Trump to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

[Raider5678]

Just now, CharonY said:

by fostering violence Hamas had the effect of associating Palestinian resistance with terrorism.

The Palestinians voted the Hamas party into power during their elections.

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I can't believe this.

There is a group of people. Who has sworn to exterminate the Jews. Who blame them for everything that's wrong with the world.

A group of people whose main goal is to kill every man, woman, and child, who is a Jew in Israel.

A group of people who are literally a terrorist organization.

A group of people who have sent in suicide bombers and killed thousands around the world, and claim credit for doing so.

And this same group, has organized a protest. A protest, where they scream for the blood of Jews. When interviewed, they promise that if they can get into the fence they'll rain bloodshed over all of Israel.

They'll kill every man, woman, and child who is a Jew.

They plant bombs. They throw grenades. They call for death. They shoot at the soldiers. They dig tunnels under the ground. 

If this was happening to any other country, that country would be actively invading them.

And when Israel opens fire on them after warning them repeatedly, firing tear gas, smoke grenades, and rubber bullets, Israel is just a bunch of merciless pigs.

 

And you guys cast your support behind them.

You support the people screaming for the death of Jews.

You support the mass extermination of Jews.

You support the murder of millions of people.

And yet, you guys call Israel the anti-semantics, the Nazis, and the aggressors.

 

I'm done. I had so much respect for you guys. But you call for racial equality and tolerance and in the same breath support those who want another holocaust. It's just insane.

FFS grow up and start to think for yourself.

8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

While I do not agree with the power difference, by fostering violence Hamas had the effect of associating Palestinian resistance with terrorism. By polarizing their own population they effectively remove power from their moderate factions. I.e. I am talking in terms of the sides within the Gaza strip and Israel, respectively, if that makes sense. But in all honesty, the situation is far too complex that I could meaningful comment on that some serious reading.

As they say "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", I do get what you mean but the only moderate that's truly crushed is the one in a powerful but fearful nation. 

[CharonY]

13 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The Palestinians voted the Hamas party into power during their elections.

How hard is the part regarding cutting out moderates and polarizing the population? If there were no elections these strategies would not be quite that important.

 

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

As they say "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", I do get what you mean but the only moderate that's truly crushed is the one in a powerful but fearful nation. 

I honestly do not know sufficiently about the Palestinian political landscape. I do hear laments from moderate Israelis who want to find a non-violent solutions, but have trouble getting traction as every attack is used as an excuse to stop talking and start shooting. I assume that Hamas utilizes similar sentiments, though from a different position. I also note that the power in Palestine is split, not only between Hamas and Fatah but is also split within these groups. As is usual (and as we can see it in politics world wide) violence makes it easier for the extremer sides to gain and maintain power. I.e. folks with with a pragmatic and perhaps even effective solutions are unlikely to rally support. But of course, this is also just a simple narrative and does not take historical events into account.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I honestly do not know sufficiently about the Palestinian political landscape. I do hear laments from moderate Israelis who want to find a non-violent solutions, but have trouble getting traction as every attack is used as an excuse to stop talking and start shooting. I assume that Hamas utilizes similar sentiments, though from a different position. I also note that the power in Palestine is split, not only between Hamas and Fatah but is also split within these groups. As is usual (and as we can see it in politics world wide) violence makes it easier for the extremer sides to gain and maintain power. I.e. folks with with a pragmatic and perhaps even effective solutions are unlikely to rally support. But of course, this is also just a simple narrative and does not take historical events into account.

This seems fair but lacks proportionality. Israel started with just over 8k square miles in 1948 and has since come to occupy another 2,700 square miles. So nearly 11k square miles total under their control. By contrast Palestinian's have just 2,400 square miles. Israel has a population of 8.5 million and Palestinians have a population of 5.1 million. Population density in Palestinian areas is more than double that of Israel. In Israel  GDP is 38k per capita  and in Palestinian territories GDP is just under 3k per capita. Unemployment in Israel is under 5% while unemployment in Palestinian territories  is 40%. Israel spends 21 billion dollars on its military per year and Palestinians spend 100 million a year what military infrastructure they have.

