How should Israel defend itself?

Nodin

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Perhaps. Iit seems from similar experiences with Iran, for example, that financial sanctions seem to hit the hardest against countries, specifically those originating from the US and the EU. Would the EU be willing to take those steps and what could they hope to achieve with them?

The main barrier is US pressure, afaik. There would be consequences if the US was defied, and I'm not sure any of them are willing to go that far. It was enough of an effort to get the sanctions on settlement produce put through.

Nodin

Justin1982 wrote: »

The Israeli's are robbing greedy feckers to a certain degree, having setup a state, where they hadn't one for a long time but the reality is that they are here to stay. Best of luck to them. Best of luck to Palestine even. But Israel holds the cards. Strong cards. Probably at least for most of my lifetime. The Palestinians have frig all and it would be in their interest to cease hostilities, give the Israeli's a hug, negotiate a state (they'll get most of what they want in reality), build up trust until borders open then if they really really really really want to live on Israeli land so badly then they can move there legally, buy land, build up their population in Israel where they are legally protected same as Christians or Jews and live happily ever after. ..........

I've never advocated the destruction of the Israeli state.

I've shown earlier that Israel is not interested in Palestinian concessions and explained why.

Protections for Palestinians within Israel are not the same as for Jewish Israelis, and there is widespread racism against them. All the major parties 'Support maintaining the Jewish majority' which fairly obviously means Israel is a cold house for Palestinians.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/13/AR2010111303776.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/a-racist-jewish-state-1.225919

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4198754.stm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902681.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2007121902748

DarkyHughes

Well they should defend itself like Britain did when the IRA blew up the Grand Hotel Brighton & killed members of the British cabinet & came within inches of killing the PM herself. They responded by sending their navy & airforce to flatten Galway, Cork, Mayo & Limerick............. Oh wait they didn't do that at all because the whole world would have been outraged if they had.

conorh91

Scofflaw wrote: »

It seems to me that R2P is, as Nodin says, a "guiding principle" applied on the basis of political will, not a duty that "the UN" has undertaken on any universally obligatory basis.

That being the case, I don't see that "the UN" can be criticised for its 'failure' to 'do its duty', since what it is failing to do is not something that is its duty,

I'm afraid Nodin has led you up the garden path with that line, since it's a straw man.

It was never claimed that R2P was a duty.

The UN's duties toward the Palestinians originate, inter alia, in its inheritance of the British mandate of 1922. It has nothing to do with R2P. R2P is merely an available vehicle which the United Nations has at its disposal.

Nor was it ever claimed R2P is substantive international law.

I'm as tired of this not-so-merry merry-go-round as you probably are so am giving up on this point, out of sheer exhaustion at trying to prove I have not said anything incorrect.

Busted Flat.

The first move for the security of Israel, is for the Zionists criminals to make an application to be accepted back into the human race. I am no troll I have followed the carnage and genocide for a long time. The evil genocidal actions of the zionists has got to be stopped, Menachim Begin regards the jewish people above the rest of mankind, the world has to tell these genocidal maniacs they are in the minority. Before they kick start WW3.

Justin1982

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Well they should defend itself like Britain did when the IRA blew up the Grand Hotel Brighton & killed members of the British cabinet & came within inches of killing the PM herself. They responded by sending their navy & airforce to flatten Galway, Cork, Mayo & Limerick............. Oh wait they didn't do that at all because the whole world would have been outraged if they had.

That's well thought out.

The IRA was an outlawed organization in the republic same as it was in Britain. The Irish government threw convicted IRA members in jail same as they did in Britain and Northern Ireland. The British didn't have much of a real problem with the republic as IRA support was fairly minimal in the republic. So it wasn't in Britain's defensive interest to flatten anything in the Republic.

Up North, Thatcher set the SAS loose in the 80's, allowing them to roam freely in Armagh and Tyrone gunning down known members of IRA brigades. Major attacks on crown forces nose dived as a result.

When Britain did rule over lands in the republic, they fairly leveled the place wherever there was major resistance. Whether it was black and tans or sending gun boats down the Liffey in 1916.

