International Politics Thread

[simba 0]

Hi sanctuary,

I would like to hear from you on why you are mixing the hamas organisation that people call terrorism with reason and "the Palestinians" that none called like this.

I'm not mixing, if I said that " palestinians are still the terrorists"

it is because many palestinian organizations (PLO,Hams,etc) were accused of terrorism but israelian never.

And why you "wish" the hamas does not get eliminated ?

Without the hamas, the israeli could not anymore justify

their current attack, it could lead them to lot more international problem (especially commercial boycott, what usually hurt countries the most) if they decided to continue.

I don't want Hamas to be eliminated because I consider them

as the violent expression and last resort of palestinians, as

soon as a true Palestine will emerge those kind of

organizations will lose their meaning and eventually die.

Israel will always find a pretext to attack or take land,

if there were no rockets fired from Gaza none would be

talking about the conflict and the situation would never change,

past proves you wrong.

You look at the context right now and think

"if the Hamas wasn't firing rockets there would be a true

peace talk possibility" but the truth is that in the past

many such opportunities were never seized by Israel.

Of course they will not give back lands they got from war that easily, but i can only hope they can begin to accept Palestinian has the same rights as them to live here in peace.

How palestinians are going to accept to live in such a small territory, after so many fights, hope, killed.

Would you accept it, is it fair ?

[sanctuary 19]

Quote[/b] ]

How palestinians are going to accept to live in such a small territory, after so many fights, hope, killed.

Would you accept it, is it fair ?

I never said it was fair, and yes it is not fair at all. But unfortunately on the near future it will be like this, because of terrorist organisations like the hamas that give the israel leaders enough arguments to do so and because of both hamas and isreali military responsibles that have no value for civilian life.

And yes israel military are not acting that differently than hamas terrorists, because Palestinians civilians are living in terror and with reason considering the bombs falling down on them and the hamas reigning on them.

You can say in public "we are sorry for the innocent civilian death", but as long as you continue to bomb them these are empty words.

We can just hope in the future both side will open their eyes to see that violence only lead into ... more violence, never in the whole history violence solved a problem, it just created more or displaced it in time or location, it is a vicious circle that never stop as long as there are people willing to fuel it.

And sadly, on both sides there are lot of people that a peace is the enemy, because they live feeding on the terror and war buisnesses, without war or terror those people would have no more purpose to exist and that's why they do everything they can so the situation never improve continue like this.

The problem is that by ignoring the responsible on one side and accusing only the other responsibles from the other side, you play their game, because they will be then totally free to play it without any external eye witness.

With those people out of the equation, peace is achievable in middle east, but unfortunately those people have power enough to stay in place in both side.

[JdB 151]

- Palestinian were the first on the land.

- Palestinian were robbed most of their land

- Israel is still doing all they can to take more

( Gaza settlements have been evacuated but many more

have been authorized in the west bank)

- Israel killed 1000X more palestinian than the other way around.

BUT THE PALESTINIANS ARE STILL THE TERROSISTS !

-There was a Jewish kingdom 2000 years ago, long before Islam even existed (Hamas is not just fighting for their territory, but to wipe out Israel and reclaim the holy land, they've stated this on many occasions, as has Hezbollah);

-Most of that land belonged to Syria and Egypt before the UN created Israel;

-What? You mean Israel is trying to take more by evacuating the Gaza Strip and the West Bank of Israelis in the hopes that the terrorist attacks against civilians would finally end?

-Only because they lack proper weapons to inflict more civilian deaths. Hamas and other terrorist organisations specifically target civilians, when the Israelis hit civilians it's 99% of the times collateral damage (and otherwise by mistake). A by-product of hiding behind civilians that works great for PR.

If they attack the IDF, fine that's war, specifically targeting civilians is known as terrorism in the non-Islamic world.

[Maddmatt 1]

Come on Maddmatt, since the beginning of Gaza attack

864 palestinian civilians have been killed and more

than 3000 wounded, how many Israelian civilians have

been killed, less than 10, who's killing who ?...

But you need to consider why the civilian deaths are like that.