I could go on and on but I am sure you get the idea. Israel has the land, the money, and the fire power. Palestinians are a stateless people fenced in and without any real control over their govt or land. I have no doubt some ignorant folks might argue that its the Palestinian's people own fault they are poor and without sovereignty but that isn't how power works. It isn't as though Israel would allow the Palestinian Authority or Hamas to create their own trade agreements, build there own nuclear facilities, and all the various things sovereign nations do to establish themselves. Now that doesn't excuse suicide bombings. Does excuse evil acts. It also doesn't mesh with the "bothsides" platitude either though because to be clear only one side has any juice. Other than their anger and protests the Palestinians have nothing else. Meanwhile Israel is a wealthy a Nuclear power. From the outside it is easy to lament who the Palestinians elect but at the end of the day whomever they elect will face the same restraints. Palestinian is not a sovereign nation. From their banking system to the energy grid Palestinians are constrained by what Israelis are comfortable letting them have/do. Israel has a right to exist but that existence shouldn't have to come at the subjugation of others in the name of protectionism.

End of the day Israel has the money, the land, military might, and backing of the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world. We all know the saying "with great power comes great responsibility". 

 

 

 

[CharonY]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

I could go on and on but I am sure you get the idea. Israel has the land, the money, and the fire power. Palestinians are a stateless people fenced in and without any real control over their govt or land.

I do not doubt that the Palestinians are in a bad place, nor that the root of their anger might very well be justified.  At no point I am saying that tactics and actions on both sides are equal, but that the tactics  of the hardliners within their respective group are not helpful in any way for a peaceful resolution. I.e. I am discussing it in terms of tactics within, rather than between groups. As such referring to the both sides argument is a misunderstanding of my original position. In fact, I believe that you heard that argument so often that you superimposed it over mine, while I do believe that my argument was more nuanced than that.

Again, while did say that both sides capitalized it for their respective power gains, I am not saying that they play from the same level or that the outcome is equal. What is does, however, is to escalate the situation further. Yes, the Israelis have the power and vote that way because they are afraid. Yes, Palestinians are on the short end of the stick, but those that decide that attacks on civilians are the right way only give fuel to the former. Considering that Israel is in the stronger position, it would be wise to take away that excuse to exercise their strength without restraint. However, suicide attacks are likely to keep hardliners in power instead.

[Ten oz]

9 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I do not doubt that the Palestinians are in a bad place, nor that the root of their anger might very well be justified.

I do even know if I believe their anger is or is not justified. I view that as insignificant. Justified or not they are currently powerless to enact meaningful change so I consider it futile to imply (not saying you specifically did) they should being doing X, Y, or Z.

14 minutes ago, CharonY said:

In fact, I believe that you heard that argument so often that you superimposed it over mine, while I do believe that my argument was more nuanced than that.

Probably true.

15 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Again, while did say that both sides capitalized it for their respective power gains, I am not saying that they play from the same level or that the outcome is equal. What is does, however, is to escalate the situation further. Yes, the Israelis have the power and vote that way because they are afraid. Yes, Palestinians are on the short end of the stick, but those that decide that attacks on civilians are the right way only give fuel to the former. Considering that Israel is in the stronger position, it would be wise to take away that excuse to exercise their strength without restraint. However, suicide attacks are likely to keep hardliners in power instead.

Palestinians are stateless and poor. They have no power and as such nothing to capitalize on a relevant scale compared against a first world nation. Suicide attacks are terrible! There are over 5 million Palestinian's and in 2017 there was 13 planned attacks, all thwarted. Zero suicide bombers deaths in Israel 2017. So we are talking about a vanishingly small percentage of Palestinians and causality numbers on the Israeli side which do not add up to the violence from yesterday. As mention proportionality matters. More people died at the hand of guns last year in the U.S. than died globally from suicide bombers. 

 

Quote

 

Suicide attacks remain one of the most effective tools available to terrorist organizations to achieve their objectives. In 2017, 348 suicide attacks were carried out in 23 countries throughout the world by some 623 terrorists. This is the lowest number of suicide attacks since 2013. Approximately 4,310 people were killed and 6,700 people wounded in suicide attacks in 2017, and as in previous years, the Islamic State was the leading source of these attacks. Of those committing suicide attacks, 137 were women and girls – the highest number of female suicide bombers since women began participating in suicide attacks.

http://www.inss.org.il/publication/report-suicide-attacks-2017-fewer-attacks-women/

 

 

Quote

 

Excluding most suicides, at least 15,549 people were killed by guns in the United States in 2017, according to data collected by Gun Violence Archive (GVA), a nonprofit organization that tracks media and law enforcement reports of shootings. 

