since long before Jesus Christ was on Earth. The Hebrew language is also the ONLY once dead ancient language ever to come back to life for everyday use in living people.
We read that at some point ALL nations, (under the UN banner?) will come together for a battle (Armageddon) in a valley just north of Jerusalem. It will be the last battle of the last war before control of this planet will once again revert to the on who made it in the first place -- God the Son, Jesus Christ. Just before foolish humans manage to render themselves extinct by war and pollution, He will enforce His peace terms at last on bickering, strife and war torn humanity. The capitol, seat of government, for the entire planet, will be Jerusalem, as it was promised to Israel's King David more than 3000 years ago.
Just as surely that 1948 and 1967 events were history written in advance, by the One eternal God who exists outside of and sees all time, the rest of what is written in these sacred writings will come to pass at the appointed time and place. All the nukes on the planet cannot and will not change what the eternal Creator God has planned for Israel and all the rest of the inhabitants of this third rock from the sun. We humans have this grand illusion that we are in charge of our own ultimate destiny. I am sure glad that someone more righteous than mere humans is the ultimate boss of the universe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course it does and it also has a "right to exist". OTOH the Gazzans have a right to be pissed off when Isreal's borders are their prison walls. What right (other than might) does Israel have to preserve it's current voting demographic by surrounding and imprisoning 1.5 million people in a small area? Isreal has always used the stick and it's still not working, how big does the stick need to be before Is
Re: (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. Af
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:correction (Score:4, Insightful)
"Pst. The original zionists got the entire province of palestine for themselves from someone who was generally referred to as "the caliph". There was no conquest involved."
Define "original zionist". And who is this "caliph", and what authority did he have to give the land, and what were the terms? And what happened after?
"Pst. There is no such thing as "muslim land". The only land that was peacefully converted to islam is a tiny part of 1 city : medina. All the rest was conquered. That would be "muslim-occupied land"."
If "peacefully converted" is a part of "being" a nation, then there also is no such thing as "American land". England and Germany would also suffer on this point, IIRC. I would imagine many lands around the world would also.
"Pst. Let's drive muslims out of every piece of berber land (most of southern sahara). Christian land (north africa, egypt, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia) and out of Hindu Land (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, ...)"
And then drive the Berbers out in favor of those who were there before. Likewise the Christians and others you mentioned. Add to that driving the Americans out in favor of the Mexicans and "American Indians", followed closely by driving the Mexicans back to Spain and other points elsewhere. Here:
Loop
For each nation/state/territory
find people who lived in that land before current occupiers, drive out the occupiers in favor of the others.
Repeat until no one left.
"Let's be fair, and reject conquest. Let's drive all muslims into one neighboorhood of the only voluntary muslim neighboorhood."
And Israel then should reject conquest and give back the lands gained in the 67 conflict. And maybe the lands they gained by terrorist actions since WWII.
"Let's end the muslim occupation of northern africa ! Let's END islam in Africa, in the middle east and in Asia."
Why just muslim? Why end islam? How are you going to do that?
"Because that would be "just", ending occupation."
Only ending occupation for muslims? Is it only "just" to end muslim occupation? Not others?
Re:correction (Score:5, Interesting)
In the end, the British and UN proposed a two-state solution, which was accepted by most of the Jewish population (but notably not the Jewish terrorist organisations). However, the Arab nations weren't happy, since it involved kicking out the current Arab residents of the areas making up the proposed Jewish nation (i.e. the majority of the residents of said areas) - they wanted a one-state solution. The Jewish leaders declared independence prematurely, the surrounding nations invaded "to protect the Arab population", and in the end the Zionists won (and carried out a lot of ethnic cleansing in the process). Then they seized the land of Arabs who'd left or been forced out, without compensation, and handed it to Jews.
Also, you need some historical perspective:
Israel doesn't try to exclude non Jews the way Muslim nations do to non-Muslims.
Muslim nations didn't, in general, exclude Jews up until the founding of Israel. You additionally neglected to mention that Jews have a special right to citizenship that other people don't, and that a lot of the housing is Jewish-only. (Oh, and there's lots of racism, too.)