Hamas hides behind civilians, they launch rockets from schools, they hide in people's homes, they base themselves in civilian areas. So of course when they are attacked civilians will die. They purposefully put civilians at risk so that they can convince the world that Israel are the bad guys.

So yes, I think Hamas are terrorists and deserve to die. But that doesn't mean I support Israel.

Israel will not stop their attacks just because there are civilians around, and Hamas takes advantage of that. Hamas takes advantage of Israel's disregard for civilian life as much as possible, and IMO that makes them the true terrorists here.

But even if Israel tried, there would still be a large number of civilian deaths, just like when the US started bombing Baghdad.

Hamas started the attack, it's their own fault anyway. But all over the world people are now supporting this terrorist group because they managed to get Israel to kill civilians.

Come on, as if this war is really anything new

In a normal war the civilians will hide behind the soldiers, but in this case the 'soldiers' (Hamas) are hiding behind civilians...

Cowards

[froggyluv 2135]

In a normal war the civilians will hide behind the soldiers, but in this case the 'soldiers' (Hamas) are hiding behind civilians...

Cowards  

It's the nature of asymmetric warfare unfortunately. I mean what do you expect the Palestinians to do, meet the Israeli military machine head-on with their mighty army  

Perhaps if the US supplied both sides equally with killing hardware you'd get your wish, but as it stands, the Palestinians have no chance in combat thus are forced to either submit or fight Guerilla.

Personally I believe the Palestinians made a grave mistake by empowering Hamas and electing them into Government, but I have the luxury of not living there and having to endure their continued occupation and discrimination. I also believe that Israel enjoys an unfair advantage in that the US pretty much backs any move they make and that inherently takes away their incentive to compromise and thus leads to strong-arming.

[chops 111]

Hamas hides behind civilians, they launch rockets from schools, they hide in people's homes, they base themselves in civilian areas. So of course when they are attacked civilians will die. They purposefully put civilians at risk so that they can convince the world that Israel are the bad guys.

And where exactly do you get that information from?

There were no Hamas militants in the UN school, as the IDF has now admitted and the UN always maintained

The IDF also seem very pleased with the results of limiting journalists' access to Gaza, so they can do their dirty work away from prying eyes.

This assault on Gaza is at best un-professional and at worst a war crime. How exactly do they expect to weaken Hamas by killing hundreds of children?

This will be a boon for all the nut-cases out there trying to recruit jihadi-fanatics.

[simba 0]

I never said it was fair, and yes it is not fair at all.

Glad we agree on that m8

Quote[/b] ]But unfortunately on the near future it will be like this, because of terrorist organisations like the hamas that give the israel leaders enough arguments to do so and because of both hamas and isreali military responsibles that have no value for civilian life.

I understand well the point of view of israelians in this conflict,

however I'm analysing it from the standpoint of someone

who wants to find a peacefull solution.

We can not consider on the same basis an advanced army

with all the technology and means that it includes and a bunch

of guys barely leading an asymetric resistance.

1)There was a Jewish kingdom 2000 years ago, long before Islam even existed (Hamas is not just fighting for their territory, but to wipe out Israel and reclaim the holy land, they've stated this on many occasions, as has Hezbollah);

2)Most of that land belonged to Syria and Egypt before the UN created Israel;

3)What? You mean Israel is trying to take more by evacuating the Gaza Strip and the West Bank of Israelis in the hopes that the terrorist attacks against civilians would finally end?

4)Only because they lack proper weapons to inflict more civilian deaths. Hamas and other terrorist organisations specifically target civilians, when the Israelis hit civilians it's 99% of the times collateral damage (and otherwise by mistake). A by-product of hiding behind civilians that works great for PR.

1) Should the americans give their country back to the natives ?

Are the jewish that went (back) to Israel genetically closer to Israelites than palestinians ?

Does this really matter since arabs have been living on this land for so long ?

2) you playing with the words, when I say palestinians

I mean the natives, those who were living there before the

jews came in.

3) I don't fully understand your question but what I mean

is that more settlements have been installed in west bank

than evacuated from Gaza, this was a PR stunt.