And firing rockets into Israel is a whole different kettle of fish compared to suicide bombing or non suicide bombings. Israel peacefully (all be it a bit illegally (depending on which laws you acknowledge)) built security walls to prevent suicide bombers getting into Israel (they probably saved Palestinian suicide bombers lives doing that which was nice of them). I'd back them up on that effort any day of the week.

And Israel has built up the anti missile dome also to defend themselves. They had been using that for a long time as a protection measure. But the thing is that Hamas, if left alone, will get more and more efficient at the missile strikes as time goes on. Eventually they will be able to put a strain on Israeli defenses or resources and missiles will start to rain down on Israel. At the moment the Israeli's probably don't admit it but I'd imagine that they realize their defenses are beginning to strain. And it's probably why they went into Palestinian territory and commited the "war crimes" that they did. Could be war crimes, could have been calculated defensive strategy. I don't know enough to say. But its simple enough as far as I see it. If you fire missiles into another mans back garden, don't come crying to me when the other guy retaliates in a rather feckless manner with disregard for you or your innocent neighbors. Once any nation starts having to send it's army into another's territory war crimes will be committed. It happened with the British in Ireland and it is happening with the Israeli's in Palestine.

I find it kind of funny that there isn't one of you Israel bashers speaking out against Hamas and it's actions. Rather funny indeed. If Hamas ceased hostilies, well the thought of entering Palestinian territory would probably be the last thing to enter an Israeli's head.

Nodin

Justin1982 wrote: »

.........................

I find it kind of funny that there isn't one of you Israel bashers speaking out against Hamas and it's actions. Rather funny indeed. If Hamas ceased hostilies, well the thought of entering Palestinian territory would probably be the last thing to enter an Israeli's head.

"the thought of entering Gaza" you mean. They have many thoughts regarding other areas and act on them as they see fit.

Justin1982

Nodin wrote: »

I've never advocated the destruction of the Israeli state.

I've shown earlier that Israel is not interested in Palestinian concessions and explained why.

Protections for Palestinians within Israel are not the same as for Jewish Israelis, and there is widespread racism against them. All the major parties 'Support maintaining the Jewish majority' which fairly obviously means Israel is a cold house for Palestinians.

I doubt that the people living near Nazi concentration camps advocated the killing of Jews but at the same time I doubt they shed many tears at their extermination or did much to prevent it happening.

Israel was set up essentially as a Jewish state. Why? Because there was no Jewish state in existence prior to it being set up. And they set it up not out of greed but out of fear, straight after a world war in which their race was almost exterminated in Europe and prior to that they have been persecuted on many occasions or faced racism wherever they went. Its the only country on the planet that is essentially Jewish and they possibly want to keep it that way (or at least maintain a majority) same as most Muslim countries or Christian countries want to. They are not unique in that aspect of their being.

My feelings on Judaism are the same as they are on Christianity, the Muslin religion and any other religion. Kind of a pile of nonsense. But if the Jews want to have just 1 Jewish nation on the planet then I'll leave it to them. There is any gods amount of Christian states or Muslim states but there is only one true Jewish state. That's not being greedy. Thats being fairly minimalist in fact. And it's tiny. They want it and they are going to defend it.

Nodin

Justin1982 wrote: »

I doubt that the people living near Nazi concentration camps advocated the killing of Jews but at the same time I doubt they shed many tears at their extermination or did much to prevent it happening..

wtf?

Justin1982 wrote: »

Israel was set up essentially as a Jewish state. Why? Because there was no Jewish state in existence prior to it being set up. And they set it up not out of greed but out of fear, straight after a world war in which their race was almost exterminated in Europe and prior to that they have been persecuted on many occasions or faced racism wherever they went. Its the only country on the planet that is essentially Jewish and they possibly want to keep it that way (or at least maintain a majority) same as most Muslim countries or Christian countries want to. They are not unique in that aspect of their being..

The notion of a Jewish state predates the second world war.

You seem to exclude the notion of a secular state, which is what a lot of us in Western Europe aspire to these days.

Justin1982 wrote: »

My feelings on Judaism are the same as they are on Christianity, the Muslin religion and any other religion. Kind of a pile of nonsense. But if the Jews want to have just 1 Jewish nation on the planet then I'll leave it to them. There is any gods amount of Christian states or Muslim states but there is only one true Jewish state. That's not being greedy. Thats being fairly minimalist in fact. And it's tiny. They want it and they are going to defend it.

