wtf is a person supposed to actually do about israel murdering hundreds of innocent civilians.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/30/world-disgrace-gaza-un-shelter-school-israel

  On 7/30/2014 at 11:38 PM, joshuatx said:

I want Israel to defend itself in a just and reasonable manner.

what's that exactly?

in other news, a celebrity has an opinion about a hot topic, more at 11.

happens to be a reasonable and credible opinion, his celebrity status notwithstanding.

does brian eno care about whats going on in syria or across africa or south america or the numerous other places in the world where people are dying, being killed, raped, and/or tortured, or does he only care about it when the media talks about it, which they only seem to do when white people or jews are involved?

  On 7/31/2014 at 1:03 AM, MisterE said:

does brian eno care about whats going on in syria or across africa or south america or the numerous other places in the world where people are dying, being killed, raped, and/or tortured, or does he only care about it when the media talks about it, which they only seem to do when white people or jews are involved?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu3lYK6OmMI

I don't know why are people spend so much energy picking sides.

None of the two parts seem to have any interest to minimize the collision course or wants to face any sort of concessions. The shitty part is obviously that it's the civilians who have to sacrifice because of it.

But fuck the leaders of Hamas and Isreali government... They don't give a shit. And therefore I doubt there's much there can be done by outsiders, as cynical as that sounds.

But there are conflicts around the world there are just as terrible or even more, that never gets the same sort of attention the Gaza strip does (Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia and even Mexico for example).

exactly

palestinian death toll is pretty light compared to other death tolls out there, but in lots of those cases, both sides are darker skinned, and they have no threads full of sympathy for the victims or daily international news coverage. why?

Realistically, I don't think there's a damn thing I can do about this. At the very least it's made me aware of how savage Netanyahu and his regime are. I've had doubts about the morality of the Israeli government before, but their latest campaign has confirmed my distrust.
The frustrating part is why Washington is still sending them weapons, yet the UN don't seem to have the balls to intervene...what a fucking mess

And you contrast this with how anal/nasty they are being about russia at the moment. Sanctions et al. It really doesn't take long for the elite to be obviously and directly hypocritical, never long at all.

  On 7/31/2014 at 8:35 AM, ambermonk said:

The frustrating part is why Washington is still sending them weapons

Because the military industrial complex runs most of the globe and weapons/war are this essentially this country's only export anymore.

A case could be made that geopolitical crises are encouraged/instigated by Washington specifically to sell guns, bombs, & drones.

baby killing stimulus program. You know you could just rebuild your road network or erect some high speed rail or something.

http://rt.com/news/176852-bolivia-israel-terrorist-state/

''bolivia declares israel terrorist state, scraps visa exemption agreement''

this has been pretty much ignored by the uk media aswell. its crazy realising how free the media really is in this country, i was with 3000 people protesting the BBC's biased reporting on the situation in palestine, and that didnt even get a byline in the papers.

Phew! Just read the whole thread - these were the posts that interested me.

  On 7/24/2014 at 4:13 PM, chenGOD said:

There's an interesting (and not too long) article by Aaron David Miller in FP about why Israel and Hamas need each other.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/16/israel_and_hamas_need_each_other_palestine_gaza

 

Not sure if that's paywalled or not, so copy/pasta here.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

In her fascinating book A History of God, Karen Armstrong posits that the reason people believe in God is because God "works for them." That is to say, God is compelling because the idea of a divine being serves a useful purpose in people's lives. That utilitarian argument may be masked beneath a deep layer of spiritual devotion -- but it's a pragmatic decision all the same.

 

The same logic works, to a large degree, in explaining the motives and interests of Israel and Hamas toward one another. As the current Gaza conflict proves once again, these two actors -- in a perverse way -- need each other.

 

That's not to deny the enmity that marks the ties between Hamas and Israel, or the existential rhetoric that drives the tone of their public accusations. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that if Israeli and Hamas leaders had one wish, it would be to destroy the other. But in the practical world of Israeli-Palestinian politics, getting rid of one another is neither achievable -- nor perhaps even desirable. Indeed, because it's not an option, Israel and Hamas have not only made do with each other's existence, they have tried to figure out how to derive the maximum benefit from one another.

 

The Israeli-Hamas bond goes back to the very inception of the Palestinian Islamist organization. Israel didn't create Hamas in 1987, but in an effort to counter the more secular Fatah and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the 1970s, it gave a variety of Islamist groups political space and leeway. It even granted an operating license for an organization created by Hamas's founder, Ahmed Yassin. Paradoxically, Hamas's very reason for being depended on the existence of Israel -- even though its main aim was to destroy it.

 

One way to look at this is as a Middle Eastern form of mutually assured destruction. Hamas cannot destroy Israel, and Israel knows that it cannot reoccupy Gaza and eradicate the Islamist organization at a cost that it is willing to bear. So each actor uses the other for its own purposes.