Gun Violence Archive makes its data available in real time, and the figure represents the first available estimate of gun deaths in 2017. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI, which record firearm mortality and firearm homicides, respectively, typically take months to release year-end summaries of their data.

https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/gun-deaths-increase-2017/

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CharonY]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Palestinians are stateless and poor. They have no power and as such nothing to capitalize on a relevant scale compared against a first world nation. Suicide attacks are terrible! There are over 5 million Palestinian's and in 2017 there was 13 planned attacks, all thwarted. Zero suicide bombers deaths in Israel 2017. So we are talking about a vanishingly small percentage of Palestinians and causality numbers on the Israeli side which do not add up to the violence from yesterday. As mention proportionality matters. More people died at the hand of guns last year in the U.S. than died globally from suicide bombers. 

That is kind of my point. The minority of actual attackers manage to drown out the woes of the actual relevant part of the population. They manage to be the determining factor of various foreign policies (including the US) which is likely only to make matters worse. This is why the fringes are so insidious, they manage to accumulate more traction than they should.

Edited May 15, 2018 by CharonY

[Ten oz]

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The minority of actual attackers manage to drown out the woes of the actual relevant part of the population.

I don't see it this way. If it wasn't suicide bombers it would be something. In a population of 5 million people there will always be bad apples to point a finger at. Similarly here in the U.S. police argument of "they didn't follow instructions" to justify killing oppressed minorities and poor people.  When you don't give a damn about people any excuse is enough to drown them out. 

[CharonY]

32 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I don't see it this way. If it wasn't suicide bombers it would be something. In a population of 5 million people there will always be bad apples to point a finger at. Similarly here in the U.S. police argument of "they didn't follow instructions" to justify killing oppressed minorities and poor people.  When you don't give a damn about people any excuse is enough to drown them out. 

Perhaps you are right. Though I tend to think that terrorism evokes the worst even in otherwise reasonable folks and is just an easier way to scapegoat a whole population. 

[John Cuthber]

I think most people would become terrorists if pushed hard enough.

 

Trump just announced his intention to push harder.

I suspect the outcome will not be good for humanity.

[DrP]

Just a word of perspective also....  it is so polarized out there and has been a cause of war for over 70 years. It (the whole Israel situation) has cause arguments and fall outs between people and nations for many decades. So, in that light - if you can't agree on it here in a civilized chat room on the internet then how on earth are we ever going to come to a real world solution out there - it is a very complicated situation and not worth falling out over - there is nothing any of us can do about it I don't think. We have to sit and watch and hope for a solution and an end to the blood shed and the hatred. 

[Ten oz]

19 minutes ago, DrP said:

Just a word of perspective also....  it is so polarized out there and has been a cause of war for over 70 years. It (the whole Israel situation) has cause arguments and fall outs between people and nations for many decades. So, in that light - if you can't agree on it here in a civilized chat room on the internet then how on earth are we ever going to come to a real world solution out there - it is a very complicated situation and not worth falling out over - there is nothing any of us can do about it I don't think. We have to sit and watch and hope for a solution and an end to the blood shed and the hatred. 

It is a bit Ironic for someone in the UK to imply there is nothing the outside world can do and that this is all a regional issue when the British are literally the ones that carved the land out. From oil to a christian belief that Jerusalem belongs to Jewish people  western influence has had a huge role in the situation for the whole 70yrs you referenced. It isn't just some regional conflict happening in a vaacum. 

 

Quote

 

Mandatory Palestine[1]  was a geopolitical entity under British administration, carved out of Ottoman Syria after World War I. British civil administration in Palestine operated from 1920 until 1948. During its existence the territory was known simply as Palestine, but, in later years, a variety of other names and descriptors have been used, including Mandatory or Mandate Palestine, the British Mandate of Palestine and British Palestine.

During the First World War (1914–18), an Arab uprising and the British Empire's Egyptian Expeditionary Force under General Edmund Allenby drove the Turks out of the Levant during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign.[2] The United Kingdom had agreed in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence that it would honour Arab independence if they revolted against the Ottomans, but the two sides had different interpretations of this agreement, and in the end the UK and France divided up the area under the Sykes–Picot Agreement—an act of betrayal in the eyes of the Arabs. Further complicating the issue was the Balfour Declaration of 1917, promising British support for a Jewish "national home" in Palestine. At the war's end the British and French set up a joint "Occupied Enemy Territory Administration" in what had been Ottoman Syria. The British achieved legitimacy for their continued control by obtaining a mandate from the League of Nations in June 1922. The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[3] The civil Mandate administration was formalized with the League of Nations' consent in 1923 under the British Mandate for Palestine, which covered two administrative areas. The land west of the Jordan River, known as Palestine, was under direct British administration until 1948. The land east of the Jordan, a semi-autonomous region known as Transjordan, under the rule of the Hashemite family from the Hijaz, gained independence in 1946.[4]