Were it not for the fact that 20% of the population was non-Jewish and the states expansionism, I'd have no problem with that.

DarkyHughes

Justin1982 wrote: »

That's well thought out.

The IRA was an outlawed organization in the republic same as it was in Britain. The Irish government threw convicted IRA members in jail same as they did in Britain and Northern Ireland. The British didn't have much of a real problem with the republic as IRA support was fairly minimal in the republic. So it wasn't in Britain's defensive interest to flatten anything in the Republic.

Up North, Thatcher set the SAS loose in the 80's, allowing them to roam freely in Armagh and Tyrone gunning down known members of IRA brigades. Major attacks on crown forces nose dived as a result.

When Britain did rule over lands in the republic, they fairly leveled the place wher+ever there was major resistance. Whether it was black and tans or sending gun boats down the Liffey in 1916.

And firing rockets into Israel is a whole different kettle of fish compared to suicide bombing or non suicide bombings. Israel peacefully (all be it a bit illegally (depending on which laws you acknowledge)) built security walls to prevent suicide bombers getting into Israel (they probably saved Palestinian suicide bombers lives doing that which was nice of them). I'd back them up on that effort any day of the week.

And Israel has built up the anti missile dome also to defend themselves. They had been using that for a long time as a protection measure. But the thing is that Hamas, if left alone, will get more and more efficient at the missile strikes as time goes on. Eventually they will be able to put a strain on Israeli defenses or resources and missiles will start to rain down on Israel. At the moment the Israeli's probably don't admit it but I'd imagine that they realize their defenses are beginning to strain. And it's probably why they went into Palestinian territory and commited the "war crimes" that they did. Could be war crimes, could have been calculated defensive strategy. I don't know enough to say. But its simple enough as far as I see it. If you fire missiles into another mans back garden, don't come crying to me when the other guy retaliates in a rather feckless manner with disregard for you or your innocent neighbors. Once any nation starts having to send it's army into another's territory war crimes will be committed. It happened with the British in Ireland and it is happening with the Israeli's in Palestine.

I find it kind of funny that there isn't one of you Israel bashers speaking out against Hamas and it's actions. Rather funny indeed. If Hamas ceased hostilies, well the thought of entering Palestinian territory would probably be the last thing to enter an Israeli's head.

Great way to miss the point that collective punishment is wrong in any circumstance & talk a lot of rubbish at the same time.

Sure the Soviets also "peacefully" built a wall in Berlin, they called it the anti-fascist ramp. I don't remember Britain building (apartheid) walls around the border to keep people inside the North. I also don't remember Britain banning Irish people from entering the UK in 1990's when IRA bombs started costing the British state billions of pounds & reduced the center of Manchester & large parts of London to rubble.

DarkyHughes

Justin1982 wrote: »

I doubt that the people living near Nazi concentration camps advocated the killing of Jews but at the same time I doubt they shed many tears at their extermination or did much to prevent it happening.

Israel was set up essentially as a Jewish state. Why? Because there was no Jewish state in existence prior to it being set up. And they set it up not out of greed but out of fear, straight after a world war in which their race was almost exterminated in Europe and prior to that they have been persecuted on many occasions or faced racism wherever they went. Its the only country on the planet that is essentially Jewish and they possibly want to keep it that way (or at least maintain a majority) same as most Muslim countries or Christian countries want to. They are not unique in that aspect of their being.

My feelings on Judaism are the same as they are on Christianity, the Muslin religion and any other religion. Kind of a pile of nonsense. But if the Jews want to have just 1 Jewish nation on the planet then I'll leave it to them. There is any gods amount of Christian states or Muslim states but there is only one true Jewish state. That's not being greedy. Thats being fairly minimalist in fact. And it's tiny. They want it and they are going to defend it.

What a really strange thing to say.

Harold Weiss

Nodin wrote:

You seem to exclude the notion of a secular state, which is what a lot of us in Western Europe aspire to these days.

You are deluding yourself if you think Jewish people aspire to ever having a secular state of Israel.

