Israel to World: "Suck It."

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.

we used to have massive oppression issues but we had to sell them to the germans in 2008

not sure why 10-year-old posts were suddenly revived, but nabisco surprisingly not OTM in some of them

idk alfred, i hear miami traffic is pretty bad

Clinton says cease-fire has been signed- no details yet.

8:49 P.M. Netanyahu: I agreed with Obama that U.S. and Israel will work together against terror in Gaza.

8:48 P.M. Netanyahu: We decided to give a cease-fire a chance

8:48 P.M. Netanyahu: Israel destroyed thousands of rockets intended for Israel.

9:05 P.M. Four Grad rockets fired toward Be'er Sheva, one intercepted.

9:00 P.M. Gaza-Israel cease-fire goes into effect.

smdh

http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.479649.1353523542!/image/2230117218.jpg

10:03 P.M. Hamas leader Khaled Meshal praises Iran for arming, financing Gaza (Reuters)

It goes without saying that the border siege and naval blockade of Gaza would be Acts of War were Palestine a state, and there's no indication those will cease.

I still feel like there should be a thread with a different title as the rolling Israel/Palestine conflict thread.

How bout:

Hard Gay Interfaith 69 starring Israel "Izzy" Towers and Palestine Rockmore: Huge Rockets Sucked

Nice guys lose: the Israel/Fatah/Hamas triangle.

Reddit Q&A w/ Al Jazeera English correspondent:

Do you concede a moral/ethical difference between firing rockets indiscriminately in the vague direction of enemy civillians and taking efforts to minimize civillian causalities by only attacking military/political targets?

Full-disclosure, like many Americans I probably grew up with a pretty healthy bias to blindly support Israel. However, upon realizing this as I got older, in recent years I have really tried to understand the other side of this conflict. I've tried to read more (from more sources) and tried to put myself in the plight of the average Gaza citizen and, so yeah, I quickly discovered that, yes, Israel has been pretty fucking douchey. I mean, the insistance on settlements (complete bullshit, +1 for Gaza), economically starving Gaza by trade embargos and blockades (+1 for Gaza) and just the general oppression/harassment of Gaza citizens is bullshit too (+1 for Gaza)...the list goes on. And so, after all that I can honestly say I am NO Israel super-fan and have (I would like to think? to the best of my ability, at least) educated myself out of my American bias...

HOWEVER, that being said, I just cannot get find moral ground to call Israel the bad guy in this situation? For Hamas doing their best to inflict as many civillian casualties as they can by launching rockest towards random Israeli cities (hoping for civillians? schools? hospitals? ...basically hit anything but an empty field is a "win") and then crying foul when Israel attempts to stop these attacks on civillians and [n] number of Gaza citizens die as collateral in airstrikes on these military targets? Help me understand this?

Piers Morgan (somewhat) posed this question the other night and his guest responded with the typical "tit-for-tat" argument; basically justifying these attacks on civillians as "legitimate forms of resistance" to said bullshit Israel has done/is doing. Later, another guest's response (that I have also heard elsewhere) explained that "well, yeah, Hamas killed some Israeli citizens with their rockets but Israel's response killed many more" ...is that really the total of the Hamas/Gaza argument against Israel?!

For what its worth, Gaza's plight is probably closer than most Arabs realize to swaying the American public to stop supporting Israel when we see shit like Israeli bulldozers destroying their homes just because they're dicks... However, I think we are suddenly struggling to sympathize again when we see Gaza's elected government's military strategy basically amounts to war on Israeli civillians as a proxy war against the IDF.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/13enix/i_am_nadim_baba_al_jazeera_correspondent_in_gaza/

Seems pretty reasonable? Al-J and Haaretz are pretty much only two media outlets I read re Middle East. Not because I think either are 'fair' towards Israel (neither are) but bc they seem to be the only two actually producing worthwhile first hand journalism.

I don't think that quote is from the Al-J correspondent tho? I think it's just some redditor talking?

Interesting bit on Chris Hayes this weekend suggesting that because Israel only responds to the kidnappings and the rockets, they've essentially forced Hamas to resort to firing random rockets to get anything.

yaeh, you're right M, sorry. (My first time reading a reddit page)

Bibi has invited Abbas to negotiate at any time w/out preconditions.

The real problem I think is that Abbas is never going to get a better deal than the one Olmert offered him (and he walked away from). So what is there to negotiate about?

My problem with the Hamas strategy is that it's utterly feckless and aimed primarily at boosting their popularity in the Gaza Strip and elsewhere amongst Arabs and Muslims (i.e., Iran). Random missile attacks will likely make the Israeli electorate and government more not less 'douchey' but Hamas doesn't mind 'cause they live in a delusional world where Israel will cease to be a Jewish State, where the right to return will be offered and where their long-term irredentist strategy of pushing them into the sea will bear fruit. That may sell amongst the hopeless (around 45 - 50% unemployment) in Gaza but it's utter rubbish and I feel bad for Gazans who voted for Hamas to punish Fatah's venality only to now find they're not only worse but Hamas is unlikely to cede power voluntarily anytime soon. Meanwhile, settlements continue apace in the West Bank and the Israeli electorate looks less and less sanguinely at peace prospects. I think they're all fucked in the long run but not necessarily in ways they've forseen.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/11/25/u-s-policy-in-the-middle-east-validates-terrorism-as-a-tactic/

or, an opposing view to Michael White

“Opening the crossings and facilitating the movements of people and transfer of goods and refraining from restricting residents’ free movements and targeting residents in border areas, and procedures of implementation shall be dealt with after 24 hours from the start of the ceasefire.”

Which is widely seen as a commitment to loosen the onerous restrictions Israel has placed on all movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza. In other words: if the cease-fire holds, and that’s definitely an IF, it represents a net benefit to the estimated 1.7 million people living in the Gaza strip.

See, this is really silly. Hamas presumably could've negotiated this without launching rockets / getting bombed / sustaining major infrastructural damage. The reason Israel hasn't negotiated with Hamas to date is because they keep firing rockets + are committed to destroying Israel. They haven't gained anything from their campaign that they couldn't have gotten without it. Unless you believe that Israel was refusing to negotiate with Hamas, but there's no indication that is true?

did you read the rest of the article?

...which uses the example of the PA to argue that Hamas gained specifically because they were violent.