IDF have told The Times they expect to invade Gaza this weekend.

  On 11/17/2012 at 4:30 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 11/17/2012 at 3:27 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8DPlfB9o1M[/media]

 

i used to be very interested in this guy but i have to be honest he is increasingly annoying and makes me curious as to whether he is trying to push an "angle"

he's very similar to your buddy chosmky in a way that he cherry picks the facts to construct a clean anti-israeli narrative. he doesn't mention the fact that rockets were falling throughout the whole 2012, not just this last escalation. https://en.wikipedia...,_2012#November

he picks that wild rumor that jabari was assassinated because he was negotiating a cease fire as an absolute fact. the bombing of the funeral processions is something he must have imagined, as i have been following this quite thoroughly and haven't seen one mention of it.

  On 11/17/2012 at 2:02 PM, sirch said:

  On 11/17/2012 at 7:09 AM, azatoth said:

Nuke the whole place into a glass crater. If they can't share, no one gets it.

 

Yeaaah! Nuclear Weapons!, just what is needed !!

 

 

wtf

Both sides cherry pick. I'm not going to get into it right now but we'd be better off dropping all the debate and instead focusing our efforts on reconciling both sides with one another. There's too much hate between and there is, as far as I can see, only one possible method for solving this.

We need both sides to be enlightened, or to come into visions of peace and prosperity, and care for each other. This is not solved by constant debate, bickering, or TV broadcasts. As long as "unrealistic" statements like mine are laughed off, people will die. The blame, I think, is upon any given person who is unable to think outside the box. This includes all commentators and writers who fail to choose the middle path and instead fight for a "team" in the conflict. Since Palestine is in the smaller position, it is still more beneficial to speak on their behalf, thus to say Finkelstein is annoying is to miss the point entirely.

  Quote

For most Israelis the occupation is a means to an end rather than an end in itself. The end is security - sure there are some people in Israel who just want the land, but although they are powerful politically they are not and never were the majority. In the past there has been popular support for peace initiatives and there has been a willingness to give land for peace (see Sinai, Gaza). Israel has made two substantial peace proposals to the Palestinians that were either rejected or unanswered. In return for territorial concessions, Israel either got continued conflict (Gaza) or a cold, flimsy peace treaty that looks like it could break at any second (Egypt). These reasons are why most Israelis today don't believe peace is possible, and if peace isn't possible you might as well not give up anything for it. Peace will be possible when the political realities for both Israelis and Palestinians align, and a compromise is feasible.

  On 11/17/2012 at 4:22 PM, eugene said:

well i gave you the context - the international legitimacy. i was speaking only hypothetically about hamas' annihilation, obviously it is connected to gaza population, most of the west would love for it to be replaced with palestinian authority.

What the West wants, isn't really important, imo. It's about what the people in Gaza want. The conflict won't be solved by complying to what the West wants. Or to what Israel wants. It's about coming to a solution which respects both sides of the (same) coin.

  Quote

the diplomatic steps are numerous negotiations via egypt that stopped the escalations (there were many after "cast lead") for short periods of time, but i guess those were becoming more and more unsustainable.

the palestinians often like to present palestine as a whole, west bank and gaza, but on the ground it's two different entities and that's how israel sees it. west bank settlements have no effect on life in gaza (there are none in gaza in case you might not know it), though they can always be brought up as an excuse for something by hamas or other groups. hamas and other groups in gaza consider the whole of israel as occupied palestine, the concept of pre-67 borders doesn't really exists for them, you can often see them referring to israeli cities (within the green line) as occupied ashdod or the settlement of ashdod, for example. there were some overtures about long term cease fire but it was conditioned with full right of return which is unrealistic.

It's funny to see Egypt openly supporting the Palestinians the way they did. Especially considering their strategical position in the conflict. I can imagine the Israelis having a hard time keeping open talks with Egypt.

Thanks for answering, btw.

from what i've heard, the two-state solution is impossible. zionists want to build their zionist empire in israel, no matter what. what they're doing right now, i personnally don't get it. what's coming in the next months, or years, that's a big question mark.