Israel is predominantly white and they want to keep it that way.

You are perpetuating the fantasy Jews are a distinct race when they're just white people with delusions of superiority.
They follow Judaic beliefs and nothing more.

What happens when black Jews go to Israel, do they have right of return?
No, they don't. Why? Because they're black.

johnnyskeleton

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/israel-to-seize-almost-1-000-acres-of-land-in-west-bank-1.1913610

Unfortunately, this is not how Israel should defend itself or try to form a lasting peace. Mild mannered Abbas has been reported as saying this it for the peace process:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/303238#.VAPNrYE1jqA

mrcheez

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/303238#.VAPNrYE1jqA

I love the visitor comments on that one

For Reals

So the Palestinians and Hamas are criticized for not accepting the Israeli bastardized vision of peace?
Israeli peace simply means the Palestinians sit back as they are wiped from the earth. Shame on the Israeli government.
A people with such a sad history who profess to be a democratic nation, should treat fellow humans with respect and dignity. The Israeli government should apologize to Jews the world over and begin to give the respect and basic human rights to the Palestinians they seem to think are their birthright but nobody else's.
Disgraceful news today;
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/israel-draws-us-rebuke-after-claiming-west-bank-land-1.1914208

Ping Chow Chi

Shocking.

walshb

The U.S. won't do anything here. If it was nay other country they'd have invaded by now.

Godge

Nodin wrote: »

The notion of a Jewish state predates the second world war.

You seem to exclude the notion of a secular state, which is what a lot of us in Western Europe aspire to these days.

We Irish are hypocrites then, living in one of the most Catholic countries in the world, with Catholic laws for Catholic people, religious segregation in schools, no abortion and God enshrined in the Constitution.

If we Irish can have a Catholic state, why can't the Israelis have a Jewish state?

Busted Flat.

Godge wrote: »

We Irish are hypocrites then, living in one of the most Catholic countries in the world, with Catholic laws for Catholic people, religious segregation in schools, no abortion and God enshrined in the Constitution.

If we Irish can have a Catholic state, why can't the Israelis have a Jewish state?

This state is separating slowly from the church as older people pass away.
Take a look into a church some Sunday.
No religion should control a state.

Ardillaun

That Netanyahu chap is a rum cove:

http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2012/03/21/israels-nuclear-triggers/

I think this MILCO business happened when Bibi was still a US citizen although it's hard to tell when he actually renounced it. If it were true, and I'm SURE it isn't, wouldn't that be, like, treason? Very odd, then, that we have seen no investigation or prosecution - or even an official statement on what is a fairly serious matter by any standard. Even odder that Milchan is still allowed to come and go to the US and even host parties for Bibi there, and that the bold Bibi is allowed to speak to Congress where he is treated like the Queen. I love the way BN goes on about Iran's shenanigans - takes one to know one.

Nodin

Godge wrote: »

We Irish are hypocrites then, living in one of the most Catholic countries in the world, with Catholic laws for Catholic people, religious segregation in schools, no abortion and God enshrined in the Constitution.

If we Irish can have a Catholic state, why can't the Israelis have a Jewish state?

Shocking as this may be to you, I wasn't around to vote on the constitution in 1937. You'll find my views on laws influenced by religion easily by looking at my profile and what forums I post in.

Any state allying itself with a certain viewpoint on morality is almost certain to end up alienating elements of it's own society. For instance a Jewish state - does that refer to reformed Judaism, conservative Judaism, orthodox, ultra orthodox? A sect within those groups? Because if "Jewish" is defined as x and the laws of the state reflect the beliefs of that group, what about the others? If it's a conservative group, this impinges on the more liberal, if its more liberal, some of the conservative groupings may well want to redefine x once more. Add to this the fact that 20% or more of the Israeli population is muslim.

Certainly the Irish experience showed that allying the state with a particular religion (and not a liberal one) leads to misery for minority groups, be they liberals within the majority faith, other faiths, or those whose morality is disapproved of. When you look at other middle eastern states based on sectarian ideology, there's nothing to recommend the approach.

wes

Godge wrote: »

We Irish are hypocrites then, living in one of the most Catholic countries in the world, with Catholic laws for Catholic people, religious segregation in schools, no abortion and God enshrined in the Constitution.