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
Not really. Firstly, people had been living there for millenia - it wasn't great compared to what the Jewish immigrants were used to, but it was hardly worthless wasteland. Secondly, converting arid land into something close to garden isn't hard - you just need some infrastructure and loads of water. A lot of said water was (and is) obtained from taking far more than their fair share of common rivers and water supplies - basically, they stole it. Despite this, and strict regulation of water use, they still ended up with unsustainable usage - and that's going to catch up with them in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
You won't find many non-Zionist Jews in Israel.
Non-Zionists believe Israel has no right to exist, and that creating a refuge country for persecuted Jews around the world is not worth the trouble.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Israeli government does not speak for all Jewish people and a criticism of it is not a criticism of the wider jewish people, much as that government loves to pretend it is the case. The ruling party of Israel no more speaks for Jews everywhere, than a screaming White Supremacy group speaks for white people everywhere or the Nation of Islam speaks for Black people. Don't allow them to convince you otherwise. Israel has about
Re: (Score:2)
A sad state of affairs when factual information is modded as flamebait.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah but the fact that Gaza's population is 1/3 what it used to be, 50% of the population living as refugees outside. Their borders are blocked and they arent allowed water or supplies from the outside, oh and they have no electricity cause their powerplants got bombed. Oh and that israel is running an 80:1 kill ratio. Oh and that what is now Israel used to be Gaza. Oh and that Israel has expanded every decade since its inception. Oh and the IDF have been accused of as many war crimes as hamas by internatio
Re: (Score:2)
but so far I understand jews much better than palestinians.
So far I don't understand any side of this war, so they all look crazy to me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if Israel doesn't want people pissed enough at them to blow themselves up just to take a few jews with them, they shouldn't bomb the school their children were in. And if the Arabs don't want further invasions, they shouldn't blow themselves up just to take a few jews with them. And so on and so on.
There will be peace in Middle-East when every last living
Re:Second life sim (Score:4, Insightful)
You got to admit though, it's a lot easier to play the victim when you're starving, walled into a tiny area and can only defend themselves with scraps of old military hardware and bits of rubble against a rich country armed with the latest in US air power that assassinates their democratically elected leaders.
Just saying, you know?
No actually it isn't (Score:5, Insightful)
"You got to admit though, it's a lot easier to play the victim when you're starving, walled into a tiny area and can only defend themselves with scraps of old military hardware and bits of rubble against a rich country armed with the latest in US air power that assassinates their democratically elected leaders."
What are they "defending themselves" from? Oh right, retaliation from their rocket attacks.
It's a lot harder to play the victim when you chose the path of violence in the first place.
Imagine how this conflict would go if the Palestinian's weren't so cowardly and instead used non-violent protests. You know, like Gandhi.
Nah, that kind of stuff never works.
Re:No actually it isn't (Score:5, Insightful)
So the occupation, colonization, and annexation aren't violent? There's a reason why colonizing land you occupy is forbidden by the 4th Geneva convention, it's because it amounts to ethnic cleansing.
Um ,that was the point (Score:2, Interesting)
"So the occupation, colonization, and annexation aren't violent?"
Uh, yeah they are. Where did I make the argument that they weren't?
Which is why a non-violent response would be so effective, just like it has been in the past. Violence (from the Israelis) would be FAR less tolerated if they were using it against peaceful protesters.
Which was my point.
You seem to have trouble reading for comprehension, try actually reading what you're responding to please.
Re: (Score:2)
"Non-violent response" like mothers with babies in arms standing in the way death machines so they are forced to mow down innocent people? The Palestinians are doing that as well and are being demonized for using human shields.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you are willing to defend this sort of bullshit just
goes to show how absurd the pro-palestinian side of this argument
is. I would be quite surprised to hear of Ghandi pulling this sort
of stunt. The baby is in no position to choose (or even to object
really) to being put in harms way.