  On 11/17/2012 at 4:22 PM, eugene said:

the palestinians often like to present palestine as a whole, west bank and gaza, but on the ground it's two different entities and that's how israel sees it. west bank settlements have no effect on life in gaza (there are none in gaza in case you might not know it), though they can always be brought up as an excuse for something by hamas or other groups. hamas and other groups in gaza consider the whole of israel as occupied palestine, the concept of pre-67 borders doesn't really exists for them, you can often see them referring to israeli cities (within the green line) as occupied ashdod or the settlement of ashdod, for example. there were some overtures about long term cease fire but it was conditioned with full right of return which is unrealistic.

the palestinians don't just "like" to see the west bank and gaza as a whole, so does international law (cough, oslo accords). i agree they are now "two different entities" but this is the direct result of israeli occupation. the pre-67 borders "don't exist" in any meaningful way at all but not because hamas says they don't see them...i mean, just look at any UN consensus on the occupied territories; it's not hamas fucking it up, it's israel occupying the land with complete disregard for international law.

edit: *backflips out of israeli/palestine thread*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DVZfgIsDjiE

reminds me of half life

  On 11/17/2012 at 5:56 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

from what i've heard, the two-state solution is impossible. zionists want to build their zionist empire in israel, no matter what. what they're doing right now, i personnally don't get it. what's coming in the next months, or years, that's a big question mark.

On the flipside entities like Hamas and Hezbollah want to expel every Jew from the region. It's extreme Zionists versus extreme Islamists. The two-state solution is being derailed by both Arabs and Israelis, and their staunchly arrogant allies (Islamic governments and political parties, American and European Christians and Jewish lobbying groups). There's potential when their governments alone try to workout statehood for Palestinians and maintaining the statehood of Israel. It really is just religion that fucks up any chance at peace and compromise.

  On 11/17/2012 at 6:49 PM, joshuatx said:

  On 11/17/2012 at 5:56 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

from what i've heard, the two-state solution is impossible. zionists want to build their zionist empire in israel, no matter what. what they're doing right now, i personnally don't get it. what's coming in the next months, or years, that's a big question mark.

 

On the flipside entities like Hamas and Hezbollah want to expel every Jew from the region. It's extreme Zionists versus extreme Islamists. The two-state solution is being derailed by both Arabs and Israelis, and their staunchly arrogant allies. There's potential when their governments alone try to workout statehood for Palestinians and maintaining the statehood of Israel. It really is just religion that fucks up any chance at peace and compromise.

Well said. Agreed.

  On 11/17/2012 at 4:43 PM, eugene said:

  On 11/17/2012 at 4:30 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 11/17/2012 at 3:27 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8DPlfB9o1M[/media]

 

i used to be very interested in this guy but i have to be honest he is increasingly annoying and makes me curious as to whether he is trying to push an "angle"

he's very similar to your buddy chosmky in a way that he cherry picks the facts to construct a clean anti-israeli narrative. he doesn't mention the fact that rockets were falling throughout the whole 2012, not just this last escalation. https://en.wikipedia...,_2012#November

he picks that wild rumor that jabari was assassinated because he was negotiating a cease fire as an absolute fact. the bombing of the funeral processions is something he must have imagined, as i have been following this quite thoroughly and haven't seen one mention of it.

oh fuck off. Chomsky is not my "buddy".

  On 11/17/2012 at 5:00 PM, vamos scorcho said:

Both sides cherry pick. I'm not going to get into it right now but we'd be better off dropping all the debate and instead focusing our efforts on reconciling both sides with one another. There's too much hate between and there is, as far as I can see, only one possible method for solving this.