If we Irish can have a Catholic state, why can't the Israelis have a Jewish state?

As someone who is not a Catholic, who was born there to immigrant parents. I can categorically state that I have it way, way better here, than I would if I lived in Israel or the occupied territories.

Manach

To head off the reflexive Catholic critics, the 1937 was and continues to be one the more tolerant constitution out there (based on my readings on how it was crafted back in the day). Compared to some of its defunct secular rivals based on the implicit idea of state supremacy in all matters, those seem to have been flush down the drains of history. The fervent prayers for a purely secular society will bring us to joys of a Robiesperrian state. Critiquing Israeli for being being influenced in some way by its religious constitutions displays even more lack of historical knowledge on how capital (purchasing the best land from absentee landlords during the Turkish/British Mandates) and nationalism had been key to Israel's foundational supports.

Brian Shanahan

Ardillaun wrote: »

That Netanyahu chap is a rum cove:

http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2012/03/21/israels-nuclear-triggers/

I think this MILCO business happened when Bibi was still a US citizen although it's hard to tell when he actually renounced it. If it were true, and I'm SURE it isn't, wouldn't that be, like, treason? Very odd, then, that we have seen no investigation or prosecution - or even an official statement on what is a fairly serious matter by any standard. Even odder that Milchan is still allowed to come and go to the US and even host parties for Bibi there, and that the bold Bibi is allowed to speak to Congress where he is treated like the Queen. I love the way BN goes on about Iran's shenanigans - takes one to know one.

We're talking about a country whose first act after 9/11 was to facilitate the members of the bin Laden family living in or visiting America to flee the country, despite knowing a) that it was Al-Qaeda who did the deed and b) the family kept very close ties to him, despite publically distancing themselves from his act (the fact was they were the main conduit between the Saudi government {being the second most prominent clan behind the al-Sauds} and Al-Qaeda, at the time a quasi-black ops organisation for the Saudis), and whose preferred candidate for Iraqi president during and shortly after the 2003 invasion was a convicted con-man, the only reason they dropped him in the end was that his family was almost as hated as the Husseins.
The US would have no compunction propping up somebody who committedd treason against them, as long as he toed the party line in a foreign country.

Brian Shanahan

Manach wrote: »

To head off the reflexive Catholic critics, the 1937 was and continues to be one the more tolerant constitution out there (based on my readings on how it was crafted back in the day).

I'd say you're not serious with this crack, but I know your form Manach. On the surface the constitution seemed open enough but in substance it was very restrictive, as witnessed by the fact that the articles given weight were the ones like according the rcc effective state religion status (the main reason why McQuaid was able to lord it over every government he coexisted with) and not the ones which were supposed to afford equal status to everybody. But then again, deV was very good at seeming, wasn't he?

Wildlife Actor

The idea that the constitution is somehow to blame for the catholic ethos in this country is a complete red herring. Does anyone seriously think that we were all raving 32-county-ists when arts 2 and 3 sat in the constitution? The constitution is not even directly effective, acts of the oireachtas are.

We lived in a country where until 30 years ago, priests named adulterers off the alter. Israel is a country where citizens today have parties cheering on the bombing. Neither religion nor constitutions cause these. It's culture and bigotry.

Black Swan

MOD REMINDER:
The topic of this thread is: "How should Israel defend itself?"

Justin1982

For Reals wrote: »

So the Palestinians and Hamas are criticized for not accepting the Israeli bastardized vision of peace?
Israeli peace simply means the Palestinians sit back as they are wiped from the earth. Shame on the Israeli government.
A people with such a sad history who profess to be a democratic nation, should treat fellow humans with respect and dignity. The Israeli government should apologize to Jews the world over and begin to give the respect and basic human rights to the Palestinians they seem to think are their birthright but nobody else's.
Disgraceful news today;
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/israel-draws-us-rebuke-after-claiming-west-bank-land-1.1914208

Israel claims West Bank land at a time when the worlds media is focused on them to such a high degree. Didn't wait a few weeks or a few months when everyone had gotten bored reading and reporting about Israel? Hmmm. I smell a rat. Not sure what game they are ultimately playing but I sincerely doubt the 300 acres is work the wrath of the world.

Maybe they are actually that stupid? I'm not sure. But anything I've ever read about Israeli history they are usually playing someone or everyone for a fool when they do this sort of provocative act. Wouldn't be the first time that provocation was part of their defensive strategy. Alas someone else will have to figure it out and explain it to me.

Justin1982

wes wrote: »

As someone who is not a Catholic, who was born there to immigrant parents. I can categorically state that I have it way, way better here, than I would if I lived in Israel or the occupied territories.

Can you explain why this is?

Nodin

Justin1982 wrote: »

Israel claims West Bank land at a time when the worlds media is focused on them to such a high degree. Didn't wait a few weeks or a few months when everyone had gotten bored reading and reporting about Israel? Hmmm. I smell a rat. Not sure what game they are ultimately playing but I sincerely doubt the 300 acres is work the wrath of the world.

Maybe they are actually that stupid? I'm not sure. But anything I've ever read about Israeli history they are usually playing someone or everyone for a fool when they do this sort of provocative act. Wouldn't be the first time that provocation was part of their defensive strategy. Alas someone else will have to figure it out and explain it to me.

Wrath without consequences is so much hot air however.

SeanW

Harold Weiss wrote: »

You are deluding yourself if you think Jewish people aspire to ever having a secular state of Israel.

Israel is predominantly white and they want to keep it that way.

You are perpetuating the fantasy Jews are a distinct race when they're just white people with delusions of superiority.
They follow Judaic beliefs and nothing more.

What happens when black Jews go to Israel, do they have right of return?
No, they don't. Why? Because they're black.

Only 75% of Israels' population is Jewish, the other 25% of Israeli citizens are Israeli-Arabs and Druze, all of whom enjoy the full rights of Israeli citizenship.

Of the Jews, only about half are Ashkenazi Jews (this is the white/Ethno-European group)

Your last point is flat out wrong, you should check out Beta Israel, (Ethiopian Jews) they've had the right of return since 1975. Israel has also elected a member of Beta Israel to the Knessett.

SeanW

Remind me again, how many black people are there in the Dail vs. the Knessett?

jank

SeanW wrote: »

Remind me again, how many black people are there in the Dail vs. the Knessett?

No, no,no. Get with the program. Only Israel have to live up to my expectations of what a model nation state should be like. States like Ireland are exempt to my thought experiment.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Only 75% of Israels' population is Jewish, the other 25% of Israeli citizens are Israeli-Arabs and Druze, all of whom enjoy the full rights of Israeli citizenship.

.........................

Not really that simple I'm afraid.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91847693&postcount=303

For Reals

jank wrote: »

No, no,no. Get with the program. Only Israel have to live up to my expectations of what a model nation state should be like. States like Ireland are exempt to my thought experiment.

Because everybody on here is tripping over themselves to proclaim Ireland the great bastion of freedom and civil rights?
Yeah us anti-genocide crowd never cry foul about problems at home:rolleyes:

Last resort of the desparate debator, 'Them der is as bad as us!'.

jank

For Reals wrote: »

Because everybody on here is tripping over themselves to proclaim Ireland the great bastion of freedom and civil rights?
Yeah us anti-genocide crowd never cry foul about problems at home:rolleyes:

Last resort of the desparate debator, 'Them der is as bad as us!'.

The terms glasshouses and stones come to mind....
Anti-genocide crowd? Is this is what pro-Palestine people all themselves now? Pathetic tbh. Does that mean pro-Israel are pro-genocide?

obplayer

This from Bill Maher sums it up.

Black Swan

obplayer wrote: »

This from Bill Maher sums it up.

MOD: Politics is a discussion forum, not a news dump or talk show forwarding forum. All news links, vids, etc., require discussion of content not just links, or "This from Bill Maher sums it up."

wes

obplayer wrote: »

This from Bill Maher sums it up.

There was a thread on this already, and posters on there pointed out the many, many issues with what Bill Maher said:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057253216

For Reals

jank wrote: »

The terms glasshouses and stones come to mind....
Anti-genocide crowd? Is this is what pro-Palestine people all themselves
now? Pathetic tbh. Does that mean pro-Israel are pro-genocide?