Talk about blatantly obvious moral bankruptcy.
unf*ckingbelievable
Re: (Score:2)
I searched pretty heavily for evidence of Hamas forcing people to be human shields but couldn't find any. However, I did find recordings of the Hamas operated television station in Gaza calling for people to rush to a house to protect it. Even the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirms this. [mfa.gov.il] Certainly, if Israel had evidence of forced human shields it would be eagerly showing it to everyone but all of the evidence on that page is calls for people to voluntarily be human shields.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you're clearly unbiased.
Personally I think making the israeli state to begin with was a stupid idea.
Re:No actually it isn't (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a reason why colonizing land you occupy is forbidden by the 4th Geneva convention, it's because it amounts to ethnic cleansing.
Ethnic cleansing is only one of three choices, and the least attractive. The other two are establishing a single state (and giving the Palestinians the right to vote), and apartheid (or, if your prefer gentler language, establishing permanent ghettos).
The first won't happen because the Israelis know full well that in a democracy, the majority Palestians would vote them all out of power. That leaves the second, which is just as good given that the settlement activity accelerating since the end of 1967 war has already created de facto ghettos. The irony with the ghetto strategy, of course, is that the Palestinians' economic condition is nearly the same as black Africa, and their daily hardships are not unlike those suffered by South Africans once upon a time not too long ago. For those who don't remember, the South African "terrorists" eventually took power.
Israel lost the moral high ground long ago, so Israel is there for the Israelis to lose. That would happen sooner than later if the US would get out of the way, but given the decades-long monotony of public discourse on the subject ("Israel can do no wrong"), it's doubtful that the impetus for change will come from these shores.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In the end, the Arabs fought several wars with Israel and lost them (despite early success in the Yom Kippur War). When you lose a war, whatever happens to you happens. If you don't want such bad things to happen, y
Re: (Score:2)
They can protest all they like but no Israeli is going to see it.
I don't recall there being any TV cameras at Amritsar, yet somehow the word got out.
The cowardly, craven apologists for terrorist violence of the kind being committed by BOTH SIDES of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict always have to make trivially false claims of this kind to support their case, but you aren't fooling anyone but your fellow cowards, who are looking for any excuse to deny the trivial truth that non-violent RESISTANCE is almost a
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"A ceasefire is exactly that - an agreed pause in an ongoing confrontation so that negotiations can be held."
And the Palestinians DID NOT STOP. AT ALL.
"At the end of the agreed period, Hamas said they would like to continue the ceasefire with their sole condition being that more food be allowed into Gaza. "
Despite the fact that Hamas had been firing rockets into Israel during the entirety of the "ceasefire".
"But you pick the comments that support your case, not those that are most likely."
And you leave out
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And the Palestinians DID NOT STOP. AT ALL.
You're a fucking liar. The "palestinians" were never required to stop. Hamas did stop, as evidenced by the massive dropoff in rocket attacks once the cease-fire went into effect. The simple fact is Israel broke the cease fire.
Really, both sides are assholes. It's just Israel is the asshole with US backing and a ridiculous military advantage who is murdering children and other innocents in mass numbers.
If Hamas was smarter they'd cease violence or focus violence strictly on military targets. Israel woul
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If by "Israeli's just want to get on with their lives" you mean "Israel just wants to continue the decades long program to annex the desirable parts of Palestinian land without the non-Jews" then you're totally right.
Re: (Score:2)
If by "Israeli's just want to get on with their lives" you mean "Israel just wants to continue the decades long program to annex the desirable parts of Palestinian land without the non-Jews" then you're totally right.
Israel left Gaza three and a half years ago. Other than providing them with fuel, water, and electricity (for FREE) Israel has had no involvement with Gaza, other than retaliating for rocket strikes. Until two weeks ago, that retaliation was usually limited to simply withholding the free fuel, water, and electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
Israel provides them with fuel, water, and electricity (deliberately not enough, though Dov Weisglass insists Israel isn't starving them, merely putting them on a diet) because Israel is obligated to as the occupying power. Even though Israel abandoned their colonies in Gaza they are still occupying it. Is that what you mean by no involvement?
Israel still attacks Gaza, as evidenced by the raid on Nov. 4th that broke the cease fire.