We all have seen Gaza settlements evacuation, this has

been shown countless times, how many pastinian house destruction have we seen on telly ?

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article7

Quote[/b] ]Settlements are built on less than 3 percent of the area of the West Bank. However, due to the extensive network of settler roads and restrictions on Palestinians accessing their own land, Israeli settlements domi-nate more than 40 percent of the West Bank.

4) Hamas attacks civilians for several reasons :

- No way they could fight Tsahal even in an asymetric warfare

(I believe palestininans are by a wide margin less armed than even irakis)

- Their rockets aren't accurate enough to target anything,

with their limited ressources I bet they would rather bomb

the soldiers.

(can't find a map of tsahal bases, any in the 20km range ?)

- Sometimes you gotta hit where it hurts, this is war, Israel never bothered with their civilians, why would they ?

about the picture: yes they are hiding in the population because

they are the population and because this is happening in the most densely populated area of the world.

Again I have the impression that as soon as more drastic explanations and solutions of this conflict emerge, nobody seems to approve, some say that this has been discussed countless times and I couldn't agree more...but is it because this conflict has no solutions or because we ain't ready to get ourself a little dirty ? Remember Irak ? many on this forum back then had very good reasons to believe US gov !

A little word on the last news, many have reported that Tsahal

is using white phosphorus (loved it in WGL), I know this

weapon is allowed by the Chemical Weapons Convention

but since this can cause deep burns and that Israelian are

using it as smoke screen (well official version) isn't that

one more proof they don't care about civies ?

[Scorpio 0]

-There was a Jewish kingdom 2000 years ago, long before Islam even existed (Hamas is not just fighting for their territory, but to wipe out Israel and reclaim the holy land, they've stated this on many occasions, as has Hezbollah);

Rubbish. That land does not belong to anyone specific people, neither Jew nor Muslim. Religion should have nothing to do with it. Saying that you want the land back because you lived their 1000 years ago, kicking the indegenous residents out, packing them all into a large concentration camp, establishing a foreign military occupation on what little land they have, and justifiying it all by saying that you are "God's chosen people"...well, we call that fascism here in the West.

[billybob2002 0]

Rubbish. That land does not belong to anyone specific people, neither Jew nor Muslim. Religion should have nothing to do with it. Saying that you want the land back because you lived their 1000 years ago, kicking the indegenous residents out, packing them all into a large concentration camp, establishing a foreign military occupation on what little land they have, and justifiying it all by saying that you are "God's chosen people"...well, we call that fascism here in the West.

The fact is that the Arabs thought they could defeat the Jews back in the late 1940s and they massively failed. If the 1948 Arab-Israeli War didn't happened, Jewish land would had been a lot smaller. However, the Arabs underestimated them and they paid dearly.

- Their rockets aren't accurate enough to target anything,

with their limited ressources I bet they would rather bomb

the soldiers.

BS. Hamas has specifically targeted civilians with suicide bombers.

[Scorpio 0]

The fact is that the Arabs thought they could defeat the Jews back in the late 1940s and they massively failed. If the 1948 Arab-Israeli War didn't happened, Jewish land would had been a lot smaller. However, the Arabs underestimated them and they paid dearly.

So? I don't see your point.

Are you saying that just because they won a war, the land is theirs to own?

[billybob2002 0]

The fact is that the Arabs thought they could defeat the Jews back in the late 1940s and they massively failed. If the 1948 Arab-Israeli War didn't happened, Jewish land would had been a lot smaller. However, the Arabs underestimated them and they paid dearly.

So? I don't see your point.

Are you saying that just because they won a war, the land is theirs to own?

A thousand years ago, the land was considered Jewish land. Throughout out the years, spanning a lot of centuries, Palestine has been ruled by various Empires including the Romans and Persians. The Arabs came along and conquered Palestine just like other peoples before them. What happened isn't new.

And, yes, I do they, the Israelis, own that land they conquered in 1948.

