Israel live-tweets assault on Gaza(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Israel live-tweets assault on Gaza
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/israel-live-tweets-assault-on-gaza-provides-video-of-assassination/
169 comments
The Arab world is already awash in antisemitic propaganda. This Twitter account isn't going to move the needle there.
No, this account is aimed at Americans. It shares short, simple, true messages: Hamas is a terrorist organization, Hamas launches hundreds of rockets into Israel, Israel is defending itself, and Israel is rather good at defending itself. The messages are designed to be shared with friends, in order to combat anti-Israeli attitudes. If you look at the IDF's blog (http://www.idfblog.com/), they've even added some game mechanics to the mix with their 'IDF Ranks'.
Personally, I think it's brilliant.
No, this account is aimed at Americans. It shares short, simple, true messages: Hamas is a terrorist organization, Hamas launches hundreds of rockets into Israel, Israel is defending itself, and Israel is rather good at defending itself. The messages are designed to be shared with friends, in order to combat anti-Israeli attitudes. If you look at the IDF's blog (http://www.idfblog.com/), they've even added some game mechanics to the mix with their 'IDF Ranks'.
Personally, I think it's brilliant.
> The Arab world is already awash in antisemitic propaganda.
Funny how the word 'antisemitic' gets thrown around; Arabs are Semites too.
Funny how the word 'antisemitic' gets thrown around; Arabs are Semites too.
I doubt it'll work. Before this, I merely thought of the Israeli government as a bunch of nazis who believe that driving people out of their homes is god's work. Now, I also think they're barbarians.
> Before this, I merely thought of the Israeli government as a bunch of nazis
That's probably the least appropriate analogy ever.
> who believe that driving people out of their homes is god's work
Israel is actually a surprisingly secular country. If you don't know the most basic things about a country, maybe you shouldn't go around calling them nazis and barbarians. There's a word for those kind of attitudes.
That's probably the least appropriate analogy ever.
> who believe that driving people out of their homes is god's work
Israel is actually a surprisingly secular country. If you don't know the most basic things about a country, maybe you shouldn't go around calling them nazis and barbarians. There's a word for those kind of attitudes.
Good point. In fact, I may very well not know the most basic things about this country. But then how do you explain the colonization programme? The only explanation I've been able to figure out is some zionist idea of a right to a patch of land; some race-based sense of superiority. Why else bulldozer villages far across the border that was last determined in a treaty? These are horrible crimes, committed willingly by a democratically elected government. I genuinely don't get it.
But I do admit here that I've turned this not-understanding into choosing that it must be plain evil. Maybe it's something different. I'll not delete my original post to keep the thread understandable.
But I do admit here that I've turned this not-understanding into choosing that it must be plain evil. Maybe it's something different. I'll not delete my original post to keep the thread understandable.
Wow. No. You've got it completely wrong.
Zionism is the idea that Jews need a Jewish nation to take Jewish refugees fleeing persecution. History has basically proved that to be true.
What it's not:
1. The idea that Jews are in any way superior. All races have equal rights under Israeli law (although secular Jews have some obligations that other groups don't, i.e. mandatory military service) and Israel has a significant Arab population.
2. Religion-based. Early Zionists were all secular socialists. Religious Jews got on board later when they started to see Israel as a sign from God but the traditional position (and the reason why many Ultra-Orthodox Jews still don't support Israel) is that Jews weren't allowed a nation until the Messiah comes.
Israel isn't perfect (obviously) but your comments are completely disproportionate. You need to tone down the hate.
Zionism is the idea that Jews need a Jewish nation to take Jewish refugees fleeing persecution. History has basically proved that to be true.
What it's not:
1. The idea that Jews are in any way superior. All races have equal rights under Israeli law (although secular Jews have some obligations that other groups don't, i.e. mandatory military service) and Israel has a significant Arab population.
2. Religion-based. Early Zionists were all secular socialists. Religious Jews got on board later when they started to see Israel as a sign from God but the traditional position (and the reason why many Ultra-Orthodox Jews still don't support Israel) is that Jews weren't allowed a nation until the Messiah comes.
Israel isn't perfect (obviously) but your comments are completely disproportionate. You need to tone down the hate.
>>Zionism is the idea that Jews need a Jewish nation to take Jewish refugees fleeing persecution.
Makes perfect sense. If you settle a persecuted set of people on a totally unoccupied land, which would be totally harmless. What I don't understand is the need to persecute one already existing set of people to accommodate another set of people who just got persecuted.
If a persecuted tribe in Africa decides to settle down in Antarctica people wouldn't have a problem. But will it be OK, if they invade California drive out the existing set of people there and settle down.
Makes perfect sense. If you settle a persecuted set of people on a totally unoccupied land, which would be totally harmless. What I don't understand is the need to persecute one already existing set of people to accommodate another set of people who just got persecuted.
If a persecuted tribe in Africa decides to settle down in Antarctica people wouldn't have a problem. But will it be OK, if they invade California drive out the existing set of people there and settle down.
>>What I don't understand is the need to persecute one already existing set of people to accommodate another set of people who just got persecuted.
But they weren't persecuted - they were paid off.
In 1917, at the end of WW1, Britain was given the mandate of administering Palestine - at the time a chunk of the recently-defeated-and-defunct Ottoman Empire. Part of this mandate was the Balfour Declaration, which basically said that Britain would work to build 'a national home for the Jewish people' in Palestine ("it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine").