The craziest thing is people countenance the intentional withholding of nece
Re: (Score:2)
>> Israel still attacks Gaza, as evidenced by the raid on Nov. 4th that broke the cease fire.
Too bad there were still rocket attacks throughout the cease-fire well before that raid. Inconvenient for your lies, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
According to data supplied by the Israeli Consulate in NYC, rocket and mortar fire all but completely stopped during the ceasefire [huffingtonpost.com] then jumped back after it ended.
Hamas stopped firing rockets but there are still other groups operating in Gaza that Hamas has been unable to control. United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories, Richard Falk [huffingtonpost.com], exlpains "a variety of independent militia groups operate in Gaza, some such as the Fatah-backed al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade are anti-Ha
Re:Second life sim (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is so, then why has the Israeli military deliberately targeted Gaza's power infrastructure, blowing up local power stations and stopping aid packages providing food and medicine? You make it sound as though Israel generously supports a destitute population, but in fact, they artificially limit how many supplies are allowed in, US soldiers are stationed in Egypt to keep its border with Gaza sealed after an incident a couple of years ago where local people opened it and Palestinians nipped across to buy groceries, fuel, concrete mix (believe it or not), etc. before returning. Their retaliation was not "simply withholding free fuel, water and electricity" but also food and preventing the importing of non-free supplies, even free aid from other countries, with the use of force.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Non-free supplies, like the weapons that Hamas then shoots at Israel? Well, they're paid for by Iran and Syria (there is no free lunch, after all), but they're free to Hamas. So, maybe that doesn't figure in?
Then there's that truck full of "humanitarian" aid that was stopped at a border crossing the other day, during a 3-hour window of cooled-down fighting. Right in there with the food were bundles of disguised military uniforms (various t
Yes, Israel is so nice and friendly to Palestina (Score:2, Insightful)
As long as I see 10 to 100 Palestinian casualties reported for every Israeli casualty, I will continue to view Israel as the aggressor and the one with the much larger share of the blame.
Sure, wall them in, take away their land by turning your settlers loose all over the place, freeze their bank accounts and turn off their electricity, bomb them with the latest US hardware, and then complain about how you 'just want to get on with your life' and whine about the occasional mortar while ignoring the damage yo
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you believe that Israel should just accept the fact that no matter what they do, leave Gaze, let them elect their own government, etc. that the rockets will keep coming. The rockets will be come more and more sophisticated and eventualy kill more and more.
This notion of proportional response is bullshit. When someone is trying to kill you, then you you have the right to employ whatever amount of force is necessary to stop it.
Read this, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/world/09fighter.html?_r=3 [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By that logic, the first Gulf War would have been the fault of the US/coalition rather than Sadaam Hussein, as there were far more Iraqi than coalition casualties.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Judging from the pictures and other reports from the ground [wordpress.com] I've seen, they're the most convincing method actors I've ever seen. That kid in the pics Mahmoud Abbas was showing on the BBC news the other night looked just like he'd been blown to pieces! Seriously, *amazing* special effects, really.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Troll? Sorry, that view of Israel is held by a LOT of people outside the US and Israel (and not just Muslims either), and is certainly not less reasonable than the official US stance over Iraq.
Will I be modded troll too now? OK, go ahead.
I think your track record proves it. (Score:3, Insightful)
As a European I've got to say that's absolute rubbish. Can't believe you got modded up for peddling such bullshit.
I think your track record proves it. Let's see, prior to World War II, there's 2000 years of anti-semitism. Then, during the war, well, there's plenty of people collaborating on the holocaust, and then, after the war, pretty much every European state unanimously sides with Islamic states in continual condemnations of Israel, no matter what she does. I can't how many times the only reason some
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, now that you mention it, when I was on Second Life, I made a few items that could be useful in virtual warfare.
1) Virtual covert activities: I scripted listening bugs and planted them in people's virtual apartments so I could hear them in non-IM chats.