 

We need both sides to be enlightened, or to come into visions of peace and prosperity, and care for each other. This is not solved by constant debate, bickering, or TV broadcasts. As long as "unrealistic" statements like mine are laughed off, people will die. The blame, I think, is upon any given person who is unable to think outside the box. This includes all commentators and writers who fail to choose the middle path and instead fight for a "team" in the conflict. Since Palestine is in the smaller position, it is still more beneficial to speak on their behalf, thus to say Finkelstein is annoying is to miss the point entirely.

Im positive I didn't miss the point. If you go into Finkelstein's background and authorship you start seeing that he is way too emotionally involved to be considered a top academic on the subject. There are numerous interviews of him literally throwing childlike temper tantrums. The guy has psychological issues is all. He still can make a valid point from time to time. I just get increasingly disillusioned when people refer to him as the expert on the whole Israeli-Palestine situation.

But yeah, this conflict is beyond the "picking sides" point. 500 years more constant warfare and missile strikes/assassinations/bombings? Hey, as long as Team A/B is still in the fight!

I wish he was mine. Would be an interesting person to call up and ask questions.

i totally thought you guys were bffs???

@ sr4

  On 11/17/2012 at 5:36 PM, goDel said:

  On 11/17/2012 at 4:22 PM, eugene said:

well i gave you the context - the international legitimacy. i was speaking only hypothetically about hamas' annihilation, obviously it is connected to gaza population, most of the west would love for it to be replaced with palestinian authority.

 

What the West wants, isn't really important, imo. It's about what the people in Gaza want. The conflict won't be solved by complying to what the West wants. Or to what Israel wants. It's about coming to a solution which respects both sides of the (same) coin.

 

  Quote

the diplomatic steps are numerous negotiations via egypt that stopped the escalations (there were many after "cast lead") for short periods of time, but i guess those were becoming more and more unsustainable.

the palestinians often like to present palestine as a whole, west bank and gaza, but on the ground it's two different entities and that's how israel sees it. west bank settlements have no effect on life in gaza (there are none in gaza in case you might not know it), though they can always be brought up as an excuse for something by hamas or other groups. hamas and other groups in gaza consider the whole of israel as occupied palestine, the concept of pre-67 borders doesn't really exists for them, you can often see them referring to israeli cities (within the green line) as occupied ashdod or the settlement of ashdod, for example. there were some overtures about long term cease fire but it was conditioned with full right of return which is unrealistic.

 

It's funny to see Egypt openly supporting the Palestinians the way they did. Especially considering their strategical position in the conflict. I can imagine the Israelis having a hard time keeping open talks with Egypt.

 

Thanks for answering, btw.

what palestinians in gaza want is well known as they voted hamas in, and it still enjoys popular support.

current egypt government is very populist and simply cannot not support gaza, it also cannot sever its ties with the west which hang on the peace treaty with israel.

  On 11/17/2012 at 5:56 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

from what i've heard, the two-state solution is impossible. zionists want to build their zionist empire in israel, no matter what. what they're doing right now, i personnally don't get it. what's coming in the next months, or years, that's a big question mark.

you've heard incorrectly and have a poor understanding of what a zionist is. 99% of israeli jews are zionist and much more than half of them support two state solution, plus 20% of israel's population are arabs who also support the two state solution pretty much unanimously. the current government doesn't support it though, or at least not the internationally recognized initiatives like clinton's.

  On 11/17/2012 at 6:03 PM, Alcofribas said:

  On 11/17/2012 at 4:22 PM, eugene said:

the palestinians often like to present palestine as a whole, west bank and gaza, but on the ground it's two different entities and that's how israel sees it. west bank settlements have no effect on life in gaza (there are none in gaza in case you might not know it), though they can always be brought up as an excuse for something by hamas or other groups. hamas and other groups in gaza consider the whole of israel as occupied palestine, the concept of pre-67 borders doesn't really exists for them, you can often see them referring to israeli cities (within the green line) as occupied ashdod or the settlement of ashdod, for example. there were some overtures about long term cease fire but it was conditioned with full right of return which is unrealistic.