[gsleighter 0]

That's all fine, but Jewish law only provides rights to Jewish citizens. Palestinians born in Israel have a fraction of the rights of Jewish Israelis. Until they're afforded some voice in government, like minorities in every other western state, until Israel is done with their own apartheid, there will be no peace in the middle east.

[Scorpio 0]

A thousand years ago, the land was considered Jewish land. Throughout out the years, spanning a lot of centuries, Palestine has been ruled by various Empires including the Romans and Persians. The Arabs came along and conquered Palestine just like other peoples before them. What happened isn't new.  

And, yes, I do they, the Israelis, own that land they conquered in 1948.

Yes, but this is modern times. You can't just "conquer" some other nation and call it your own.

Legitimacy aside, the end still does not justify the means. A land for the Jewish people is in essence a great idea. However, don't expect them to be nice when you force it upon others.

You can't call yourself a secular western democracy when your nation treats minorities as second-class citizens, violates just about every human rights and international law, and let religous fanatics roam free to be your attack dogs.

[JdB 151]

That's all fine, but Jewish law only provides rights to Jewish citizens. Palestinians born in Israel have a fraction of the rights of Jewish Israelis. Until they're afforded some voice in government, like minorities in every other western state, until Israel is done with their own apartheid, there will be no peace in the middle east.

Nonsense. Arab Israelis make up about 25% of the total population of Israel, and they are just as much full citizens as Jewish Israelis are. They have parties representing them in the electoral system, can't be much more integrated than as a part of the country's democratic society.

The arab Israelis do not serve in the IDF however due to the fairly obvious "muslim killing muslim = bad" thing (conscientious objectors sort of).

After the 1948 war, everyone that wanted to leave Israel was given the opportunity to do so, only those that wanted to remain, remained (or couldn't, but seeing as they had little to nothing to begin with, there was not much to leave behind). It's pretty much impossible I guess for muslims that try to immigrate into Israel right now to get Israeli passports though due to the current circumstances, but it has been done in the past.

Quote[/b] ]You can't just "conquer" some other nation and call it your own.

True, you give people passports and then pretend you're protecting them instead

Also the idea of conquering (in this case Palestinian) land (there was never a country of Palestine, hence the term "land") may seem medieval in our eyes, but when you're fighting religions extremists that take every word in the ancient Quran for the true, and unquestionable word of Allah (the same is true in a lesser degree for Israel), you have to re-evaluate the 20th century principles to a certain extent. I can remember what Europe used to be like when we adhered to the particular religious book of most of Europe (Bible), and burned witches, tortured non-believers etc, religion is not a recipe for a healthy society.

Religion might well be mankind's worst invention ever. If you take the religious differences out of the conflict, all that is left is a simple border dispute, the borders of some Eastern European countries were changed after WW2 as well, but you don't see them being aggressive towards their neighbors.

Quote[/b] ]and let religous fanatics roam free to be your attack dogs.

A very good description of the relationship/cooperation between Hamas and countries like Syria and Iran I must say

Too bad for the Palestinians they allow themselves to be used by countries in the region for their own agendas (same as Israel -> US I guess), otherwise the two states might already have been well established.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Nonsense. Arab Israelis make up about 25% of the total population of Israel, and they are just as much full citizens as Jewish Israelis are. They have parties representing them in the electoral system, can't be much more integrated than as a part of the country's democratic society.

Israel bans Arab parties from running in upcoming elections

From Haaretz

[JdB 151]

Israel bans Arab parties from running in upcoming elections

From Haaretz

Some "political" parties are banned in Europe too, ranging all the way from far left to far right, so it's not that extraordinary. Also the ban doesn't say that all arab parties are banned per se, if it had, that would indeed have been pretty undemocratic, but the truth is in the details.

[turms 0]

Israel bans Arab parties from running in upcoming elections

From Haaretz

Some "political" parties are banned in Europe too, ranging all the way from far left to far right, so it's not that extraordinary. Also the ban doesn't say that all arab parties are banned per se, if it had, that would indeed have been pretty undemocratic, but the truth is in the details.

Some political parties are banned in europe, based on the hate they spread. These parties in Israel were banned becouse they were arab parties, see the difference?

