Israel to World: "Suck It."

And again, no one actually believes Hamas can stop the attacks on Israel (that's why Egypt is involved). Even if Israel unilaterally withdrew to the 1967 borders we would most certainly see a continuation of the violence. When the Gaza belonged to Egypt and the West Bank belonged to Jordan there still wasn't 'peace in the middle east.'

The violence will never stop completely, true, but I think the situation could be at least be somewhat improved. Of course when you set the only possible goal as "peace in the middle east" anything short of that isn't even worth trying for.

This is improved compared to the second intifada, the yom kippur war, the six day war, the war of independence, even improved compared to cast lead and the lebanon invasion. Outside what I've already mentioned I'm not sure what is realistic to hope for at this point.

Again things have only improved for the Israelis. There are other people. Their lives have not improved.

Anderson Cooper, twitter boss.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/311181_10151186032812745_1337807181_n.jpg

Really, you can't take the settlements out of this discussion. Yeah, hamas might state outright that they want to get rid of israel, while israel states they want a two-state resolution, but israel is the side actively stealing more and more of the land of the other side. I can easily see why people in the arab world(and especially in gaza) would think, that the true difference between hamas and israel on this question is, that hamas is more honest about it's goals. Really, why should hamas stop attacking israel? Israel keeps on stealing ground in the west bank after they pacified it, why would anyone think it would be different in gaza?

Have we had this one yet? It's good.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/after-gaza-a-single-state.html

Eh. It's really easy to list all the things Israel is doing wrong, but that piece falls short of explaining what it is that Israel should be doing instead. Ending settlements, sure. But then also not fighting back, right, because the Palestinians have reason to be angry? Then Incorporating all of the (suddenly placated?) Palestinians into a democratic (?) one-state solution? Is that accurate? And then what? I think I know what that solution will ultimately solve.

I'm incensed at Israel's poorly thought out strategy of self preservation above all else, with extreme prejudice, just as I am incensed at the Palestinian insistence on self-destruction to prove a righteous point. But at the end of the day, the situation makes me extremely uneasy as a Jew. As I noted above, nearly every nation on earth boasts artificial borders, typically ill-gained, or at least claimed through some decree of diplomatic chicanery. The focus on Israel as some sort of uniquely horrible flash point really underscores for me how much of the antipathy (not all, but a lot) is driven by racism. As is some of the Israeli attitude, too. The difference as I see it, or at least one difference, is that Israel as a nation is not inherently anti-Muslim, whereas several Muslim nations are inherently anti-Jew. I feel no spiritual link to Israel the country, but there is at least a latent link to its people. If they were someone else then it would just be some other assholes who would be the one lobbing the missiles.

If they were somewhere else, I meant to right.

I don't know, the whole thing makes me uneasy. I'm safe and sound in the US, but there's only so much circulated global anti-semitism I can stomach.

I think it's hard to argue that Israel "isn't inherently anti-Muslim" when the nation does so much to prevent muslims from immigrating or returning to the country or even coming there to work. But I agree inasmuch as while I theoretically favor a one-state solution, my concern is that the resulting state would just be a flip of Israel with a muslim majority.

Oh, I just mean there's no explicit "destroy the Muslims" platform in Israeli politics. But sure, I can see why some might read it as implicit, though little rises to the level of the stuff that comes directly from government officials in Iran or whatever.

ok, I mean there's no explicit "destroy the Jews" platform in most arab countries either, they're just not very welcome. Iran actually has a modest-sized Jewish population, and while their status is arguable, they're certainly not under threat of destruction.

There are 8000 of them or something in a country of 75 million.

"Inherently" can in practice mean "not actually" - to go back to the earlier example, the Irish constitution had for 60 years (in Articles 2&3) words to the effect of those are our six counties and don't you forget it.

Government officials in most of Israel's belligerent neighbours find Israel's continued defiance of international law a pretty useful distraction from their own injustices. Removing the primary grievance of occupation and the attempt to stymie a viable Palestinian state is arguably going to do more to increase Israel's own security than anything else.

Aside from the humanitarian cost, what's so frustrating about Israel's reaction over the last week is the bizarre belief that destroying more infrastructure, making more enemies in the wider region and creating more orphans in Gaza is actually going to contribute to the safety of Israelis.

I totally agree that is a horrible policy.

Government officials in most of Israel's belligerent neighbours find Israel's continued defiance of international law a pretty useful distraction from their own injustices.

you always hear this, but, don't the examples of mubarak and assad kind of complicate this idea?