 

the palestinians don't just "like" to see the west bank and gaza as a whole, so does international law (cough, oslo accords). i agree they are now "two different entities" but this is the direct result of israeli occupation. the pre-67 borders "don't exist" in any meaningful way at all but not because hamas says they don't see them...i mean, just look at any UN consensus on the occupied territories; it's not hamas fucking it up, it's israel occupying the land with complete disregard for international law.

 

edit: *backflips out of israeli/palestine thread*

if international law worked here you would see israel and palestine side by side in 47 partion plan borders. it's just meaningless here. the reason for two entities instead of one palestinian authority is the hamas' takeover of gaza, not israeli occupation, it left gaza in 2005. the "international law" cannot guarantee that israel will not be attacked if it retreats to pre-67 borders, so israel is not willing to risk it. gaza pullout is a good example, quite simple really.

  On 11/17/2012 at 6:49 PM, joshuatx said:

  On 11/17/2012 at 5:56 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

from what i've heard, the two-state solution is impossible. zionists want to build their zionist empire in israel, no matter what. what they're doing right now, i personnally don't get it. what's coming in the next months, or years, that's a big question mark.

 

On the flipside entities like Hamas and Hezbollah want to expel every Jew from the region. It's extreme Zionists versus extreme Islamists. The two-state solution is being derailed by both Arabs and Israelis, and their staunchly arrogant allies (Islamic governments and political parties, American and European Christians and Jewish lobbying groups). There's potential when their governments alone try to workout statehood for Palestinians and maintaining the statehood of Israel. It really is just religion that fucks up any chance at peace and compromise.

the problem isn't religion, the problem is what some people who claim to represent a religion do. the state of israel is illegitimate and has always been, that's the real problem. now, zionists are not trying to find a peaceful solution, they're in war. the nature of palestinian institutions seems complex. if anyone cares to bring light to this subject, it's appreciated.

  On 11/17/2012 at 6:58 PM, eugene said:

  On 11/17/2012 at 5:56 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

from what i've heard, the two-state solution is impossible. zionists want to build their zionist empire in israel, no matter what. what they're doing right now, i personnally don't get it. what's coming in the next months, or years, that's a big question mark.

 

you've heard incorrectly and have a poor understanding of what a zionist is. 99% of israeli jews are zionist and much more than half of them support two state solution, plus 20% of israel's population are arabs who also support the two state solution pretty much unanimously. the current government doesn't support it though, or at least not the internationally recognized initiatives like clinton's.

i meant the zionist government and zionist lobbies, not population. i'm well aware that carpenters and bakers have nothing to do with the government's decisions. :p

the israeli governments were always zionist, Begin's right wing government was zionist and gave up sinai, Rabin's 2nd left wing government was also zionist and it signed peace agreement with jordan and palestinians. if you don't know what zionism is why do you insist on using the term ? and in what way israel is illegitimate ?

  On 11/17/2012 at 7:31 PM, eugene said:

the israeli governments were always zionist, Begin's right wing government was zionist and gave up sinai, Rabin's 2nd left wing government was also zionist and it signed peace agreement with jordan and palestinians. if you don't know what zionism is why do you insist on using the term ? and in what way israel is illegitimate ?

i guess i'll have to dig into the history of israeli governments. it looks like there are a few things i'm not aware of, thanks for the info!

my point of view on israel's legitimacy is very simple, and pretty much most people's feeling about israel: the land of palestine doesn't exclusively belong to the jewish people, some people decided it was exclusively theirs. i won't go further into this as i see my knowledge on the matter is very limited.

Just watch the BBC docu Compson posted on the first page in this thread. It's a good docu.

  On 11/17/2012 at 8:05 PM, goDel said:

Just watch the BBC docu Compson posted on the first page in this thread. It's a good docu.

thanks. fuck jews btw

just kidding. we're all friends here

If you want to solve the crisis, slip some MDMA and LSD into their water supply.

  On 11/17/2012 at 6:56 PM, Alcofribas said:

i totally thought you guys were bffs???

 

@ sr4

well shame on you for believing what you read in the tabloids