The divergent tendencies regarding the nature and purpose of the mandate are visible already in the discussions concerning the name for this new entity[citation needed]. According to the Minutes of the Ninth Session of the League of Nations' Permanent Mandate Commission:

Colonel Symes explained that the country was described as "Palestine" by Europeans and as "Falestin" by the Arabs. The Hebrew name for the country was the designation "Land of Israel", and the Government, to meet Jewish wishes, had agreed that the word "Palestine" in Hebrew characters should be followed in all official documents by the initials which stood for that designation. As a set-off to this, certain of the Arab politicians suggested that the country should be called "Southern Syria" in order to emphasise its close relation with another Arab State.[5][non-primary source needed]

During the British Mandate period the area experienced the ascent of two major nationalist movements, one among the Jews and the other among the Arabs. The competing national interests of the Arab and Jewish populations of Palestine against each other and against the governing British authorities matured into the Arab Revolt of 1936–1939 and the Jewish insurgency in Palestine before culminating in the Civil War of 1947–1948. The aftermath of the Civil War and the consequent 1948 Arab–Israeli War led to the establishment of the 1949 cease-fire agreement, with partition of the former Mandatory Palestine between the newborn state of Israel with a Jewish majority, the Arab West Bank annexed by the Jordanian Kingdom and the Arab All-Palestine Government in the Gaza Strip under the protectorate of Egypt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine

 

 

[DrP]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It is a bit Ironic for someone in the UK to imply there is nothing the outside world can do and that this is all a regional issue when the British are literally the ones that carved the land out. From oil to a christian belief that Jerusalem belongs to Jewish people  western influence has had a huge role in the situation for the whole 70yrs you referenced. It isn't just some regional conflict happening in a vaacum. 

 

 

I mean you or I personally  -  I fail to see what we can do about it personally. It isn't worth falling out over, putting each other on ignore lists and spamming with red rep.  I see both sides of the argument and could propose about 100 different solutions which imo would work.....  which I am sure neither side would accept. The expectations of both parties are unreasonable and their current goals unattainable without bloodshed from either side. It is a mess.... and it is way more complex than many who take one side or the other seem to present it. (imo).  

 

[Ten oz]

25 minutes ago, DrP said:

I mean you or I personally  -  I fail to see what we can do about it personally. It isn't worth falling out over, putting each other on ignore lists and spamming with red rep.  I see both sides of the argument and could propose about 100 different solutions which imo would work.....

Far as I have seen there is only one poster in this thread falling out and it is is their modus operandi to do so in seemingly every thread they participate in. Everyone else, yourself include, appear to be having reasonable discussion. 

29 minutes ago, DrP said:

The expectations of both parties are unreasonable and their current goals unattainable without bloodshed from either side. It is a mess.... and it is way more complex than many who take one side or the other seem to present it. (imo).  

What are the expectations of the Palestinian Authority and how do they differ from Hamas? Within Israel what are  Netanyahu's expectations and how do they differ from opposition leader Gabbay's expectations? 

[DrP]

10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

What are the expectations of the Palestinian Authority and how do they differ from Hamas? Within Israel what are  Netanyahu's expectations and how do they differ from opposition leader Gabbay's expectations? 

I'll have to admit that I do not know being honest  -  do you?

13 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Far as I have seen there is only one poster in this thread falling out and it is is their modus operandi to do so in seemingly every thread they participate in. Everyone else, yourself include, appear to be having reasonable discussion. 

I know what you are saying. The guy isn't a bad lad though imo. He has a republican and a Christian background/upbringing/brainwashing - I can understand fully why he takes the stance he does and says the things he does. What do you expect him to say? He is echoing his family views, the views of his pastor - people he KNOWS and trusts and respects and sees face to face daily. People that have looked out for him all his life and shown him love and encouragement.  He seems to care - as do MOST people when you get to know them. I don't know what it would take to win him over -  I used to be similar with my own politics and religion....  I don't know   -  can you see what I am saying here? If you can't get along with HIM then how are you going to get your message across to the people that really matter  - the core followers of DT and the real right wingers and pure nationalists? If you can't and you block him then you end up in your own echo chambers and never get your message out assuming that all that disagree with you are extremists...  There are SO many of them as was evident from your last election and from the UK/EU referendum. Blocking them and dismissing them as extremists seems to lead to them withdrawing to their own little echo chambers which confirm their own world beliefs. You can't just sweep them under the carpet - there are too many off them and if you do - you just embitter them and make them more evangelical towards their right wing causes. It is depressing to see. I'm not saying you should agree with him...  just keep the argument going I suppose....  Good luck and best wishes anyway.