Glass houses? I've not butchered any innocent families and driven them from there homes.
Pro Israeli government is pro genocide.
I'm anti-genocide. There are lots of great Jewish folk. You have to separate the individual from the actions of others. I won't be so ignorant as to write off an entire people or be okay with innocents suffering because of any criminal actions of it's government or a group claiming to represent them. Y'know the exact opposite of the Israeli government.
So don't tar every Israeli with the blooded murderous hands of it's government.

obplayer

For Reals wrote: »

Glass houses? I've not butchered any innocent families and driven them from there homes.
Pro Israeli government is pro genocide.
I'm anti-genocide. There are lots of great Jewish folk. You have to separate the individual from the actions of others. I won't be so ignorant as to write off an entire people or be okay with innocents suffering because of any criminal actions of it's government or a group claiming to represent them. Y'know the exact opposite of the Israeli government.
So don't tar every Israeli with the blooded murderous hands of it's government.

A thousand people killed is not genocide, not even an attempt at genocide. Rwanda was a serious attempt; Cambodia under Pol Pot was genocide; Kosovo would have been genocide if the Serbs had got their way (hint, rounding up people en masse and massacring them is a good step towards genocide). A thousand people killed because either they were launching rockets at another country or were unlucky enough to live beside people who were is a tragedy, genocide it is not.

Usjes

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Much has been written in the past few weeks on the deaths of Palestinians by Israeli forces. I find it extremely distressing to see the footage of children being treated after Israeli strikes.

Nevertheless, I consider myself pro-Israel in that I am pro the continued existence of Israel as a democratic state in the Middle East, with much better treatment of LGBT people and woman than they would have in the Palestinian territories.

I do think the response of Israel has been excessive and calamitous for their international reputation.

However, how best is Israel to defend itself against huge numbers of rockets that have been fired at it from Gaza (13,000 since 2001, which amounts to about $10.4 million US)?

I ask this sincerely. How best is Israel to deal with the rockets that are fired at it, for the sake of peace?

Well I suspect you are trolling but on the off-chance that you are just ignorant I will bite. The way for Israel to protect itself from rocket fire is to stop commiting crimes against Palestinians whose only effective response is rocket fire.
In case you hadn't noticed Hamas had rigoroursly enforced a ceasfire which meant that Israel had perfect protection from rocket fire until the outbreak of the recent hostilities. Israel broke the terms of this ceasfire by mass arrests of Palestinians and a brutal military operation which resulted in the deaths innocent Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank. This operation was in response to the murders of 3 Israeli colonists. Rather than instigating a normal police investigation Netenyahu opted for the military option (contrast this with the investigation into the murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir who was burnt alive in retaliation by Jewish extremists; why no brutal military operation to intern known Jewish right-wing extremists? Just a nice peaceful police investigation).

So in summary, the reason I suspect you of trolling is that I would say your question is equivalent to:
How does an on-the-run bank robber/murderer/paedophile protect himself from being continually hounded by his victims seeking retribution ?
The answer is simple, if you dont want your victims to seek redress by any means then dont commit crimes against them in the first place.

On a side note, I have a question for all apologists for the Israeli régime to ponder. You generally try to deflect blame from Israel for all the civilian deaths in Gaza by saying that it is Hamas who is most responsible for their deaths by firing rockets which they know will draw a lethal Israeli retaliation. Does the same argument not apply to the three murdered colonists? By your logic are their parents not the people most responsible for their deaths by allowing the Israeli state to use their children as human shields to try to hold the lands that they have illegaly ceased by military force ? Or is victim blaming only applied to native victims and not when the victims are colonists? I mean what parent in their right mind brings their children into a war-zone? Unlike the families confined by Israel to the Gaza ghetto the colonist families decide to move to the illegally occupied territories!

Finally, on a personal note, MakeEmLaugh, I find it particluarly sad that you frame you support for Israel in the context of their treatment of LGBT people. Would you have happily supported the atrocities of Pol Pot, Apartheid-era S.A. , <insert random vile régime>, as long as they treated the LGBT community well ? Being happy to support evil régimes as long as they treat you well makes you seem like a very sad and cowardly human being, willing to throw other minorities under the bus as long as you are safe. Really it makes you no better than those who persecute the LGBT community.

For Reals

obplayer wrote: »

A thousand people killed is not genocide, not even an attempt at genocide. Rwanda was a serious attempt; Cambodia under Pol Pot was genocide; Kosovo would have been genocide if the Serbs had got their way (hint, rounding up people en masse and massacring them is a good step towards genocide). A thousand people killed because either they were launching rockets at another country or were unlucky enough to live beside people who were is a tragedy, genocide it is not.

Since the inception of the state of Israel it has been non-stop, be it land grabbing and the destruction of homes, the killing of innocents and the current escalation. Your figures are from the recent months. Do you believe Hamas were in every house bulldozed to make way for new settlements? Do you believe Israel will stop short of wiping out any notable trace of the Palestinians? They've not stopped since the 40's. Maybe holocaust is a more suitable turn of phrase.

obplayer

For Reals wrote: »

Since the inception of the state of Israel it has been non-stop, be it land grabbing and the destruction of homes, the killing of innocents and the current escalation. Your figures are from the recent months. Do you believe Hamas were in every house bulldozed to make way for new settlements? Do you believe Israel will stop short of wiping out any notable trace of the Palestinians? They've not stopped since the 40's. Maybe holocaust is a more suitable turn of phrase.

If they have not stopped since the 40s why are there any Palestinians still alive? If Israel wanted to kill all the Palestinians they could have done so decades ago. They haven't.

Nodin

obplayer wrote: »

If they have not stopped since the 40s why are there any Palestinians still alive? If Israel wanted to kill all the Palestinians they could have done so decades ago. They haven't.

I believe people are referring to the wider definition of genocide - "intent to destroy" and "in part" in the article linked below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#In_part

obplayer

Nodin wrote: »

I believe people are referring to the wider definition of genocide - "intent to destroy" and "in part" in the article linked below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#In_part

I quote...
'The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole'

From

The Pulse of the Middle East

“The increase of the population in the Gaza Strip is excessive; it is very large. Between 2000 and 2013, the number of Gazans increased by more than 687,000 people.”

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/04/gaza-growing-population-challences.html##ixzz3CrPCv2CI

Israel doesn't seem to be having a significant impact on the population of Gaza according to Palestinian journalist Mohammed Othman of Palestine Pulse, does it? How does this even come remotely close to the Genocide Convention definition?

BlaasForRafa

obplayer wrote: »

I quote...
'The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole'

From

The Pulse of the Middle East

“The increase of the population in the Gaza Strip is excessive; it is very large. Between 2000 and 2013, the number of Gazans increased by more than 687,000 people.”

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/04/gaza-growing-population-challences.html##ixzz3CrPCv2CI

Israel doesn't seem to be having a significant impact on the population of Gaza according to Palestinian journalist Mohammed Othmanof Palestine Pulse, does it? How does this even come remotely close to the Genocide Convention definition?

In fact, according to palestinian sources, the population of Gaza actually increased during Operation Protective Edge. Some genocide indeed. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/13333-4500-palestinian-newborns-in-gaza-during-the-israeli-aggression

Genocide is just an overused buzzword these days.

obplayer

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

In fact, according to palestinian sources, the population of Gaza actually increased during Operation Protective Edge. Some genocide indeed. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/13333-4500-palestinian-newborns-in-gaza-during-the-israeli-aggression

Genocide is just an overused buzzword these days.

You are right to an extent but it is a very emotive one, it should be reserved for situations which deserve it. (Especially by people who quote from the Geneva Conventions).

jank

obplayer wrote: »

If they have not stopped since the 40s why are there any Palestinians still alive? If Israel wanted to kill all the Palestinians they could have done so decades ago. They haven't.

They have been at it for 70 years apparently, yet the Palestinian population has increased more than 4 fold since. Worse.genocide.ever. I would ask for a refund to be honest.

Nodin

obplayer wrote: »

I quote...

(...................) definition?

Which, if you look at land seizures, exclusion zones and killings overall over the last 50 years within the broader definition of genocide - according to some - fits. However this is an argument for others, as I never use the term in connection to the Palestinian question - it leads to pointless quibbling like this.