m_shortpants
Member
Some would argue that when you elect Bibi and Likud you renounce the same thing.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Breaking: Israel launches Operation Protective Edge against Hamas in Gaza
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
Some would argue that when you elect Bibi and Likud you renounce the same thing.
So it's all right for the Palestinians to have a democracy as long as they choose the corrupt government we picked out for them.
So you're saying, they can have a democracy, as long as they elect people we like?
But listen, if you think that a Palestinian state is this unacceptable existential threat (which is ridiculous by the way, Israel was surrounded all of its existence by countries with tanks who wanted to destroy it, Israel know how to deal with tanks pretty damn well) then fine, give them citizenship in Israel and be done with it.
You cannot justify keeping millions of people without basic human rights because they might do something bad in the future.
RustyNails
Member
JordanN
Banned
One continues to indoctrinate its people to wipe out Jews and starts frivolous wars. The other is just delusional.
When Israel makes a terrorist list, then you might have a comparison.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Two post colonial internet heroes Finkelstein and Chomsky both oppose BDS. Its not doing anything and won't gain traction beyond people already opposed to Israel
as Finkelstein said
Again, you don't get to deny basic human rights from millions of people in perpetuity because some of them (Hamas got 44% of the vote in the 2006 election) voted for someone you really really don't like.
I see two ways Israel ever move toward peace -
Boycott or blood.
I hope it's the former.
m_shortpants
Member
Israel is known all over the world for breaking numerous international laws, imprisoning children, nuclear proliferation, and much more. State policy is literally to beat Palestinians into submission without drawing too much international attention. The word "terrorist" is up for interpretation in the eyes of many.
Also, you may want to look up Irgun and their history in Israel's existence. They were labelled as a terrorist organization.
Why would they need Israels permission to send UN aid workers or military to Palestine? They'd only need Palestinian agreement which they would get. And the economic and trade sanctions could absolutely hurt Israel. They have big industries in the export of tech products, electronic and biomedical equipment, agricultural produce, processed foods, chemicals, transport equipment etc. Not forgetting their diamond trade which is among the largest in the world. Add to that they don't have much in the way of natural resources, so importing would be of major concern if sanctions applied too.
You can keep pretending it wouldn't do anything all you want, but that assumption just does not seem logical to me. Obviously it'd make a difference, otherwise the US wouldn't be vetoing in the first place, and Israel wouldn't have such a massive issue with Palestine becoming a full member state either.
Honestly, I think had the US not consistently vetoed these resolutions, it would have paved the way to make a big difference, and the global ramifications would have been more widespread too.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
There is a huge problem with collective punishment but self-defense doctrine does allow a country to deny temporary rights that are not essential, temporarily.
The issue becomes "temporarily"
I think that's your fatalism.
It's been half a century.
I said many times, morally I think both two states and one state solution, but when you have people who were born and die without basic human rights, this whole "we're working on it" argument becomes problematic (especially since Israel is not working on it in earnest and hasn't for a while).
dripdripsplash
Member
You purposely (or you simply just don't know) leave out that Jewish extremists have planned to destroy the Dome of the Rock.
You are using a bullshit arguement that somehow tries to paint the narrative of the palestinian side that act in an irrational way. A way which cannot be predicted and does not follow any logic for they are not rational and therefore cannot be trusted in self determination for 'who knows what they might do if they got it'.
An outright offensive claim.
RustyNails
Member
That is because Hamas = Taliban and all angry muslim groups are the same
hukasmokincaterpillar
Member
All the same arguments were made against the South Africa boycott, including Chomsky at the time. Credit to him for remaining consistent after all these years.
There is no political will to evacuate settlements right now, and I don't see it change any time soon.
Israel continue to trend rightwards, and it's hard to imagine anything changing it, even most of its so called left has pretty much abandoned the peace process as unworkable (read: electoral liability).
p.s.
Israel would withdraw from all the west bank 5 minutes after a south African style boycott is imposed.
People hate the Palestinians in Israel, but they don't really love the settlers, if they have to choose between a vacation in Europe and the settlements, they'll choose the former, easily.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Who controls Palestine?
You absolutely correct about Israel could be hurt by sanctions. As would the rest of the world. which is why they won't happen. And again it goes against the rhetoric against the blockade and collective punishment. It says those aren't complaints that apply to all, its only for those we deem as deserving or not.