 

For Israel, Hamas is a convenient address to achieve many of its short-term goals. In the strange world of controlled military confrontation, when it wants a cease-fire, it goes to Hamas, not to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. When it wants Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit released from captivity, it goes to Hamas, not Abbas. And when it needs to strike out in response to the brutal murders of three Israeli teens in the West Bank, it cracks down on Hamas -- whether or not the movement's leadership authorized the action. Hamas is a convenient target of attack -- and having applauded the kidnapping of the three boys, it is probably deserving as well.

 

Second, Israel needs Hamas in Gaza. Of course, it doesn't want a militant terrorist organization launching rockets at its cities and citizens. But a Hamas that maintains order there and provides a hedge against even more radical jihadi groups is preferable to a lawless vacuum. Indeed, fewer rockets were fired from Gaza in 2013 than in any year since 2001. I've often pondered why al Qaeda has never been able to set up shop in an effective manner in Gaza, or undertake a terrorist extravaganza in Israel.

 

The absence of an al Qaeda presence is not only a result of the Israeli security presence -- it's due to the determination of Palestinians not to allow the jihadists to hijack their cause.

The last thing Israel wants is a vacuum in Gaza. In fact, Giora Eiland, former head of Israel's National Security Council, argues that it's in Israel's interest that Gaza be stable, with a strong economy and central authority. Indeed, Eiland argues, a statelike structure can be held responsible in the event of a confrontation: Israel could attack national infrastructure, not just rocket launchers.

 

Third, Hamas presents a wonderful bogeyman for those Israelis looking to avoid dealing with the questions of how to make the two-state solution a reality. Hamas's hostile and frequently anti-Semitic rhetoric is a gift to Israeli right-wingers, providing them with any number of talking points about why Israel can never trust Palestinians.

 

The problem posed by Hamas is not just a piece of propaganda by the Israeli right. The fact is that the absence of a monopoly over the organized use of violence in the Palestinian territories poses a legitimate threat to a two-state solution. What Israeli is going to make what are regarded as existential concessions to Mahmoud Abbas -- a Palestinian leader who lacks the power to silence all the guns and rockets of Palestine?

 

Finally, Hamas -- particularly its military wing -- also thrives on the existence of Israel. Hamas's very legitimacy is derived from an ideology and strategy steeped in confrontation and resistance. However self-destructive the ideology may be, the movement represents to many Palestinians an effort to preserve their national identity and to resist Israel and its ongoing occupation. Abbas has his peace process -- or what's left of it -- and his international campaign to drum up recognition of Palestinian statehood. Hamas has its resistance. It's in the nature of its very reason for being.

 

There is a good chance that the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation is going to escalate, perhaps to include an Israeli ground incursion as well. But even if that's the plan, the odds don't favor Israel's success in breaking Hamas as an organization or ending its control over Gaza. More than likely, it will only mark another bloody phase in a long struggle between two parties who can't seem to live with one another -- or apparently without one another either.

 

  On 7/26/2014 at 1:32 PM, eugene said:

i did mention it a couple of times in previous discussions - i support this party in israel. it's nothing extraordinary really: full removal of israeli forces from west bank; arab quartets in jerusalem go to palestinian control, holy places go under some kind of joint/international control; partial evacuation of settlements and land swaps which will result in control of about ~95% of west bank by palestinians plus some land swaps to compensate for israeli settlement lands in west bank that will remain; no massive influx of palestinian refugees descendants into israel but some kind of proper compensation for loss of land and property that occurred in the 47-48 war. for that israel should get complete recognition and cessation of further demands from palesitnians and other arab states (except syria, i guess, with which there's the golan heights issue)

  On 7/31/2014 at 9:45 AM, IOS said:

Also, thought the #JewsAndArabsRefuseToBeEnemies campaign (?) might be a valuable approach - there must be many other people working at things along these lines (not just a hashtag type thing)

  On 7/31/2014 at 8:05 AM, MisterE said:

exactly

 

palestinian death toll is pretty light compared to other death tolls out there, but in lots of those cases, both sides are darker skinned, and they have no threads full of sympathy for the victims or daily international news coverage. why?

Umm the current round if casualties might be light, but since the Israeli-Palestine violence has been going on for several decades now, it's hardly surprising that it gets more press.

  On 7/31/2014 at 8:35 AM, ambermonk said:

The frustrating part is why Washington is still sending them weapons, yet the UN don't seem to have the balls to intervene...what a fucking mess

The UN is slightly hamstrung, but Ban Ki-Moon has come out very strongly against the Israeli attacks.