Or, heck, the fact that several of Israeli's neighbors - and Iran - are in the midst of revolutions or recently fought back revolutions or are resisting revolutions that have absolutely nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with how shitty their governments are.

well the "complication" is not all favorable to the average citizens of those countries -- there's plenty of organically occurring antisemitism in egypt and syria, not originating as a distraction from their bad rulers

Which is what makes me so uneasy. Part of me is sympathetic to their plights, but then another part of me is basically fuck you for being fucking racists.

(I feel the same way about a lot of shit I hear out of Israel, too, but it's not like there's so Muslim equivalent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion circulating there, afaik.)

It clearly isn't 100% successful but Iran benefits greatly from having an enemy to unite against on the doorstep and most leaders, including Assad, the Sauds and at times, Mubarak, have exploited the situation with Israel either for rhetorical gain or the extension of their overseas influence .

Those regimes will fall and there is no guarantee that whatever ultimately replaces them in the long term won't exploit the underlying resentment in an even stronger way. Doing add much as possible to take the poison out of the Palestinian situation now looks essential. This current course of action potentially plays into the hands of a new set of demagogues.

Idk how we can determine what endemic underlying anti-semitism not linked to top-down cultural diktats and festering discontent over the occupation exists at the moment.

if anyone has a good link about the permanent non-member status bid i'd appreciate it because i'm not finding much substantial

Hillary meeting with Bibi atm. Latest rumors I've heard is that the cease fire is being rejected but Israel is not planning on sending in troops; instead they are going to continue the IAF airstrikes.

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

Yeah, but that's totally taken out of context. Maybe the camera person was a Jew!

my wonderful world:

1. one state
2. one citizen = one vote
3. right to return for palestinians
4. hamas (and any other parties, like the orthodox ones in israel) w political rights
5. agrarian reform

May I ask, in your wonderful world what will be the safeguards to preserve the Democratic character of Israel (and protect the new Jewish minority) if an Islamic Revolution (perhaps spearheaded by the newly legitimized and Muslim Brotherhood-backed Hamas) breaks out?

what are the safeguards to preserve the democratic character of any state against revolution

Militaries, generally.

Obviously 'legitimacy' has a lot to do with it too. I think it's predictable that an Islamic majority in the state of Israel would have serious challenges to remaining a Democracy.

i think the minute you have a military protecting state organs against popular revolution you cant really call the state "democrat" anymore? it seems to me that in a "truly" democratic state, democracy itself is the safeguard against revolution

I think it's predictable that an Islamic majority in the state of Israel would have serious challenges to remaining a Democracy.

― Mordy, Tuesday, November 20, 2012 7:14 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i dont know why youd think this was true

Serious question: Let's say in some fantasy parallel dimension Israel integrates all extant exiles, yet somehow remains a democracy (with a Jewish minority). What happens to the nukes?

I think current regional politics ensure it's an inevitability. Incidentally, this was a decent article that gives an overview of the current 'Islamic Awakening' xp:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/nov/08/not-revolution/?pagination=false

i remember that article -- its got some decent analysis of the challenges facing islamists (as far as i can tell from my armchair?) but i really, strenuously dont buy the idea of an "inherent Islamic trajectory" and i dont like their weirdly romantic style and sense of history

i think the minute you have a military protecting state organs against popular revolution you cant really call the state "democrat" anymore? it seems to me that in a "truly" democratic state, democracy itself is the safeguard against revolution

― max, Wednesday, 21 November 2012 00:17 (1 hour ago) Permalink

If this is true then there is no democracy in the world

heh!

... but i really, strenuously dont buy the idea of an "inherent Islamic trajectory" and i dont like their weirdly romantic style and sense of history

― max, Tuesday, November 20, 2012 7:31 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm

Incidentally, this was a decent articlepiece of slam poetry that gives an overview of the current 'Islamic Awakening' xp:

lol

seems like a pretty crude cynicism that begrudges a mb victory in egypt when the alternative was literally mubarak's prime minister

we can find countless other diasporas who have historically been massacred, enslaved, and scattered from their "homelands" in a similar fashion

What are some examples?

the mohicans

They weren't exactly scattered though, right? Good example otherwise though.

African-Americans are probably a good example, actually.

sup

oh come off it

the cheek of you

i want everyone to be loud and proud about their historical oppression except the irish

Please don't ask that of a Cuban.