The US vetos because of domestic considerations and for other benefits it gets from Israel (intelligence, knowledge on how to fight middle eastern wars, economic trade, etc.)
All I'm saying is like all the conflicts over territory outside parties won't solve it. I'm trying to rid you of the illusion if you just convince enough people of your side things will change.
See ETA, Ireland, Twain, Tibet, Kashmir, Cyprus, Caucuses, Ukraine, Georgia.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I'm glad you think that.
Things change. I don't see it happening anytime soon but I think it can happen. I don't see it soon either sadly. I mean the gaza withdraw was impossible until it happened. (that was less than 10 years ago too)
As I said, the problem becomes 'temporarily'.
None, the UN doesn't intervene. It can authorize states to protect states. Which has to go through the security council. And all 5 veto members would be opposed to intervention.
JordanN
Banned
There's been historical precedent of jewish holy sites being destroyed before Israel took over Jerusalem.
Jewish tombstones were smashed and used to make pavement.
When Israel gave up Gaza, the first things to be destroyed where the greenhouses which later got converted to weaponry.
The rest of the world would barely feel an Israeli boycott, let's not get crazy here.
And while yeah, it is a collective punishment and will hurt innocent people, you got to weigh that against the million of people who are hurt by Israel in much more meaningful ways.
And again, it wouldn't even come to that, the threat of a boycott would be enough.
Look at history, all it took was for best Bush to threaten not giving Israel loan guarantees for a much more ideologically rigid right wing government (Netnayahu is a spineless political opportunist) to freeze the settlement and head to a peace conference they were adamant they won't attend.
Well, I'm not going to get into the discussion because I can easily get carried away and you all know my thoughts, anyway. I can only contribute by saying Hamas fired over 150 rockets in a single day, which brings back memories from the day that triggered operation Pillar of Defence. The talk on the street is to get in and clean Gaza from weapons, and transfer control over to the Palestinian Authority or the U.N.
That's because Hamas acquired over 10,000 rockets, thousands of them that can reach central Israel, including the beating heart, Tel-Aviv, which is the city Hamas is threatening to attack today.
I'll attach three videos from the interceptions. Important to note: interceptions only occur when the system recognizes the missile is going to hit populated area. Other missiles are left to explode in the open fields.
Ashdod - four interceptions
Ashdod - seven straight interceptions
Unknown - two from a city close to Gaza and three in Netivot
That's because Hamas acquired over 10,000 rockets, thousands of them that can reach central Israel, including the beating heart, Tel-Aviv, which is the city Hamas is threatening to attack today.
I'll attach three videos from the interceptions. Important to note: interceptions only occur when the system recognizes the missile is going to hit populated area. Other missiles are left to explode in the open fields.
Ashdod - four interceptions
Ashdod - seven straight interceptions
Unknown - two from a city close to Gaza and three in Netivot
It's not a collective punishment without due course though. It'd be a, stop the occupation and expansion or face sanctions warning, which in this instance would be fair (under international law and conventions) and one of the few ways to ensure Israel complied. Money talks at the end of the day, and the threat alone would probably be enough. And the rest of the world would barely feel it. It'd be Israel that hurt from it.
And the "who controls Palestine?" question receives the answer it does today because these things never happened. If UN aid workers and military were in the non occupied regions of Palestine way back, there's no way Israel would have had the gall to bring their bulldozers and military and start breaking shit down, or driving Palestinians out of their land. Not a chance in hell. If they did they would essentially be directly clashing with and challenging the UN, and indirectly the rest of the world.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
So collective punishment is good if the good outweighs the bad. I would imagine that argument can't be used by the other side.
The world will never support a boycott. I don't know what world people advocating it are living in where its a reality.
And what did bibi do there? Nothing.
"Stop the rockets and voting for Hamas and we'll talk to you and stop military action" see its not collective punishment!
Yes money talks which is why industry will oppose Israeli sanctions. Their tech sector is the biggest thing preventing any action in that sphere and the fact that people like Israel by and large. They oppose the settlements.
And I thought we're talking about how the UN can help the palestinians now? And I think your wrong about history the UN doesn't fight or fire their weapons. How many times in history have they been ignored?
The numbers on wikipedia for 2013 population growth rates (not just birth rates) show that Jews are at 6.1 million and a rate of 1.7% and Arabs at 1.7 million and 2.2%. Those will not intersect for a very, very, very long time if the rates remain the same.
The Haredi population alone is actually growing at twice the rate of Israeli Arabs and will surpass them in two decades at the current rate.