2) Virtual propaganda: I scripted objects named after people so that I could put words in people's mouths by having the objects say offensive stuff.[*]
3) Virtual charity laundering: I scripted a bank so that people could hide their money. On certain
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Something about not picking a fight you can't win comes to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot judge conflict simply by the body count. What you're doing is punishing Israel for actually training their soldiers and building bomb shelters for their people.
Also, believe it or not, Israel goes out of their way to avoid killing innocent civilians. The problem is that Gaza is so heavily populated, and that the militants hide amongst civilians, so keeping things clean and meeting objectives is pretty much impossible. If Israel actually *wanted* to massacre people, the numbers would be *much*
Re: (Score:2)
What? You think war should be fair?
Re: (Score:2)
"Furious stream of mini-debates on Twitter"? (Score:5, Funny)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
wl, i do smtmes, bt i dont knw wht ur tlking abt wrt spelng.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, this war - even more than most - really is fought through public opinion. Israel could be slaughtered if they lose US backing, while Gaza is being slaughtered because they haven't yet won the backing of a powerful and willing ally.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it goes:
Israel: <intense, ten days of round-the-clock barrage of artillery shells, H.E., white phosphorus, and assault rifle fire>
Hamas: Silence! I keeeel you [tinyurl.com]!
Subject (Score:2, Funny)
Twitter debate? So Jews and Muslims follow each other on twitter?
I'd like to see that stats on traffic. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'd like to see that stats on traffic. (Score:5, Funny)
Why do you think it's come up for a third time on Slashdot?
Re:I'd like to see that stats on traffic. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well this should be straigtforward... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have THE solution (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Carpet the Holy Land with neutron bombs. Adjust the bombs so they put on the most long-term radiation they can.
You realise that is the precise opposite of what neutron bombs do (and were designed for), which is to kill people without making the area uninhabitable?
Why not a Quake Deathmatch? (Score:2)
Some twenty eras ago people suggested that many conflicts might better had been solved by chess. Today, a Quake Deathmatch seems more appropriate.. And, it is virtual.
.
Why is it always violence? (Score:2, Insightful)
When was the last time the Palestinians tried non-violent protests?
It would be very hard for Israel to justify a military response against people who openly acknowledge they have no desire for violence.
They would probably do it anyway, but world opinion would be decidedly different I suspect.
Instead you get geniuses who bring a knife to a machine gun fight, and complain that they're getting shot at for firing rockets into civilian areas.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Palestinians used to have Yasser Arafat as a leader, a Peace Nobel Prize. Israel didn't want to negociate with him and played a big role in his death. There are a lot of things that are very hard to justify for Israel, which is a nation that is considered democratic, developed and that plays a role on the international scene. This is why many people try to pressure it. Saying that Israel does things
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.
Irrelevant (Score:2, Insightful)
"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
Which is EXACTLY what they want.
Then some fucking imbecile fires off some rockets at Israel and undoes every single bit of sympathy those people who got stoned and shot at earned with their blood.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When was the last time the Palestinians tried non-violent protests?
Non-violent demonstrations happen all the time (but they don't get much press in the USA). The kind of "non-violent" civil disobedience that Gandhi used just gets people arrested by the Israeli military (and very few people in the USA even notice).
So, actually, the Palestinians are trying both violent and non-violent approaches (and neither has had much success) - but it's the violent approaches that you hear about in the USA because it allows Israel to justify what it's doing to the Palestinians.
You are wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
"So, actually, the Palestinians are trying both violent and non-violent approaches"
No, they aren't.
ANY attempt at non-violence protest is immediately and totally undermined by accompanying violence. You cannot have any credibility when you are protesting non-violently in one place, and using violence in another
It's one or the other, and Palestinians chose violence.