 

 

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, DrP said:

I'll have to admit that I do not know being honest  -  do you?

I know a little:

- Hamas is a hardened conservative group financed by Iran, Jordan, Syria and others. There goal is the return of all land (per and post 1948) currently control by Israel and an Islamic State.

-The Palestinian Authority is funded by the U.N. and seeks to be a sovereign democratic state autonomous from Israeli control (two state solution). The Palestinian Authority wants Israel to return the additional land they have occupied since since 1967.

-Avi Gabbay is the opposition leader in Israel, Netanyahu's chief rival for leadership. Gabbay is in favor of a Two State solution with the caveat that occupied Israeli settlements (post 1967) remain in Israeli control and the Palestinian state be a demilitarized state.

- Netanyahu is against a two state solution arguing both that such an outcome would endanger Israeli security and isn't economically viable for the Palestinian people on the account they are so poor. Netanyahu is pro settlement and wants Israel to harden their control over the region in the name of security.

32 minutes ago, DrP said:

I know what you are saying. The guy isn't a bad lad though imo. He has a republican and a Christian background/upbringing/brainwashing - I can understand fully why he takes the stance he does and says the things he does. What do you expect him to say? He is echoing his family views, the views of his pastor - people he KNOWS and trusts and respects and sees face to face daily. People that have looked out for him all his life and shown him love and encouragement.  He seems to care - as do MOST people when you get to know them. I don't know what it would take to win him over -  I used to be similar with my own politics and religion....  I don't know   -  can you see what I am saying here? If you can't get along with HIM then how are you going to get your message across to the people that really matter 

That is life. Everyone goes through growing pains. Whether is is a bad break up or getting fired from a couple jobs everyone learns as they go along. No reason to put on kid gloves and tolerate bad behavior. The bank holding your mortgage, the clock at work, your insurance company, and etc do not care if the people you admired most as a kid were Liberal or Conservative. 

43 minutes ago, DrP said:

the core followers of DT and the real right wingers and pure nationalists? If you can't and you block him then you end up in your own echo chambers and never get your message out assuming that all that disagree with you are extremists...  There are SO many of them as was evident from your last election and from the UK/EU referendum. Blocking them and dismissing them as extremists seems to lead to them withdrawing to their own little echo chambers which confirm their own world beliefs. You can't just sweep them under the carpet - there are too many off them and if you do - you just embitter them and make them more evangelical towards their right wing causes. It is depressing to see. I'm not saying you should agree with him...  just keep the argument going I suppose....  Good luck and best wishes anyway.

I disagree with this. There is a point when one simply must move on. Gish Galloping is done to create stalemates. Once all relevant arguments have been addressed it is time to move on. Continuing to address every little petty complaints launched out of a sense of needing to empathize only encourages bad behavior. It is my opinion that every relevant point brought up by DT supporters, conservatives, or etc do in fact get addressed. Once that happens what follows is useless argumentative banter. It is my opinion that the better job we all do in ignoring empty argumentative posts the sooner those who employ that style of posting will knock it off. They want a response and will evolve as necessary to get a response. 

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, CharonY said:

I honestly do not know sufficiently about the Palestinian political landscape. I do hear laments from moderate Israelis who want to find a non-violent solutions, but have trouble getting traction as every attack is used as an excuse to stop talking and start shooting. I assume that Hamas utilizes similar sentiments, though from a different position. I also note that the power in Palestine is split, not only between Hamas and Fatah but is also split within these groups. As is usual (and as we can see it in politics world wide) violence makes it easier for the extremer sides to gain and maintain power. I.e. folks with with a pragmatic and perhaps even effective solutions are unlikely to rally support. But of course, this is also just a simple narrative and does not take historical events into account.

5

The problem is, the leaders are very charismatic and very proficient at finding the best way to appeal to the majority, who generally when pushed, just want revenge. It's a very difficult sell to persuade, on mass, that revenge can only destroy both sides rather than protect everything they care for. "Cometh the hour cometh the man", it's no coincidence that great men/women are as rare as hen's teeth. It's just far to easy to dismiss a platitude like, "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.". 

 

[Ten oz]

Quote

 

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. General Assembly condemned Israel on Wednesday for excessive use of force against Palestinian civilians and asked U.N. chief Antonio Guterres to recommend an “international protection mechanism” for occupied Palestinian territory.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-un/united-nations-condemns-excessive-israeli-force-against-palestinians-idUSKBN1J935B

 

120 members voted for this. Regardless how one feels about the situation surely ignoring the world's community at large isn't a good idea.