The numbers say there will not be a change in majority type. I am certain there are other factors in play that I certainly hold little knowledge of, but all I did here was look at the numbers given.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel
Collective punishment is never "good".
But sometime it's the best option you have.
Like, do you think the sanctions against Apartheid were a bad thing?
If not, let's stop arguing in the abstract and tell me what you think we should do instead, because you have millions of people living there without basic human rights.
As I said, I don't see any other way to move Israel politically outside a lot of violence (that would have to also affect regular Israelis, which it currently doesn't).
And again, I don't think you have to do some really crippling sanctions to get that shit done.
So you're against the boycott because it's a terrible collective punishment and also it will never work?
Come on now, argue this issue honestly.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I think apartheid is vastly different than what's going on. I think you have a general civil rights problem in Israel the state that's more similar to the other minorities like Blacks in the US and Religious minorities in Islamic countries and a territorial dispute thats similar to western Sahara or Tibet (and historically with Britain in India and Ireland) rather than south Africa . Liberman wants bantustans though, but he's an idiot.
What should we do? I don't think there's much the world can do. I've said only Israelis and Palestinians will solve the problem. I don't know how to move israelis. I just know the sanctions aren't in the cards.
I'm against BSD because its antisemitic, unworkable and ineffective.
The collective punishment lines were to say why its not happening. I was saying what your opening yourself to. As you've demonstrated you have to walk back 'firm principles' and say your going to selectively apply it to Israel because it meets your qualifications (so in essence your singling out Israel which is what so many people go out of their way to claim they're not). That's not going to get people to agree.
The reality is people like Israel's existence, they want a Jewish state. The BSD is 'ambivalent on that question' (read they can't say what they really think). Work within that reality. Going back to the horrible south African analogy. People don't like white nationalism. Much easier to say a obvious wrong is a wrong. A jewish state as being wrong? Yea.... well...
hukasmokincaterpillar
Member
It's the truth silly. Chomsky was against the SA boycott for the same exact reasons.
The same arguments were made by both left and right, including collective punishment. But a post Geneva world couldn't abide apartheid. The question is if that precedent still means anything. BDS, starting in 2005, continues to gain momentum.
speculawyer
Member
Here is the Reza Aslan interview if you want to hear it. Quality is not good. I'm sure you can find the MP3 if you want that instead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QMS5e_55f3I#t=3370
I think you're being massively naive here and overstating the importance of Israels exports or trade to the rest of the world. Bare in mind we're talking on the basis that the US never vetoed these resolutions, so we're also talking in respect of decades ago.
Also, you completely missed my point about UN aid workers and military being there on official capacity. They wouldn't ever need to fight back or fire a single bullet because Israel would never attempt to aggressively occupy or attack a village, town or region the UN were properly stationed in.
Also, UN military peacekeeping outfits do have the capacity to retaliate or engage in combat, and have in the past. Though I'm not saying that would happen in this instance. Israel would never risk a such a confrontation in the first place, provided there was a fully backed initiative for the UN to be there mind.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25340024
I stand corrected, thank you!
Ok then, time for plan B: International Boycott of Israel, South Africa style!
I only brought up Apartheid to show that collective punishment like economic sanctions can be justified.
But since you raised that issue, no historical analogy is perfect, but I think Apartheid is the closest thing you got to what's going on in the west bank. It is achieved through different mechanism, but the end result is alarmingly similar - a small ethnic minority with full human rights and big majority of natives who don't get to vote.
Inside the '67 borders it's closer to Jim Crow.
Also, the Palestinian are in a rather unique situation, they are citizens of no country, this is very different than what going in places like Tibet or went in places like Ireland.
What do you mean the BSD is antisemitic?
Wouldn't shock me to find out that some of its supporter are antisemitic, but many of them aren't, myself included.
Also, what does having a Jewish state mean?
Israel is unwilling to really define it.
The only thing BSD promote is equal rights to all its citizens, are you against that?
Whether or not it's workable, we'll see, I agree it's a long shot at this point, but as the only other alternative is keeping millions of people without human rights and violence, I think it's worth a shot.
m_shortpants
Member
So, so many drive by posts.
I think it's BDS by the way guys, not BSD. Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Not sure about BDS in particular, but I find the notion that UN mandated sanctions could be antisemitic as laughable, though I'm not sure if he included UN sanctions in that point.
