tungsten on 30/6/2006 at 03:03
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
Fight terror with terror? Wait, are we allowed to call the Israelis 'terrorists'? Where is the line drawn? Along some financial axis I'd wager... :rolleyes:
We have to get our divisions and declarations of groups and parties right, as you indicate. We have to stop calling them Israelis and Palestinians, Americans and Terrorists, ...
We have to put a wedge into the gap between those warmongers and the "normal" people who think violence and war are terrible.
To me, a Bush (who allows more and more policing/spying etc in his own country as well as is spreading violence abroad) is in
the same team as a Bin Laden (who is spreading hatred and violence, who is educating and financing those that are provoked by Bush).
They trample our values with feet, guns and bombs.
They both reduce our freedom (which isn't more important than other values).
We have to talk about barbarians and civilised people, no matter where they come from or what religion they have.
aguywhoplaysthief on 30/6/2006 at 04:32
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Of course
that isn't logical or practical, either; extremes rarely are. However, attacking a strawman does not constitute a defense of your stance.
By not responding, you are surrendering the right to justice of your own person/people so that the enemy can continue to live. That sounds like a concession to me.
I just don't think that not responding to attacks is going to make the enemy feel bad, it just makes them feel victorious, and makes them think you are weak, and then they will hit you again at the soonest opportunity.
Quote Posted by Pyrian
I'm not convinced that that's what is going on. You insinuate that these people were taken due to some reasonable evidence of involvement, but there's been no trial, no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not even a sense of probable cause. I doubt any of them would be eligible for being picked up in the U.S. on suspicion of kidnapping. (Obviously, I can't know that for sure, but can you, either?) Meanwhile, everyone in Palestine and most people in Europe are going to see this as Israel deliberately destabilizing Palestine, and you know what? I think they might very well be right.
From what I understood, they were taken for questioning, not imprisoned for involvement in the actual incident, by maybe I missed something.
The police pick up witnesses and suspects for interogation all the time - not that I'm comparing the Israel-Palestine war to an internal police action, but you know what I'm saying.
Pyrian on 30/6/2006 at 04:44
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
By not responding...
Would you please quit it with the strawmen? I'm not advocating doing
nothing. I warned against escalating violence. There's a huge gulf between "two eyes for an eye" and "turn the other cheek", and I've said repeatedly that neither extreme seems to me to be appropriate. If you want to defend disproportionate responses, compare them to proportionate ones rather than Christ's.
aguywhoplaysthief on 30/6/2006 at 07:18
If you'll notice, I didn't. Please respond to my current post.
Quote:
Would you please quit it with the strawmen?
Sure. I misunderstood your post.
The problem is here that no matter what the response is, it will be completely unacceptable for the other side. I've already mentioned what I don't agree with about the response, but as I've said before on these forums, the problem with this whole ordeal is the mentality. One person does one thing, the other does something else in response, etc. They try to get back for that one incident, which just doesn't work.
The strategy should be: what is the overall goal, and what is the best way to achieve it with acceptable results? I think Israel has, generally, been doing that of late. Unfortunately, it isn't enough to just take out the people directly involved with one incident, you have to go after the entire organization when provoked.
One side has done X, and then there's some cease-fire, and then that fails, and then there's more sporadic violence. Then it escalates, bigger shit happens, and then outsiders put on pressure, and there is another cease-fire. Rinse and repeat. There has been continual violence for decades because there has never been a winner.
scumble on 30/6/2006 at 09:24
Just remember there's a fine line between self-defense and active aggression, and that's where the problem really lies. Too often we've seen aggressive acts renamed as self-defense as a linguistic dodge from the truth.
Quote:
Certainly that can be true, but don't ignore the fact that non-aggression can beget aggression as well.
It really depends whether you're equating non-aggression with passivity. One can have a non-aggressive stance and still be ready to defend oneself. Speak softly and carry a big stick etc.
Quote Posted by Stitch
Did I miss something, or is this HUGE FUCKING ESCALATION? People more knowledgeable on this subject than me needed itt
In a way you could look at it as the status quo to be honest. The palestinians may have a government in name, bit it has no trousers. This is no different from Israelis arresting anyone else they suspect of having something to do with terrorism, they simply don't recognise any of it as viable, which is probably true. With Israel bolstered by outside support, there is no chance of an equal footing. Palestine has little in the way of resources, hence the perisistence of 4th-generation warfare, which Israel can never stop unless the militiary literally kills everyone.
