Israel vs. Gaza: Another Bloody War?

[Badnik Zero]

Not the current theocratic police state propped up by the U.S.A.

Hey guys I lived in Jerusalem for a year. Guess what, Israel is not a theocracy. The US uses more religious rhetoric in its politics.

Yeah Gaza. I don't think this will be as big as last time. Last time was because Ehud Olmert is a fucking idiot. Israel will always win the ground war. Hamas will always win the propaganda war. But I think I like Egypt's new president. He seems unusually honest.

The creation of a free Palestinian state would indeed endanger Israel, but from the inside.

How do you figure this? If anything, some portion of the Israeli-Arab demographic would settle into the West Bank.

Edited November 18, 2012 by American Ristar

[Mr. Taxi]

Yes they are. It's a product of false entitlement. Hamas doesn't want Israel there at all. They don't want the two-state system. They don't want to work it out. They don't want to share the land, or restore borders to former locations, or any of that. They don't want Israel to exist, period. You'll find that Israel had been working with the former Fateh government when it was still in power (and still are trying to work with what is left of it), and didn't start the blockade until after Hamas came to power and tore the Palestinian government to pieces in the process.

Yes, they were. But you'll also find Israel was using a quick-to-amend approach, treating Cisjordan differently from Gaza and working it out since the ruling party was the same. Not all that hard to get away with, except Israel had permanent militar presence in Gaza until 2005 - so of course they effectively controlled the peace process. Hamas didn't come out of the blue. Illegitimate entitlement? Perhaps. False? Hardly. And if you really want to talk about "reasoning several thousand years out of relevance"... well. It's even ironic, considering the very reason Israel is where it is.

Neither country is entitled to all of that land. Israel does de facto control it (almost entirely because of area gained while defending themselves when other countries came knocking), but also gives in whenever international pressure mounts against them. Palestine, meanwhile, keeps up this wonderful game of acting like they are entitled to all of it for reasoning several thousand years out of relevance; and even "elected" a "government" purely on that basis 6 years ago. So, yeah. They both do some really shitty things, but Hamas is worse than Israel.

You would be perfectly correct if "neither country" was a valid statement. Because it isn't. Palestine isn't a country. They have no such thing as sovereignity and, thus, they can't reivindicate anything to the international community and have no economic relevance whatsoever. Everything that puts pressure on Israel is based on loose principles such as human rights and morality. So if there is any way to call it, it's resistance - and not as a whole. There are focuses of resistance. Palestine doesn't exist as one.

You mean those innocent lives that are only lost because Hamas likes to hide behind them while firing rockets at Israeli citizens, meaning Israel can't retaliate without collateral damage? Because I'm assuming Hamas leaves that part out when they use what Israel does to drum up support.

Or those innocent lives that are so shitty because Hamas was put in power in the first place, allowing Hamas a huge chance to capitalize on that by being the ones who can provide food and shelter that the people only lost because Hamas was there? I'm guessing they probably gloss over that as well

I honestly can't believe you are even implying these deaths are Hamas' fault. I honestly can't believe it. Because either you are implying the Palestinians are downright stupid for having elected Hamas and/or that Hamas is inherently evil. And neither would explain anything, sorry. Once again, Hamas aren't spawns of the devil - they bear a twisted ideology, yes, but if Israel didn't gave the Palestinians a reason to accept this ideology out of their own free will and judgement, then I don't know what did. Hamas itself could never do that, so much so that they never touched Cisjordan in any way.

And people's lives were already shitty as can be when the elections happened. This, and Israel specifically said they want Gaza to function "at subsistance levels" later. I don't know how the wording would be in English, so I can't look for the news report too swiftly. But I'll try anyway if you don't know what I'm talking about.

But of course, it's wrong when Israel uses the war to garner support, but alright when Hamas uses the war to garner support.

War is never, ever alright. But if a government uses it as a political tool to cover for another, it seems far less justifiable to me than a "government" that does it for a primary reason.

1. Hamas is elected on an "Eat shit and die Israel" campaign basically because that is their entire schtick, then civil war happens and they come out as basically being all that's left of the government.
   
2. Israel throws up a massive blockade in an attempt to force Hamas to stop the whole "Eat shit and die Israel" thing since they are a directly antagonistic "country" that Israel shares a border with. The blockade is done under legitimate pretexts insofar as it was never challenged on an international level (which is basically all that needs to be done to make it illegitimate) despite being in place for 6 years and one international incident (which I'll get to in a second, because I knew it was going to come up). They even get the help of Egypt to enforce it.
   
3. Hamas responds by shooting at civilian targets in Israel and hiding behind their own civilian targets.
   
4. Israel responds by trying to shoot back at military targets, with admittedly large collateral damage because they are extremely trigger happy and because Hamas likes to make military targets the same as civilian targets for the obvious purpose of building resentment towards Israel.
   

And then 3 and 4 get repeated ad nausuem because Hamas has the resolve to attack Israel had the capability to counter attack.

And you don't wonder why this "eat shit and die Israel" mob mentality even started? If over 30 years of occupation aren't enough to create animosity, then I don't know what is. If it's a cruel tactic to mix up civilian and military targets? It obviously is. It's war crime as well, if I'm not mistaken. Doesn't change the ultimate reason behind these attacks, though. Also, on number 2. It can be legitimate. It can be "the just ammorality of war". This does not mean it's not beyond inhuman to fence people. That's what makes it unacceptable.

But the main point is that you'd be completely right if Gaza was some kind of separatist anomaly born within Israel. That was never the case. Gaza is nothing but a bunch of unlucky people who happened to be at the wrong time in the wrong place and, then, were turned into one of the most overcrowded territories in the world, bereft of any access to water or natural productive resources. The extermism of Hamas wasn't born out of a couple Islamic sages who hated Judaism.

Now, for sure, Israel probably shouldn't respond so forcefully every single time, but "I can't see anything that Hamas has done" is a complete load.

I can't see anything that Hamas has done [...] beyond the scope of a visceral reaction. This time it's not even about Israel's responses, since they are not a response. They are a third movement in the game, considering only gaza for this matter. I am not savvy on what led to an Arab coalition against Israel back then, but Gaza was never exactly a major force. But, due to its geography, it's considered dangerous in situations like these nevertheless and rightly so, since it's like having a needle right beside your ear - but if anyone decided to let it rust, it was Israel and not the Hamas.

I haven't forgotten that. Pretty sure there was even a thread about it here. I just knew from day one that it wasn't anywhere near the lovingly cut and dried situation you (and you are hardly the first, so don't feel like I'm taking this out on you exclusively) are trying to present it as. One humanitarian aid ship ran the aforementioned military blockade and would have continued on towards Israeli territorial waters and the Gaza Strip, which is not only a potential direct threat to Israel but would completely null the point of the blockade. Israeli commandos boarded the ship after they forced it to stop to figure out why they ran the blockade when the other ships in that flotilla did not. They were attacked by the people on board (at which point humanitarian aid law ceases to apply, irrelevant of whether the ship was carrying munitions as Israel claimed), and then defended themselves. That is where the UN report and the Israel port start to divert, with the UN report saying that Israel just starting executing people after the situation came under control and Israel saying that they did not.

It was not an "invasion." It was not an "assault." It was a boarding that went wrong when Israel tried to force the ship to turn back, with just how wrong it went being the main point of contention between the UN and Israel. And yes, the distinction in terms very much does matter. If the intent was to just attack the boat, they would have just sunk it.

Of course, of course. I never tried to say it was an illegitimate action - even though it's debatable since the ship was not in Israeli waters. The main point is that it was a shitty decision nevertheless and, regardless of law, people were killed. Also, Israel wouldn't even admit a mistake.

But by all means continue to act as if Israel swaggered into that situation with their dicks in one hand and rockets in the other from the start looking for a fight.

...Considering there is a blockade in the first place... I will. The reasons for it may be, well, reasonable; its nature may be defensive; doesn't change the fact that it is a powder keg in itself.

This is so obviously "damned if you do, damned if you don't" that I'm surprised as hell that you are presenting it as an actual talking point. What would be the point? So you can condemn them for that too?

Yes, they have shown that they can kill leaders of government remotely, but the international backlash was so strong against the mere thought that they had resorted to doing that that they've instead reverted to going through the motions:

Israel will tell Palestine to stop the rockets

Palestine will tell Israel to stop the bombing

Neither will do so

Israel will launch military incursions into Palestine

Israel will then withdraw having given Hamas a bloody nose

UN inquiry into the situation

5-6 months of relative stability.

Rinse, wash, repeat.

Two problems: a) if they are not going to kill the government, but are supposed to retaliate an attack, than who is their target? I wouldn't mind the bombing, no. It seemed pretty alright to me to kill the guy who supposedly ordered the attack by doing what he did. However, once you step into military incursions, you are no longer placing a target - an incursion is an incursion, affecting the society of the territory and the structures of their livings. This is something they'd never do if screwing up with their lives was a problem. It's not like Israel really cowers before the international community. They've stood their ground against Obama more than once and were kickbanned from a UN organisation for being allegedly too dickish.

Which is obviously why they've expended so much effort working with pretty much everyone in Palestine who isn't part of Hamas.

...Interesting that you should say that. They favour dialogue so much that they used to spend 24% of their GDP on defense. In 1984. Before the Hamas even existed. That, and they have never had any dialogue with Syria regarding the Golan Heights. I suppose this is another subject you could see coming from a mile away.

But that's because it's true. Being predictable is not a point in your favour, in this case.

How do you figure this? If anything, some portion of the Israeli-Arab demographic would settle into the West Bank.

Israel is, nowadays, a bustling, multi-ethnic country. All sorts of people live in Israel. The only problem is that the only thing that ties them together is the religion and the State that is legitimated by it. If anything, this drives the political compass of the country a lot to the right. The same right that has militarized the country in order to, well, keep it safe from harm. Social causes will always be secondary to what ties the country together, since it was not built nor is it mantained for social reasons.

But social unrest has alraedy started to grow. The Israeli-Arab minority isn't among the protestors, but taxpayers who want their money to be spent on them instead of against someone else. With a sovereign Palestinian State, the threat would maybe decrease a lot. If the costs with the militarization of the country and subsided occupation stop having meaning, the government will collapse. Of course, this doesn't mean Israel itself would collapse in such a scenario - peace could indeed arise from this. But I don't think the government wants to go under major reforms.

EDIT: Here. This article explains the dilemma.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Palas

[Tornado]

But you'll also find Israel was using a quick-to-amend approach, treating Cisjordan differently from Gaza and working it out since the ruling party was the same.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Tornado

[Badnik Zero]

Israel is, nowadays, a bustling, multi-ethnic country.

All sorts of people live in Israel. The only problem is that the only thing that ties them together is the religion and the State that is legitimated by it. If anything, this drives the political compass of the country a lot to the right. The same right that has militarized the country in order to, well, keep it safe from harm.

Social causes will always be secondary to what ties the country together, since it was not built nor is it maintained for social reasons.

EDIT: Here. This article explains the dilemma.

Edited November 18, 2012 by American Ristar

[Mr. Taxi]

Hold on, much of Israel's call to existence is based on the idea that Jews - both Euro and Mid East - are roughly ethnic in a sense. The Muslim and Christian world's Jews were both bottled into small communities that remained distinctly Jewish. You're suggesting that religion or the military is what makes Israeli society Israeli? There is a large secular component to Israel. It's responsible for the kibbutz movement, or it participates in music scenes, education, soccer and going to the damn beach or whatever, people don't have a very good understanding of the country. For the record most people are talking about demographics when they say "Jewish State", concerning the Jewish majority and Arab minority. They mean it in an ethnic sense. The conflict there is ethnic as well, not religious, it has been that way since the 1920s. Your article is by Shlomo Sand, who is famous for denying the existence of a Jewish ethnicity - it's an extremely cynical article. I'm not sure what you mean to say. Israel has a lot of culture in it. It was created for Jewish culture to exist in, whether you believe Jews are ethnic or not, most Israelis do. It's funny this is so accepted in Israel when other people are afraid to say it. Every country prior to 50 years ago treated Jews like their own group. Is it not a politically correct point of view? Sorry I am off topic here.

Why, of course it can be. That's not the problem. Of course Israel has a lot of culture in it - I respect and I like that. The biggest example of what I'm trying to say, though, is not even in the Arab world, but in Africa. This is a good example. Whether there is a Jewish ethnicity or not - that isn't important for the matter. The "Jewish character of the state" is what keeps it from social issues being too prominent - if even a small fraction of those 60,000 Africans were Jewish, Israel would have to accept them. And they would be citizens with no economic power nor cultural identity - the Jewish ethnicity is mainly Ashkenazi. The minorities are brought into the equation by religious acknowledgement and participation in the protection of this same character.

Israel will plunge into chaos once it shows any sings of secularism by the government.

That's because refugees would love to go to a rich and prosperous country such as Israel. It would become a new US - Mexico border. And backing off immigrants for ethnic reasons alone isn't exactly the most internationally accepted of the reasons.

Even if the article is extremely cynical, it's still something to talk about.

[Shawshank Redemption]

American Ristar: Zionist ideology is based on religious and nationalist supremacy, so to claim Israeli culture is secular just because some of its citizens are (and I'm aware of the awesome socialist co-ops) is ignoring just about all the other evidence to the contrary.

This article explains current views in the country:

A new poll has revealed that a majority of Israeli Jews believe that the Jewish State practices "apartheid" against Palestinians, with many openly supporting discriminatory policies against the country's Arab citizens.

A third of respondents believe that Israel's Arab citizens should be denied the vote, while almost half – 47 per cent – would like to see them stripped of their citizenship rights and placed under Palestinian Authority control, according to Israel's liberal Haaretz newspaper, which published the poll's findings yesterday.

About 20 per cent of Israel's nearly eight million people are Israeli Arabs, Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship and live within the borders of Israel proper. The views echo hardline opinions usually associated with Israel's ultranationalist and ultraorthodox parties, and suggest that racism and discrimination is more entrenched than generally thought.

http://www.independe...ty-8223548.html

So theocracy still applies here, just a racist apartheid one.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Ball Hog Badnik

[turbojet]

Let's call a spade a spade and say Israel is not making any friends in the Middle East. As long as that wall in the West Bank is standing, there will be tension because the very construct is racist and damn near aristocratic in nature. I find it hard to sympathize with a country that has their very own apartheid. However, in the case of Hamas, they can fuck right off. From what I understand, they were the aggressors, and Israel is being as tentative as possible to avoid civilian causalities ,something the United States would not have even bothered doing, just for Hamas to place innocents in harms way intentionally.

[Mr. Taxi]

Oh shit I didn't see Tornado's post. Hold on.

That's because when all was said and done and the civil war was over, the PLO still controlled the West Bank. Why would Israel treat the Fatah-controlled West Bank and the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip the same when:

1. Israel still has direct investment in the former, since a lot of their settlements of questionable legality are still there.
   
   
2. The government of the former is actually recognized by Israel because it recognizes them
   

No, not now. The situation we have today makes it obvious that Israel should treat a hostile bastard differently from the dialogue-seeking Cisjordan. I'm talking about before, when they still occupied the land and the Palestinian Authority was (supposedly) pulling the strings.

It's not ironic at all. That exact reasoning applies just as much to Israel as it does to Palestine. That's why neither is entitled to forcibly remove the other group from the entirety of the area, and if they would stop their bullshit they should go back to one of the originally established borders.

I can wholeheartedly agree with this.

Are you implying that the people electing a terrorist group to control the self-governing areas didn't know that it would elicit strong-armed reaction from Israel?

No. On the contrary. I'm implying they knew it were (somewhat) ready for it. Why? I wonder. This may make the Palestinian people as a whole as not-all-that-innocent, but, on the other hand, poses the question of how it came to being.

And yes, I do consider terrorist organizations to be evil regardless of the context that they are formed. In fact, I'd argue that the depravity is inherent to the word "terrorist". That includes when they are labeled "freedom fighters" or whatever friendly name a Western country labels them with when they want to back them to overthrow a government.

The word "terrorist" doesn't refer to the intentions or ideologies of a group, but to their methods. I can agree that a terrorist group is at the lowliest level of respect for human life, but the problem is that the only thing that can match it is the group that masks actions with alleged legality - a government that imposes terror. And I don't see Israel as anything other than this.

This still doesn't mean anything, insofar as every country involved in every war has at least one person of importance who gives some soundbite of that nature. You don't have to dig deep to find, for example, an politician saying something along the lines of how the United States should have just turned the entirety of Iraq into a giant piece of glass. It's practically propaganda.

Because every war sucks doesn't mean this one sucks any less. And it IS propaganda, but it's also a message for those at the other side and that's the problem. When an American politician says they should turn Iraw into a giant piece of glass and then the US turns one city into a piece of glass, the Iraqi can't help but see it as a confirmation. Even if it wasn't the intention or anything.

I see no difference. One group is using the acts of the other to strengthen support for their cause while hiding their hand in it, and the other group is using the acts of the other to strengthen support for their cause while hiding their hand in it. At best it's equal on the badness scale, and I would very much argue that Hamas using civilian locations to launch offensive attacks swings the needle deep in the red on their side.

The badness is equal, but the reason for it isn't. Gaza has no choice. They have been cornered ever since they were "created". It's not a scale of evil, it's a scale of urge.

At which point you have to ask yourself how that occupation came to pass in the first place. Which is the result of Israel mopping the floor with everyone during the Six Day War, which in itself was a result of the Arab-Israeli war where several Arab countries came in and just took shit when Israel couldn't defend themselves while Britain saw what was happening and ran like hell. I mentioned this extensively in the old thread I linked to above.

Sure, and I acknowledge the bitch move by the Arab countries - but how does it change the nature of the occupation? Israel needed to, but could the inhabitants see it as a necessary evil, as Israel made it to be?

And (again) decided to respond by, in their first election following Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza strip, to elect a terrorist organization to control everything. And whether they expected this fierce of a response or not (they probably didn't expect to lose all of their foreign aid in addition to Israeli reaction), they had to expect something would happen.

Obviously. Hamas promised everything different and got it. Since OLP hadn't done much for them in the past years, it was somewhat easy for Hamas to gather popular backup.

Nor was it born out of Israeli actions regarding the Gaza Strip or West Bank because they didn't even have them when this was said:

That sentiment, which was already going on 20 years old at that point, never went away. It just transferred to the people who lost that war and weren't able to broker peace like Egypt was.

I'm afraid this one sentiment is thousand years old. I don't know much about it. Something to do with Cain and Abel (seriously). However, this is a case of mixing up things. There is, of course, the glaring difference between "back off Israel" and "burn in hell Israel", but it's too easy for a party to mix the two discourses up and sell it to people as only one thing.

Israel had been building up the infrastructure piece by piece leading since the Olso Accords up to the Second Intifada. The problem lies in the fact that when they would build something, or allow someone else to build something, someone would use that new piece of infrastructure as a perfect hiding place to shoot at Israeli civilians or military personnel from; which would lead to Israel destroying it in response so it couldn't be used that way. And then as soon as the Second Intifada ended and Israel withdrew entirely, Palestine was right back to square one.

Oh, sure. By all means talk as if Israel was the caring father who tries to give a candy cane to his son, but has to take it away because the children is an irrational angry bastard that uses the candy cane to beat on him. As if Israel wasn't building low-tier infrastructure in their own way and using it as blackmail against the people to undermine their resistance to other aspects of the occupation, such as near-slavery labour contracts and indiscriminate "checkups" - outright oppression.

But, of course, the killing becomes reasonable because "they should have seen it coming".

Obama is probably the most pro-Israel (or at least anti-Iran) president America has had since Reagan so anything he says to the opposite is pretty much meaningless; and the U.N. changes their mind on Israel's actions so much that their opinion is basically irrelevant at this point.

Exactly because Obama is so pro-Israel that it's obvious that they've crossed the line when even he speaks up about the matter. And if the UN as a whole changes their opinion so much on the matter, it's because the UN isn't a unified organization - its several departments have different opinions on different actions. The opinion may have little weight, but it's still UN.

So? Hamas is hardly the first people that they've gone to war against or the only thing they've ever been worried about in the region. A massive military budget (and, remember, I already acknowledged that it was) doesn't mean that they aren't interested in avoiding putting it to use. Just look at how much money Japan spends on their military despite having pretty much no use for it.

Japan isn't who you should be looking at here, but South Korea. The conditions are more similar, I'd say. Because even though obligatory militar service is bothersome to everyone, it ends up being useful as a component of nation-building. It forces everyone to look after the country and everything. So they spend money on it anyway even if they'd rather never use it.

Actually, they did. The Golan Heights was always Israel's bargaining chip to keep Syria from declaring war on them again, and that was always the reason Israel had them all the way back to when they were taken during the Six Day War. They didn't even officially annex them like they did other conquered territories from that war (Sinai); and there very much were talks about returning them in exchange for peace towards the end of Clinton's presidency (just like what was brokered between Israel and Egypt 20 years earlier). They broke down, and by the time Syria returned to the table a few years later, Hezbollah had dug into the area and Israel had a change in leadership making the whole thing moot.

Fair enough. I can't question this.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Palas

[Badnik Zero]

The biggest example of what I'm trying to say, though, is not even in the Arab world, but in Africa.

And they would be citizens with no economic power nor cultural identity - the Jewish ethnicity is mainly Ashkenazi.

Israel will plunge into chaos once it shows any sings of secularism by the government.

That's because refugees would love to go to a rich and prosperous country such as Israel. It would become a new US - Mexico border. And backing off immigrants for ethnic reasons alone isn't exactly the most internationally accepted of the reasons.

You are talking about illegal immigration from Africa. Yes, if Israel has ideas about keeping itself Jewish it will turn away high numbers of immigrants. Let's talk about Israeli identity. Israelis are not majority Ashkenazi - Jews from Muslim countries joined them in the decades after '48 and represent the majority by a slight margin. Jews from European countries only hold more social status because they founded the country, not counting the Russian Jews who are not well off as a group. It would help to see Israel as a country with Middle Eastern origins for purposes of legitimacy. People tell Israelis to go back to Poland. You are as likely to find Moroccan or Iraqi Jews in Israel. The original Zionists were secular people who realized Europe wasn't working out - the state was founded on ethnic and cultural grounds not religious ones. The ethnic concept extends to anyone with Jewish background and Israelis have formed an identity around this. I don't really see a problem with setting immigrant quotas - every country has them. I don't really have a problem with a country that chooses to define itself ethnically either. Armenia is a small country formed on ethnic and historical background. They are probably not interested in absorbing refugees in the near future. Israel shouldn't be asked to absorb them either, as a relatively small country.

American Ristar: Zionist ideology is based on religious and nationalist supremacy...

So theocracy still applies here, just a racist apartheid one.

Zionist ideology is based on religious and national existence, not supremacy. Arab Nationalism is the same.

Theocracy implies there are religious elements moving in the government. I agree there are, because Israel has a parliament system, but I can't think of religious laws being applied in Israel. The govt there resists religious pressure strongly.

As long as that wall in the West Bank is standing, there will be tension...

I don't think you understand the wall. Before the wall there was chaos. It is a border fence that was built in response to the constant suicide bombings of the '90s. Those don't happen anymore and so Israel doesn't lock down the West Bank in response. The West Bank under Abbas is relatively quiet because the extremists are not shooting rockets over the damn fence, and no one is crossing to bomb anymore. The most you get is conflict in the border towns. Explain why the wall is racist. There's no wall around Nazareth the largest Arab city in Israel proper. The wall separates the West Bank.

Edited November 18, 2012 by American Ristar

[Tornado]

Oh, sure. By all means talk as if Israel was the caring father who tries to give a candy cane to his son, but has to take it away because the children is an irrational angry bastard that uses the candy cane to beat on him. As if Israel wasn't building low-tier infrastructure in their own way and using it as blackmail against the people to undermine their resistance to other aspects of the occupation, such as near-slavery labour contracts and indiscriminate "checkups" - outright oppression.

But, of course, the killing becomes reasonable because "they should have seen it coming".

I'm not saying the Israel was putting anything more than a half-assed effort into building things up there. I'm not even saying that Israel was building things up there for the benefit of anyone but the Israeli settlements that shouldn't have been in there in the first place (hence why they haven't really cared since they pulled out in 2005). But when every civic work your put up to improve the area, regardless of the reason you put it there or the group it is supposed to benefit, simply becomes another place others can take cover in when they shoot at people before you are even done building it, why would you leave it there?

Edited November 18, 2012 by Tornado

[Mr. Taxi]

You are talking about illegal immigration from Africa. Yes, if Israel has ideas about keeping itself Jewish it will turn away high numbers of immigrants. Let's talk about Israeli identity. Israelis are not majority Ashkenazi - Jews from Muslim countries joined them in the decades after '48 and represent the majority by a slight margin. Jews from European countries only hold more social status because they founded the country, not counting the Russian Jews who are not well off as a group. It would help to see Israel as a country with Middle Eastern origins for purposes of legitimacy. People tell Israelis to go back to Poland. You are as likely to find Moroccan or Iraqi Jews in Israel. The original Zionists were secular people who realized Europe wasn't working out - the state was founded on ethnic and cultural grounds not religious ones. The ethnic concept extends to anyone with Jewish background and Israelis have formed an identity around this. I don't really see a problem with setting immigrant quotas - every country has them. I don't really have a problem with a country that chooses to define itself ethnically either. Armenia is a small country formed on ethnic and historical background. They are probably not interested in absorbing refugees in the near future. Israel shouldn't be asked to absorb them either, as a relatively small country.

We don't seem to disagree. You're doing all the explanation for me. Although 4/5 of the Jews around the world are Ashkenazi, not 4/5 of the Israelis are. The cultural ground was built, not proclaimed. The background is important, yes, and the customs are preserved through culture - but not entirely. The Russian Jews weren't the same as the American ones, naturally.

That's where religion takes place. To reaffirm the identity. The immigrant quotas aren't a problem, they aren't immoral or anything - the problem is that what holds it is the Jewish character of the State. Without it, the country loses its "virtual" defenses against intruders and will cease to exist.

You are defending the legitimacy of the Jewish state. I'm just pointing out it can't live without the "Jewish" part.

I'm not saying the Israel was putting anything more than a half-assed effort into building things up there. I'm not even saying that Israel was building things up there for the benefit of anyone but the Israeli settlements that shouldn't have been in there in the first place (hence why they haven't really cared since they pulled out in 2005). But when every civic work your put up to improve the area, regardless of the reason you put it there or the group it is supposed to benefit, simply becomes another place others can take cover in when they shoot at people before you are even done building it, why would you leave it there?

That much is clear to me as well. Sure, Israel doesn't have choices left when this is the case but to destroy the buildings. Israel IS defending itself, after all. Hamas IS the offender and can't be excused - I just defend that the reason why Hamas is such a chore lies within Israel and not in Palestine.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Palas

[Candescence]

To be quite frank, every single bit of land that Israel have gotten is because either everyone else shoots first (such as pretty much nearly every war Israel gets into), or Israel performs a preemptive strike to prevent a war that everyone saw coming a mile away (such as the Six Day War, if Israel didn't shoot first, the Arabs would've because the Soviet Union fed them false information). Really, let's be honest here, the Arab countries and the Soviets are far more to blame for all the land that the Israelis took than the Israelis are.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

God forbid anyone really try to wipe Isreal off the map lest they kick in their Samson Option.

[Candescence]

Yeah, trying to beat Israel with normal ground warfare is, well, incredibly difficult, though it's not just because the US supplies them - the US and Israel didn't always have an alliance, the role of Israel's protector and ally used to be taken by France. Israel has a very well-trained military and a disproportionately high military budget, with very good reason.

[Djawed]

I dont like israel. Their country is esteblished on lies, theft and cruelness. That alone is reason why as long people know its origin, they will never respect them as a nation. That is and will always be israels biggest issue with the world.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Djawed

[Mr. Taxi]

To be quite frank, every single bit of land that Israel have gotten is because either everyone else shoots first (such as pretty much nearly every war Israel gets into), or Israel performs a preemptive strike to prevent a war that everyone saw coming a mile away (such as the Six Day War, if Israel didn't shoot first, the Arabs would've because the Soviet Union fed them false information). Really, let's be honest here, the Arab countries and the Soviets are far more to blame for all the land that the Israelis took than the Israelis are.

Now illegal, subsided settlements in Cisjordan are "preemptive strikes", "retaliations" or anything of the kind?

Please.

[Candescence]

I dont like israel. Their country is esteblished on lied, theft and cruelness. That alone is reason why as long people know its origin, they will never respect them as a nation. That is and will always be israels biggest issue

I... OW. Please tell me you're trolling, because that is the most ignorant post I have seen in this topic, or any topic in quite a while. The sheer ignorance of it makes my brain hurt. Do your goddamn research, because that is just disgusting.

Also, your spelling and grammar is rather bad.

Now illegal, subsided settlements in Cisjordan are "preemptive strikes", "retaliations" or anything of the kind?

Please.

Okay, most of it. My point still stands.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Masaru Daimon

[Mr. Taxi]

Enlighten me.

EDIT: Oh. Well, your point stands when we a re talking about the wars, yes. The lands Israel took are all strategic... but, hell, they shouldn't be. I just can't stand any of it.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Palas

[Candescence]

I was initially responding to just Djawed, you kinda posted right before I finished mine, and I had to edit in a hurry.

While the method that Israel got most of its land is hardly cut and dry, it's just as much a result of the gamble the Arabs took by trying to wipe it out. It's not pretty, but that's what happens when you keep curb-stomping everyone who tries to invade you.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Masaru Daimon

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Yeah, trying to beat Israel with normal ground warfare is, well, incredibly difficult, though it's not just because the US supplies them - the US and Israel didn't always have an alliance, the role of Israel's protector and ally used to be taken by France. Israel has a very well-trained military and a disproportionately high military budget, with very good reason.

I recall a documentary that said they once used lipstick containers for their bullet casings. Isreal's pragmatic as hell, that's for damn sure.

Also, on the subject of pre-emptive strikes like that of the Six Day War, weren't countries like Egypt, Jordan, and Syria arrogantly broadcasting their intent to take out Isreal? Questionable as it may be to some, I wouldn't blame them for a pre-emp strike if their foes were willing to do something like that.

[Djawed]

I... OW. Please tell me you're trolling, because that is the most ignorant post I have seen in this topic, or any topic in quite a while. The sheer ignorance of it makes my brain hurt. Do your goddamn research, because that is just disgusting.

Also, your spelling and grammar is rather bad.

Okay, most of it. My point still stands.

do tell me why it hurts you masaru

What justice is there for a group of people being genocide in europe by germans and whatever, and then for arabs having to forcefully pay the prize for it. Did the arabs cause the holocaust? Were the arabs slaughtering jews in europe? No so what did the palestinians do to deserve being chased out of their lands?

Usually when someone experiences something very tough in his life, they will not wish the same to others. The holocaust doesnt seem like a time you'd wanna be born as a jew. I dont get how these zionist or whatever they were called, even would say yes to the cruelty in which way they got their own nation after the holocaust

Edited November 19, 2012 by Djawed

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

do tell me why it hurts you masaru

Because you didn't do your research?

What justice is there for a group of people being genocied in europe by germans and whatever, and then for arabs having to forcefully pay the prize for it. Do tell

You do realize that a lot of the times, the Arabs either struck first or intended to strike and got blindsided by a pre-emptive strike from Isreal, right?

Said Arab countries like Egypt and Jordan that once tried to attack Isreal now have warm diplomatic relations with Isreal. Now I'm not exactly defending Isreal's treatment of the Palestinians, but it's hard to feel sympathy for either side when each one keeps shooting each other out of prejudice. Gray and grey morality at it's finest people.

Edited November 19, 2012 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Candescence]

It's a complicated situation all-round, but Israel's founding was legal, sanctioned by the UN, and countless Jewish immigrants had been living in the region long before WWII even started. When the country was actually founded, several Arab countries attacked it immediately, and Israel beat all of them fair and square. By all rights, Israel deserves to exist, and the Arabs have no right to complain about land they lost because they tried and failed multiple times to destroy a legitimate nation out of prejudice.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Masaru Daimon

[Djawed]

I edited my post a bit sorry. Anyway no palestine was a pieceful land like any other with probably ofcourse its own issues as well. But the fact is that jews ,muslims and christians could live piecefuly next to each other. I dont think there would have been any trouble if jews ended immigrating to palestine(or was it emigrating, excuse my english and grammar pls).

The troubles were started when the idea of a jewish state was being realised, by force. That's basically what i meant with israel being esteblished from lie, theft and cruelness.

Im probably not the only one aware of the great deal of media manipulation going on. Most of you seem like very wise guys to give into all those crap. You cant believe everything, even if it has long been indoctrinated into your head, realise that some of the things you may have learned in history class, may be bullshit as well.

Thank god for the internet though. No wonder they're wanting to restrict it so much

Edited November 19, 2012 by Djawed

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Yeah, that's should've been more of a beef against Britain who helped establish it. But since picking a fight with them would have been an obviously dumb idea, so they chose the next best thing and picked a fight with Isreal after it was founded...and got thrash in the process.

Seriously, Wikipedia and the Internet is here for a reason dude.

Edited November 19, 2012 by ChaosSupremeSonic