And it's really telling how many people cam out of the woodwork to defend violence, or give lame idiotic excuses for why non-violence won't work
Israel's right to exist? (Score:5, Insightful)
To give you a faaaaint idea of what I'm hinting at. Imagine if the US wasn't in the UN, and the UN decided that Native Americans needed their land back. So, they gave them the entire east coast of the US, to be their land. They were given basically whatever they wanted, and they began to push the US citizens gradually to the west, claiming various areas that are more desirable than others (IE, they take Yellowstone national park, leave us Death valley). They are far richer than the US citizens, and have far more support (although Canada and Mexico support the US citizens, lets just say the UN has marked them as third world terrorists). So, let's say that the US citizens scrap together some money, and a small group that want to win back their land, bomb the native Americans. The retaliation? The natives start bombing the civilians that didn't have a thing to do with it. They keep bombing, despite the UN telling them to stop.
Seems like a stretch.
Of course, I don't see why Israel was reinstated. People lived there after the Israelites got wiped out, and then the rest of the world told the Palestinians (arguably not the same exact people who did this), were told to shove over.
I'll probably get modded troll though...it's very mean and uncool to be pro-Palestine civilians. Nope, if you think Israel is wrong, you are a pro-terrorist.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Israel's right to exist? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're massively underinformed about the history of that specific region and the formation of Israel. Rather than type it up here, I'll refer you to Wikipedia for the (very contentious) history of Palestine, which gives a reasonably balanced view.
I'll address your analogy, though: Israel's right to exist is inherent in the same right to exist that most nations have. They have successfully defended their territory in three wars (and it's in those wars that were launched against them that they expanded their territory). It's not noble, it's not morally right (or wrong), it's just how most nations come into existence and stay there. The U.S. was founded by settlers who moved in on the natives, took over their land, and used force to marginalize them on reserves. If, by your argument, you're saying that Israel has no "right to exist", then neither does the U.S.
As a general matter of history, the early 20th century was dominated by the idea that every distinct people should have a homeland. Much of the border drawing following WWI was done with that in mind, and Zionism is only the most successful of a wide variety of ethno-nationalist movements from the early 20th century, largely because they were able to defend themselves in those three wars.
Re:Israel's right to exist? (Score:5, Interesting)
You can talk about rights all you want, but the bottom line is that nations hold territory through force or the threat of it, until they've been there long enough to be considered historically justified.
The creation of Israel wasn't about giving it back to some original inhabitants. It was about the presence of Jews in Palestine agitating for a homeland and pointing to the Holocaust as a reason they needed one, at a time when almost every ethnic group in the area was agitating for the same, and the people in charge generally agreed that everyone should have a homeland. At the time, the British were controlling what used to be the Ottoman Empire, and there was a variety of efforts to negotiate a partition of Palestine that would give both the Palestinians and Jews a homeland.
The history of those negotiations is long and tortured, and involves bad acts by all around: Zionists at the time were what we call terrorists today; Arab nations were deliberately obstructionist, believing they could prevent any land being given to the Jews who were already there, and also believing that they could destroy any Jewish partition if it happened.
It's one of the many ironies of Palestine that if the Arabs had accepted any of several partitions that were acceptable to the Zionists, they would have the majority of Palestine under clear control.
Regardless, you have an area controlled by the Ottoman Empire for centuries, followed by the British, and an attempt to settle partitions that would be agreeable to everyone who was right there. Negotiations failed, neighboring Arab countries invaded, and got their asses kicked. Repeat in 1967 and 1972. Each time, Israel took territory from the attackers (the Golan Heights from Syria, the Sinai from Egypt, the West Bank from Jordan). The Palestinians were run over by everyone.
So it's a huge shitpile of wrong, and the Palestinians are on the bottom of that pile, but talk of Israel's right to exist is a non-starter in teasing it out and finding a peaceful solution, mostly because every nation is legitimated in the same way as Israel: force and history. Everyone involved has dirty hands, and legitimate grievances.
Peace in Northern Ireland was achieved by starting from the point of trying to placate each side's core concerns, not trying to clear up a backlog of injustices.