I try to avoid taking sides now. Israel was dumped in a tricky position by the British and Americans and its government has made things worse, and the palestinian terrorists have done the same. Who knows what will force them to stop.
SD on 30/6/2006 at 10:37
Quote Posted by scumble
With Israel bolstered by outside support, there is no chance of an equal footing.
Quote:
Who knows what will force them to stop.
You pretty much answered your own question there.
The Israelis act with impunity because the support they get from the US makes them immune, as well as creating a feeling of injustice among the Palestinians.
If any other country in the Middle East had acted like the Israelis have this week, bombing power plants and bridges and water supplies, attempting to bring down a democratically elected government and generally showing a flagrant disregard for the Geneva Convention, then the USA would be halfway to invading Israel and enacting one of those regime changes that they're so fond of.
Sure, there's a fine line between self-defence and active aggression, but Israel has gone so far over the line that you can't even see the line, it's just a little blur in the distance.
This unconditional support for Israel needs to be withdrawn and a more even-handed approach adopted, otherwise we're just seeing the same mistakes repeated over and over again.
TheGreatGodPan on 30/6/2006 at 20:39
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
The Israelis act with impunity because the support they get from the US makes them immune, as well as creating a feeling of injustice among the Palestinians.
I think its military is strong enough that it could handle itself without the U.S. I do think our relationship is rather unhealthy in that it encourages dicking around and name-calling to third parties who are expected to make things right rather than trying to come up with a real solution to the problem.
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
If any other country in the Middle East had acted like the Israelis have this week, bombing power plants and bridges and water supplies, attempting to bring down a democratically elected government and generally showing a flagrant disregard for the Geneva Convention, then the USA would be halfway to invading Israel and enacting one of those regime changes that they're so fond of.
Come on, be more cynical. The U.S acts out of self interest, never out of regard for the fate of helpless people or violations of international law, right?
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Sure, there's a fine line between self-defence and active aggression, but Israel has gone so far over the line that you can't even see the line, it's just a little blur in the distance.
As long as they have (
http://volokh.com/posts/1148842099.shtml) failed female suicide bombers in prisons with conjugal visits permitted so they repeatedly give birth to children they claim will become suicide bombers, I'd say Israel has a ways to go before hitting the wanton-disregard-for-Palestinians phase. And as long as they're being attacked I'd say they have a claim to defense.
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
This unconditional support for Israel needs to be withdrawn and a more even-handed approach adopted, otherwise we're just seeing the same mistakes repeated over and over again.
I'll agree we need to cut off aid, because no matter how much I'd like to see Israel kick everybody out into countries with shaky regimes ripe for destabilization, American tax-dollars shouldn't pay for it.
Regarding the indiscriminate vs. targetted nature of Israeli strikes, you might find the link in my previous post interesting, as it goes into the decision to switch from tit-for-tat to all-out elimination of enemy hierarchies and the results (with nifty graphs too!).
Epos Nix on 30/6/2006 at 21:03
Quote:
I think its military is strong enough that it could handle itself without the U.S.
I don't think he was referring to military might alone. So long as the US holds veto power amongst the UN, Israel will never be punished. Over the past few years the US has used its veto power to protect Israel from any condemnation for its actions (
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May-June_2005/0505014.html) a total of 39 times.
dj_ivocha on 30/6/2006 at 21:13
That's certainly... interesting! :eek:
But to put this in perspective, I'd be interested to know how many times (and for what) have the US NOT used their veto power to protect Israel, if at all.
Epos Nix on 30/6/2006 at 21:39
(
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/sctoc.html) Here's a list of resolutions pertaining to the middle-east and Israel. I have no clue how many pertain strictly to condemning Israeli actions but between 1972 (the first time the US used its power) to 2005 there are about 100 or so listed. Of those 39 got axed by the US, all pertaining to Israel.
So to answer your question, more than a third of the time the US used its veto power. Pretty signifigant considering the US has used that power a total of about (
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0311-10.htm) 75 times in the past :erg:
