Revolution in the middle east Page 53

  • Page

    of 84 First / Last

  • SClaw 15 Nov 2012 09:53:45 826 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Gaza rocket fire kills three Israelis

    Ugh. I have a feeling this is going to get really out of hand really fast.
  • kalel 15 Nov 2012 09:56:33 84,055 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Moot_Point wrote:
    @SClaw Ideology will always be fought over.

    "My thoughts are better than yours. So ner!" /atomic bomb
    Ideology has little to do with it, if anything.

    It's about land, plain and simple. Always has been.
  • kalel 15 Nov 2012 10:01:35 84,055 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Bremenacht wrote:
    senso-ji wrote:
    Netanyahu seeking to get re-elected, I see.
    Maybe, but it could just as well be that someone on the Arab/Islamist side is using Syria's civil war as good cover in which to escalate attacks on everyone's favourite middle-east enemy - the Israelis. Surprise surprise, Israel responds as it usually does: hard.
    Israel have actually been surprisingly moderate so far. They're targeting military leaders and keeping casualties to a minimum, while Hamas are firing literally hundreds of rockets at civilians.

    Of course it could well tip over into real nastiness from Israel like it did four years ago, but so far it's seems a bit harsh to be condemning of Israel on this one as far as I can tell.
  • LeoliansBro 15 Nov 2012 10:07:16 41,905 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Israel have far more backing from the powerful end of the international community. With that comes a duty of care, not least because they would be proper fucked if they lost that.

    That said, Netanyahu would have been a damn sight happier if Romney had got in, and, as senso-ji said, this does feel like a power play ahead of the elections. True restraint would have been to continue to highlight the transgressions of Hamas, and let the world consensus force them to the table to broker a deal. It's happened in the past, and come close to getting somewhere as well.

    But of course, a deal isn't really what Israel wants.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 15 Nov 2012 10:12:53 41,905 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    BTW, I love the West Wing solution to this problem. Combination of unconscious arrogance on the part of the writers and hilarious oversimplification of the process / issues / discussion. You almost felt like they were proposing it for real consideration.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • senso-ji 15 Nov 2012 10:14:52 5,330 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    The main problem Israel has is that it's not just Hamas that are now firing rockets into it. In fact, one could argue that Hamas have been observing a truce better than it has been in recent years. Assassinating it's leaders won't help keep that and will only fire up the other militant groups.

    Not that there is a simple resolution to all this. At times I feel that the Israelis and Palestinians have crossed the point of no return.
  • SClaw 15 Nov 2012 10:16:47 826 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Israel have GOT to grow up and start being the better man in this situation or it’ll never change. Whatever we think – whatever they think – they need to find a way to deal with the people who are in charge of the place. If anything, they should be HELPING Hamas get proper control over the territory so at least when the rockets do fly they can be damn sure they’re blaming the right people (and have the moral high ground). Repeatedly assassinating Hamas’ leaders and senior figures is only causing chaos in their ranks and fuelling hatred.

    But as LeoliansBro says... Israel don’t want a deal anyway. This is muscle flexing to warn their other neighbours that they’re still a force to be feared. And election bullshit, obviously. It’s painfully transparent.
  • kalel 15 Nov 2012 10:17:09 84,055 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    True restraint would have been to continue to highlight the transgressions of Hamas, and let the world consensus force them to the table to broker a deal. It's happened in the past, and come close to getting somewhere as well.
    Israel's policy has been "hit us and we'll hit back a hundred times harder" for the best part of sixty years now. Right or wrong (I think it's understandable if not always agreeable) it's very predictable.

    So whenever Hamas or Hezbollah instigate attacks, it can be viewed as provocation.

    I do agree that Israel have no interest in a deal or peace (at a leadership level at least) but I think it's important to understand the psyche of them as a nation. They are permanently in ultra defensive mode. It's sort of missing the point to talk bout them having a "duty of care" as that's just an alien concept to them. Any support or backing they have does not alter their perception that nobody else really gives a fuck about them.
  • kalel 15 Nov 2012 10:21:38 84,055 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    SClaw wrote:
    Israel have GOT to grow up and start being the better man in this situation or it’ll never change. Whatever we think – whatever they think – they need to find a way to deal with the people who are in charge of the place. If anything, they should be HELPING Hamas get proper control over the territory so at least when the rockets do fly they can be damn sure they’re blaming the right people (and have the moral high ground). Repeatedly assassinating Hamas’ leaders and senior figures is only causing chaos in their ranks and fuelling hatred.
    Yeah, I do agree with this.

    Israel is the equivalent of an extremely badly treated dog that now has defensive viscousness ingrained into its very nature. I realise the logical conclusion of that train of thought is that they should be "put down" and I'm of course not condoning anything like that, but it's a problem I can't see a solution to, at least nothing in the immediate future.

    The problem is that their safety and their future as a nation is absolutely the only thing they give a fuck about. Literally. It will take decades, if not centuries for them to feel comfortable enough to take a more worldly view.
  • LeoliansBro 15 Nov 2012 10:22:41 41,905 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Sorry, when I meant a 'duty of care' I meant it as to their international standing. A lot of their authority and legitimacy in the region comes from the support of their allies. Take that away and you take away the thing that established them there in the first place, and they run the risk of being seen as nothing but insurgents surrounded by an ethnically and theologically hostile group of peoples.

    There are problems there even if they are careful with their international standing, but still.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 15 Nov 2012 10:24:00 41,905 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Basically, it was badly fucking done by the British et al 60 years ago.

    Edited by LeoliansBro at 10:24:06 15-11-2012

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • SClaw 15 Nov 2012 10:25:37 826 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Ironically no one gives a fuck about them because about of that perception.

    But in truth they do. Any other state and we’d be up in arms about it… but Israel is Little America in the Middle East so they can do no wrong by the vast majority of the world. And people wonder why there is an ever increasing rift between the West and the Muslim world.

    There are definitely two sides to this issue, but one of those sides as nukes and international backing so I find it very hard to get behind their actions.
  • kalel 15 Nov 2012 10:26:00 84,055 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    As long as they're a friendly country in the middle of Arab land, they'll continue to have America's backing I think. They've done more than enough war crimes in the last decade or so to test their standing. They probably know that, but again, they see the support as for political reasons (which it probably is), rather than anyone actually giving a fuck about their best interests.
  • kalel 15 Nov 2012 10:28:19 84,055 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    SClaw wrote:
    There are definitely two sides to this issue, but one of those sides as nukes and international backing so I find it very hard to get behind their actions.
    I think the whole situation is beyond moral judgements. I don't agree with anything either side do from a moral point of view, but I can see why they do it. I even get why Al-Queda and the like do what they do.
  • LeoliansBro 15 Nov 2012 10:30:41 41,905 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    To carry your dog analogy, a defensive dog biting your enemies is one thing. A defensive dog snapping and snarling at potential allies is another. Israel isn't necessarily always going to be the only friendly country there, just as all Arab countries aren't necessarily going to be treated warily.

    But yeah for the moment, that is where they are.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • sport 15 Nov 2012 10:33:03 12,061 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    GET A LIFE JEWS!
  • SClaw 15 Nov 2012 10:33:55 826 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    That’s a good point but Hollywood has taught me to root for the underdog!

    But seriously they are all a bunch of shitbags*... however one side really does have a such a decisive advantage so it’s like watching a cat toy with a mouse.

    *Interestingly my Word autocorrects shitbags to shitcakes. Awesome.
  • kalel 15 Nov 2012 10:38:52 84,055 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    SClaw wrote:
    however one side really does have a such a decisive advantage so it’s like watching a cat toy with a mouse.
    Well, imagine a soldier with a machine gun surrounded by people with rocks. All day every day they throw rocks at him, which actually hurt, but for the most part he ignores it. Then once in a while he has enough so he shoots them all, for which he is roundly condemned, because he has a machine gun, and all they have is rocks.

    That's barely even an analogy. That's pretty much exactly the situation.
  • SClaw 15 Nov 2012 10:44:32 826 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    That was a very good analogy.

    As a pacifist I’d say take the hits, of course, but I guess that’s not for everyone.
  • LeoliansBro 15 Nov 2012 10:49:01 41,905 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    The people are throwing the rocks because the soldier was dropped off in their house by a bunch of other soldiers with machine guns, and has annexed their living room. And because the soldier has a machine gun and they have rocks, and so they are afraid of him. And, just in the background there, because they like throwing rocks.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • disusedgenius 15 Nov 2012 10:50:31 5,151 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Well... kinda. The guy with the machine gun's grandfather was the one who was dropped off by a bunch of other soldiers with machine guns.
  • SClaw 15 Nov 2012 10:51:44 826 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    And historically that guy's living room used to belong to them sort of maybe because god said so. So yeah.
  • disusedgenius 15 Nov 2012 10:54:44 5,151 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    And also their living room was kinda half-invaded anyway before the guy with the machine gun's grandfather was dropped off and annexed it even more.

    Damn it kalel, I'm not sure this analogy is 100% accurate for all cases. :(
  • Mola_Ram 15 Nov 2012 10:58:49 6,289 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Lashing out and killing the rock-throwers isn't exactly a great long-term plan though. They will be replaced with more, angrier rock-throwers, unless you can dismantle the whole rock-throwing enterprise. Which is just not feasible.

    And then you have the settlers (many of them also rock-throwers) who are camping out illegally, a government that can't (or won't) do anything about them because they want a stable coalition with settler supporters, a marginally more peacible rock-thrower party whose massive corruption makes them unpopular, splinter rock-throwing groups, a giant wall separating everyone, and an overseas gun-holding superpower pledged to support the local gun-holders over the rock-throwers even when the gun-holders do things that are massively unproductive and unhelpful, and even though their alliance hasn't really been all that beneficial for the superpower since the Cold War.

    The analogy is kind of breaking down here, but that's the point. It's a clusterfuck.

    Edited by Mola_Ram at 11:01:56 15-11-2012
  • kalel 15 Nov 2012 11:02:58 84,055 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Mola_Ram wrote:
    The analogy is kind of breaking down here, but that's the point. It's a clusterfuck.
    I reckon you did a decent job of keeping the analogy working there tbh :)

    It's so fucked. I can't see any solution at all. Ever.
  • LeoliansBro 15 Nov 2012 11:05:00 41,905 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    They could agree to share. Would save on bullets and rocks.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • jellyhead 15 Nov 2012 11:05:12 24,350 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Both sides could grow up, stop posturing and pouting and sit at a table and talk. Other countries have managed this, why not Israel & Palestine?

    This signature intentionally left blank.

  • disusedgenius 15 Nov 2012 11:06:43 5,151 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I'm not sure if firing missiles at each other counts only as posturing, somehow.
  • LeoliansBro 15 Nov 2012 11:06:44 41,905 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Because religion entitlement usurpation right to self defence inhumanity belligerence distrust authority control.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • SClaw 15 Nov 2012 11:07:05 826 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    From Israel’s point of view… they just don’t want to. There is absolutely no benefit to peace (apart from saving a few lives) for the country.
  • Page

    of 84 First / Last

Log in or register to reply