Sanctions have been imposed on countries/governments for continually or severely breaking international laws for aeons. Nothing racist or whatever about it. In the same way the sanctions on Syria aren't antisemitic either. It's more about politics, and pursuing and/or pressuring for policy change, than it is racism or bigotry.
Sanctions have been imposed on countries/governments for continually or severely breaking international laws for aeons. Nothing racist or whatever about it. In the same way the sanctions on Syria aren't antisemitic either. It's more about politics, and pursuing and/or pressuring for policy change, than it is racism or bigotry.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
We've discussed BSD. Its antisemetic because its goal is the end of Israel. At least with its 'ambivalence' about the question of the recognition of Israel
I don't think the bolded is what it stands for. I'm against what they call "equal rights for all citizens" because they define that to be something besides "equal rights"
speculawyer
Member
Berkeley Software Distribution?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Well the UN has dabbled in antisemitism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379
Youre right though I didn't say sanctions were antisemitic by themselves and that's not my problem with BDS being antisemitic.
benjipwns
Banned
I tend to think that sanctions don't really hurt the ruling regimes as much as they do the people.
South Africa's an interesting case because in many ways the Apartheid regime didn't need to give up power when it did but it chose to. I think that has much more to do with the background of those in power (like say, the English liberal tradition/European anti-colonialism) than the sanctions imposed on the entire nation.
There's no "holy land" and so on aspect* to it, so the Apartheid regime was able to basically read the demographics and the situation and preempt a future revolution. They prevented the costs to themselves from escalating to something like Zimbabwe or elsewhere.
EDIT: *not to mention the 70 years of fairly open warfare
Where is its goal the end of Israel? Where are you getting this from?
Here's what's written on the site. Unless you're referring to something else?
http://www.bdsmovement.net/call
To me the above simply means ending the illegal occupation and settlements, which by international law would not include Israel itself. Just the Palestinian territories (as internationally recognised). That and giving Palestinians their proper human rights.
neurosisxeno
Member
Because it's not 100% favorable to Israel? If Israel were to face no international backlash I have 0 doubt they would push the Palestinians right into the Sea.
What are you basing this all on?
They're advocating "Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality".
I mean sure, you might argue it's all just phase one, and once phase one is complete, they'll show their final form and demand boycott until the destruction of Israel or whatever, but surely, you don't think anyone would go along with this, right?
They'll move public opinion and they'll do it quick.
Again, see best Bush pressure on Israel through the loan guarantees in the early 90s.
You've seen a 40% public opinion swing and government bent to pressure real quick.
Smiles and Cries
Member
I never feel good about this stuff
I wonder how true this this lecture is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9Q_8ZrYku4
I wonder how true this this lecture is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9Q_8ZrYku4
NYCmetsfan
Banned
1 and 3.
I don't know what they are terming 'arab land' and the right of return is a dubious proposition for anybody but those alive in 48-49.
What the hell are you on about? That resolution is internationally accepted and acknowledged. If anything by saying Palestine does not have rights to the land, land that has and is continually being occupied/stolen, you are instead promoting the current illegal settlements and occupation, against international law.
Are you suggesting that the land in question (outside of Israel, based on those borders) doesn't or shouldn't belong to the Palestinians?
I mean, I'm happy with them getting the 67 borders, but only because they're never getting better. That's just a compromise in trying to keep things fair to both parties.
curlyfriski
Banned
Where do you propose their descendants go?
Maninthemirror
Banned
The us liberation from british started with attacks on british too. Give me liberty or give me death is the motto of that time from a us politician. Surely you are not suggesting that the British ouster was wrong are you ?
At this point Israel's position is we cant go back to 67 or 49 borders because we have settlements there . Oh wait one more month gone lets out more settlements in this area , oh no 6 more months of no talks, shoots a gun and oh a build another settlement. Its creeping settlements built with a strategy around time wasting for more settlements and provoking more anger which extends time for peace talks and more settlements. By 2050 all of Palestinian land will be under Israel in the name of peace talks and concern for security. Hamas rockets are fireworks compared to Israeli missiles. The response is disproportionate when you consider the casualties always include civilians on Palestinian side despite guided weapons and when Hamas sends rockets unguided we hardly hear of civilian casualties due to their iron dome program
But the right of the Jews to return to the land the lived 2000 years ago is undeniable, right?
Don't get me wrong, the right of return pose many practical challenges, but morally, I don't see how Israel can argue against it with a straight face.
- Status