[JdB 151]

Some political parties are banned in europe, based on the hate they spread. These parties in Israel were banned becouse they were arab parties, see the difference?

"The CEC voted overwhelmingly in favor of the motions, accusing the country's Arab parties of incitement, supporting terrorist groups and refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist."

Exactly the same reasons as why parties in Europe are banned as you said, for inciting hatred. Neither you or I have the evidence to either confirm or rebuttal this claim, which is for a proper judicial process to decide.

Of course it might (well) be a trick to have these parties miss the election, but without more to go on than this summary article, any conclusion would be based on prejudices and wishful thinking, rather than any evidence (and therefore the truth).

[froggyluv 2135]

Nonsense. Arab Israelis make up about 25% of the total population of Israel, and they are just as much full citizens as Jewish Israelis are. They have parties representing them in the electoral system, can't be much more integrated than as a part of the country's democratic society.

You can't call Israel a Democratic State in the same sense that the U.S is A Democracy. You have to remember- they have laws to protect the "Jewishness of the State". Such laws in the US would be an abomination.

[turms 0]

Some political parties are banned in europe, based on the hate they spread. These parties in Israel were banned becouse they were arab parties, see the difference?

"The CEC voted overwhelmingly in favor of the motions, accusing the country's Arab parties of incitement, supporting terrorist groups and refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist."

Exactly the same reasons as why parties in Europe are banned as you said, for inciting hatred. Neither you or I have the evidence to either confirm or rebuttal this claim, which is for a proper judicial process to decide.

Of course it might (well) be a trick to have these parties miss the election, but without more to go on than this summary article, any conclusion would be based on prejudices and wishful thinking, rather than any evidence (and therefore the truth).

So you are saying that the arab parties in Israel are spewing hate? Id like to see something more about that.

[JdB 151]

You have to remember- they have laws to protect the "Jewishness of the State". Such laws in the US would be an abomination.

I'm sure you can remember the Republicans trying to play the "He's a Muslim!"-card on Obama during the election. The US doesn't need such laws to protect it's Christian way of life/government. If Obama had been a muslim, or if the Republicans could have come up with convincing evidence that made it seem like he was, he simply would not have been elected. Preservation through voting rather than laws, but pretty much the same result.

Quote[/b] ]So you are saying that the arab parties in Israel are spewing hate? Id like to see something more about that.

In your anger and/or bias you must not have read my post that you quoted fully, I advise you to do so as that makes perfectly clear that I can't take any side due to lack of details (evidence either way)

Convicting without proper evidence is what religious zealots do, instead I'll just wait for the judge's verdict on both appeals by the two arab parties.

[froggyluv 2135]

I'm sure you can remember the Republicans trying to play the "He's a Muslim!"-card on Obama during the election. The US doesn't need such laws to protect it's Christian way of life/government. If Obama had been a muslim, or if the Republicans could have come up with convincing evidence that made it seem like he was, he simply would not have been elected. Preservation through voting rather than laws, but pretty much the same result.

Apples and Oranges.

Hardcoded laws to protect one's Ethnicity above all else simply cannot be compared to a general climate of fear and ignorance which time has proven to temper on many fronts-racial/religious/gender.

[JdB 151]

a general climate of fear and ignorance which time has proven to temper on many fronts-racial/religious/gender.

Even before 9-11, Americans would not have voted for a muslim, or a jew, or anything other than a christian for that matter, as they have never done so before as the following data shows. Whether written down or embedded in the culture, religion plays a very large role in the US, far more than it does in Europe, and rather comparable to Israel, although not constitutionally, so it's not that much "Apples and oranges".

Quote[/b] ]Episcopalian 11

Presbyterian 10

Methodist 5

Baptist 4

Unitarian 4

Disciples of Christ

Dutch Reformed 2

Quaker 2

Congregationalist 2

Catholic 1

Jehovah's Witness 1

[froggyluv 2135]

Yet again it is not the same thing as laws that outright forbid it. You could use the same reason to also state that a Black man could not win the Presidency due to our country's voting record but alas this indeed was possible. And with our country's vastlty changing demographics, a Non-Christian President is not unfathomable.