Well, that's a strategic turn up for the books.. (Score:2)
Al Jazeera (English) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ninjas are East-Asian imperialism. All the people of God rely not on edit-ninjas but upon the Edit-Hashshashin!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The ninjas got me when I tried editing the Neptune article a few months ago. I was changing the sentence "Neptune was the first planet found by mathematical prediction rather than regular observation" to "Neptune was the only planet found by mathematical prediction rather than regular observation". Three different editors reverted me in the space of ten minutes. Here, I've tried again just now, let's see how fast it gets reverted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune [wikipedia.org]
Re:One state solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is evacuation of Israeli colonies in the West Bank unrealistic? Israel evacuated their colonies in Gaza, they can do it in the West Bank. The settlements would be good partial reparation to the Palestinians. It's not like Israel and the colonists didn't know that what they were doing was illegal and wrong.
Otherwise, I'm right with you on the one state solution. Don't forget a constitution that's the supreme law of the land (along with treaties) that guarantees equal rights for all persons.
Re: (Score:2)
The Palestin
Re: (Score:2)
According to your logic, that the natives are fighting back is all the more reason to continue dispossession, colonization, and annexation. There's a reason why such practices are forbidden by the UN Charter and 4th Geneva Convention: they amount to ethnic cleansing.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah! What could possibly go wrong?
You know, I'm truly amazed that people like you can function on a day-to-day basis. It's like you're inhabiting some sort of upside-down-world, where up is down and black is white. I'm surprised you haven't managed to kill yourself yet by taking a bath in the fireplace.
Re: (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
Re:Israel's right to exist (Score:4, Insightful)
States don't have rights, only persons have rights. Instead, States have powers that they justly derive from the people. States also exist or not at the whims of the people. Sometimes the people have a revolution, found a new state and the old state is wiped off the map.
Did Apartheid South Africa have a right to exist?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, and Israel is denying the Palestinians their right to self determination.
American land was stolen in less enlightened times. Stolen prior to the establishment of the League of Nations / UN, prior to the Hague and Geneva Conventions, prior to WWII, and prior to the introduction of nuclear weapons. The defenders of Israel, China, and other states attempting to acquire territory by force in modern times would like us to return to a time of lawlessness. A time when acquiring territory by force was ac
Re: (Score:2)
Ill paraphrase your starement 'I support the israelis doing things so hideous that they lose their self respect as a country.'
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:Here's the bottom line (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a matter of multiple world views, all jostling for an equal share of turf and air time. This is militant, murderous thugs (Hamas) willing to kill anybody in order to prevent a modern, civil, democratic society from taking shape in their neighborhood.
It's quite a bit more complicated than that. I'm going to avoid the point-counterpoint monotony, but in general, the problem with your viewpoint is that you assume that Hamas is the will of the Palestinian people, which is true only in the current circumstance.
For instance, you could reason that all Japanese are murderous bastards for what they did to the Chinese in the 1930s. But that is not the will of the Japanese people, nor is the rise of Mexican drug gangs the will of the Mexican people, nor was the rise of the Nazi party the will of the German people.
Hamas was voted into power because the Palestinians had given up on diplomacy, because Israel refuses to work for peace. Israel refuses to work for peace because if there is an establishment of a Palestinian state, three things are probable. One is that they will not be able to seize any more land that they want to have. Two is that they won't get all of Jerusalem. Three is that eventually, and I'm talking in a hundred years, the Israeli state would cease to exist due to immigration and the natural progression of democratic demands for freedom from religion. Israel is "officially" Jewish, officially for one ethnic group and one religion, and the only state in the world with such a status. It's likely that under normal democratic functions, this will disappear, and that is something unacceptable to the hard liners who are currently running the country.
Blaming the Palestinians for voting Hamas in is like blaming the Black community for forming the Black Panthers. After your home has been taken, after your friends have been killed indiscriminately, after you see your children grow up in total poverty, after being under a foreign occupier's iron grip for sixty years, a society becomes quite damaged. But this is the goal for the occupier. As Ben-Gurion said, he hoped time would heal his wounds. He hoped the world would excuse Israel for the heinous acts it has committed to get what it wants, however much you agree with their goals.
All Israel is doing in Gaza right now is guaranteeing there is no peace, because peace means the end of their acquisition of Palestinian property. They destroyed Lebanon, they got Hezbollah. They destroyed the PLO, they got Hamas. These are predictable outcomes, and the planners of Israel are not stupid.