The UN is working on a protocol based on the idea of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) but it's difficult to get traction on it because of the idea of national sovereignty and conspiracy theorists thinking the UN having a standing army is the gateway to a New World Order.

well we got estimates here that put the death toll between 1948-2011, that's over 6 decades, at well below 20,000 on both sides. meanwhile on the syrian side, we have estimates around 150,000 for between 2011-2014. now, by any definition of 'news', i would say that a conflict that's been going on for over 60yrs isn't exactly NEW. wouldn't you? so in syria there are almost 10 times the casualties in something like 1/20th the amount of time. if we just look at the span of 2011-2014 in israel/palestine the estimates seem to be just under 2,000 deaths for both sides. which is well below 150,000. just a bit anyway. so yeah i'd say its not surprising that israel/palestine gets more attention. i'd say its pretty damn surprising, or whatever other modifier for emphasis you want to put in there.

so again, what is the difference? besides skin tone? is it because obama 'fixed' the thing in syria that the media doesn't tell everyone to *feel sad* about whats going on there, so nobody *feels sad* about it? or is it just because it's mostly/all muslims in syria?

  On 7/31/2014 at 9:45 AM, IOS said:

He doesn't look very ashkenazi, looks more local, hence his support of his camp dwelling brothers, heh. It's funny many years ago i met an objector, well he was more an absconder from his israeli military service, he used my internet café a few times with his mates, both of whom weren't very down with his not serving thing. heh, i teased him too about it. Maybe because it still annoys me that i didn't do my french military service when i had the chance ("oh nos, i'll have to cut my hair"). Or maybe because i'm a dick. [-;

MisterE -I was wrong about the casualties. I thought they would have been higher in the Israeli-Palestine conflict. However, if you search in google trends, you'll find that the Syria War and Israel-Gaza War get about the same amount of news coverage.

https://www.google.ca/trends/explore#q=syria%20war%2C%20israel%20war&cmpt=q

  On 7/31/2014 at 10:03 PM, MisterE said:

 

 

so again, what is the difference? besides skin tone? is it because obama 'fixed' the thing in syria that the media doesn't tell everyone to *feel sad* about whats going on there, so nobody *feels sad* about it? or is it just because it's mostly/all muslims in syria?

find out from the President of Syria yourself what the demographic of Syria-proper is, and what he stands for. Notice the slant that the interviewer is pushing for:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLVYraFjDLs

whats going on in Syria is outside infiltration of jihadists funded in part by "western interests" toward the mysterious end of creating a giant Theocratic super state out of the remnants of the middle eastern countries such as Iraq etc. Why the "zionist" western media and Israeli politicians seem to want a giant radical Islamic empire surrounding Israel is a mystery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_rebel_fighters_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

do any of you guys have a memory of 11:30 AM PST on 9/11/01 where the US media (all 3 networks) played clips at the same time of Palestinians dancing in the streets in apparent celebration of the 9/11 attacks?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMOZvbYJMvU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRA0NKQ0k6E

this was literally only one hour after the South tower collapsed, during a national emergency while many americans still weren't aware of the living or dead status of loved ones. This footage has never been proven to A) have been filmed at the time of 9/11 b) to have anything to do with celebrating the 9/11 attacks.

Imagine the type of deep seeded emotional imprint this left on Americans who were watching the attacks unfold on that day. Extremely strange. On one hand I can understand them airing it later on but only 1 hour after the tower fell? Does that make sense?

mrE your premis is rather peculiar and it seems like you're suggesting we rate the importance of or attention given to a conflict based solely on the amount of people killed. seems pretty strange. does is seriously not occur to you that the israel/palestine conflict has its own special significance for the west? like, you mention the conflict has been going on for decades; does this not warrant special attention? or perhaps the very important connection this conflict has with Jewish identity and the history of the "Jewish problem" is the west? or perhaps you might wish to note the massive amounts of money the USA gives to israel and the almost unprecedented diplomatic support? I mean, the list goes on and on. it's quite obvious that the conflict is an essential aspect of middle east and global politics and has been for decades so when it continues to go on unresolved and wars keep exploding in the region it kinda goes without saying that people are going to be interested.

tbh it seems obvious to me that you're yet again just trying to push some obama-bashing agenda here by constantly bringing up Syria. however, you do yourself a diservice by not investigating how complicit his administration is in the conflict, how the democrats have blindly funded and supported israel 100%, how establishment liberal press seems incapable of breaking from the official pro-israel party line of the democrats, etc. this could be fuel for your liberal-bashing agenda but instead you're just rambling about Syria. this is an israel-palestine thread, not a Syria one.

You guys are all really smart. This thread makes for an interesting read.

I can say with certainty that the Syria angle is being used to portray Palestinian supporters as 'only caring when muslims are killed by jews but not when muslims kill muslims'. I've seen the neocon DC think-tanker elite pushing this angle on twitter all day today. The Daily Beast had a fairly viral article today written by 2 people who belong to one of the most hawkish neocon think-tanks in all of DC, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. The article tries to be more balanced, but when you actually see what these guys are tweeting it's clear what they're trying to do.