[Bernadotte 0]

The US doesn't need such laws to protect it's Christian way of life/government. If Obama had been a muslim, or if the Republicans could have come up with convincing evidence that made it seem like he was, he simply would not have been elected. Preservation through voting rather than laws, but pretty much the same result.

Exactly.  There's no need for racist laws as long as a nation is able to rely on the racism of its electorate.  However, Israel is not quite racist enough to rely on its electorate and occasionally must put up with ultra right-wing attempts to pass racist laws:

Quote[/b] ]The requests to ban the Arab parties were filed by two ultra right parties...  -- Haaretz article

However, even Israeli members of parliament who voted in favour of the ban know it won't stick:

Quote[/b] ]...it won't stand up in the Supreme Court, and rightly so, because there is no evidentiary basis for the [committee's] decision.  -- Haaretz article

So why the hell did they support such a ban in the first place if they knew it wasn't legal?  Perhaps to put on a show for some of their more hateful constituents.

Israeli friends keep telling me that Palestine won't have peace until Israel is at civil war with itself.  In fact, the Palestinian conflict is probably the only thing holding Israel together.  How ironic is that?

If the 1948 Arab-Israeli War didn't happened, Jewish land would had been a lot smaller.

How much smaller?  Would it have dropped from the 56% of Palestine that the UN partition offered all the way down to the 5% of Palestine that the Jews actually owned?  And what if the Arab population of that 56% hadn't fled as refugees?  Israel would have been founded and governed by a Jewish minority; hardly the birth of a democracy.

A thousand years ago, the land was considered Jewish land.

You're off by at least 1000 years.  However I suspect it will still matter more to you that it was Jewish land 2000 years ago than Muslim land 1000 years ago... or 100 years ago... or even 60 years ago.

The Arabs came along and conquered Palestine just like other peoples before them. What happened isn't new.

Of course it's new because in 1948:

- There were internationally recognised land and property archives specifiying who owned the invaded land;

- The UN was able to provide refuge to those forced from their properties;

- There was a Geneva Convention to protect the indigenous populations from being exterminated; and most importantly

- The invaders forced most of the non-Jewish population into indefinite statelessness rather than assimilate them.

When did conditions like those prevail during any of those previous invasions?

I boycott Palestinian products because of Hamas and the various terror organizations within the Palestinian terrorities.

Shouldn't be too difficult given that Israel has blockaded all exports out of Gaza since 2006, in open violation of international agreements.

Here's another fine example of Israel acting as the tail wagging the American dog and even smacking it in the face:

Quote[/b] ]Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said a telephone call he made to U.S. President George W. Bush last week forced Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to abstain in a U.N. vote on the Gaza war, leaving her "shamed."  Pouring on political bravado in a speech late Monday, Olmert said he demanded to talk to Bush with only 10 minutes to spare before a U.N. Security Council vote Thursday on a resolution opposed by Israel calling for an immediate cease-fire.

"When we saw that the secretary of state, for reasons we did not really understand, wanted to vote in favour of the U.N. resolution ... I looked for President Bush and they told me he was in Philadelphia making a speech," Olmert said.  "I said, 'I don't care. I have to talk to him now,'" Olmert said, describing Bush, who leaves office on January 20, as "an unparalleled friend" of Israel.

"They got him off the podium, brought him to another room and I spoke to him. I told him, 'You can't vote in favour of this resolution.' He said, 'Listen, I don't know about it, I didn't see it, I'm not familiar with the phrasing.'"  Olmert said he then told Bush: "'I'm familiar with it. You can't vote in favour.'  He gave an order to the secretary of state and she did not vote in favour of it -- a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organised and manoeuvred for. She was left pretty shamed and abstained on a resolution she arranged," Olmert said.

-- Reuters

The Israeli PM ordered the US President not to support a UN resolution that the US actually helped to draft and then publicly boasted about shaming the American Sec of State.  Just incredible!

Btw, the resolution was passed 14:0 with 1 abstention.