They worked with the "Jewish Agency for Palestine" (these days the Jewish Agency for Israel), who had been buying the land in the area from the previous owners - mostly Arab clans and local sheiks and so on. Nothing was seized, nobody was driven out or persecuted.
But they weren't persecuted - they were paid off.
In 1917, at the end of WW1, Britain was given the mandate of administering Palestine - at the time a chunk of the recently-defeated-and-defunct Ottoman Empire. Part of this mandate was the Balfour Declaration, which basically said that Britain would work to build 'a national home for the Jewish people' in Palestine ("it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine").
They worked with the "Jewish Agency for Palestine" (these days the Jewish Agency for Israel), who had been buying the land in the area from the previous owners - mostly Arab clans and local sheiks and so on. Nothing was seized, nobody was driven out or persecuted.
How does that relate to governance? Depending on the laws of the nation, property ownership and residence may not imply voting rights (or any sort of say in governance, voting or otherwise). I truly have no idea of the laws regarding this in that part of the world, but a simple argument of land purchase without addressing those issues doesn't really sway me too far one way or the other.
One of the things it took me a while to get my head around was that there kinda was no overarching nation at the time in question - at least not in the way we think of it today. The Ottoman Empire was defunct; nominally there were laws of the nation, but it was in no position to enforce them, and many of them hadn't been popular anyway (as they were secularizing).
In practice the people in the area operated as 'millets' - micronations unified by religious belief, governing themselves according to religious law. When the British took over administration of the region in 1917, they didn't try to change this.
So for the most part, the landowners that the Jewish Agency was buying from were the governance. The trade wasn't like one citizen of a nation selling to another citizen of the nation; it was like one country selling land to another country (and so moving its borders).
In practice the people in the area operated as 'millets' - micronations unified by religious belief, governing themselves according to religious law. When the British took over administration of the region in 1917, they didn't try to change this.
So for the most part, the landowners that the Jewish Agency was buying from were the governance. The trade wasn't like one citizen of a nation selling to another citizen of the nation; it was like one country selling land to another country (and so moving its borders).
[deleted]
>>If a persecuted tribe in Africa decides to settle down in Antarctica people wouldn't have a problem. But will it be OK, if they invade California drive out the existing set of people there and settle down.
If you think that's analogous to what happened in Palestine you need a history lesson.
If you think that's analogous to what happened in Palestine you need a history lesson.
From the above comment(from 'philwech') Indians were living in California originally.
Will it be ok, If they drive out existing residents of California?
Will it be ok, If they drive out existing residents of California?
California has been "invaded" and the existing set of people "driven out" what, two times going on three now? (The Spanish driving out the Indians, Americans driving out the Mexicans, and now Hispanics immigrating at record rates driving out white Americans).
This narrative about driving people out is an oversimplification at best, though, just as much for Israel as for California.
This narrative about driving people out is an oversimplification at best, though, just as much for Israel as for California.
>> and now Hispanics immigrating at record rates driving out white Americans
I don't see Hispanics flying around in F-16's bombing white American colonies. If they do, I will be the first to speak out. What you seem to be talking about is natural change in demographics, where a group of people grow in population and the other group doesn't grow much. And then there is natural movement(like immigration in case of Hispanics).
Also if its oversimplification, please explain us the right thing.
I don't see Hispanics flying around in F-16's bombing white American colonies. If they do, I will be the first to speak out. What you seem to be talking about is natural change in demographics, where a group of people grow in population and the other group doesn't grow much. And then there is natural movement(like immigration in case of Hispanics).
Also if its oversimplification, please explain us the right thing.
That's not a fair or intellectually honest response. Go win internet points jousting with other fanatics, preferably on Reddit.
Sorry, You said my statements were an oversimplification. I asked you to explain me how.
As a result you call my response intellectually dishonest, and ask me to go over to Reddit and talk to other fanatics.
Sorry, but no more replies from me. Also If have I hurt you by any means on this thread, accept my sincere apologies.
As a result you call my response intellectually dishonest, and ask me to go over to Reddit and talk to other fanatics.
Sorry, but no more replies from me. Also If have I hurt you by any means on this thread, accept my sincere apologies.
No, you made an intentionally irrelevant quip about Hispanics in F-16's, thus demonstrating that you are doing everything in your power to deliberately miss the point. Of course there's no point responding to you. Reddit is exactly the place for that kind of nonsense.
"and now Hispanics immigrating at record rates driving out white Americans)."
How on earth is the former causally linked to the latter?
How on earth is the former causally linked to the latter?
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But people can (and do) build that kind of narrative all the time, which was my real point. The reality is always more complicated.
I see. I still don't think white flight is a valid comparison to military operations and bulldozing settlements.
It's not even a valid comparison to the Mexican-American war, that's the point. You can oversimplify vastly different issues down to the same narrative if you want to, which is why these simple narratives tell us nothing.
[deleted]
It is not true that all races have equal rights under Israeli law. Try immigrating to Israel if you are not Jewish.
The message is clear and simple: Don't mess with us, we will fk you over. Whether it is nice or not is a different matter.
The message is clear and simple: Don't mess with us, we will fk you over. Whether it is nice or not is a different matter.
Well yeah, that's true. Jews have a right to immigrate to Israel that other peoples don't.
All Israeli citizens have equal rights. You can gain citizenship if you have a Jewish background, just like someone with an Irish background can gain an Irish citizenship.
The statement was that all races have equal rights under Israeli law not that all citizens have equal rights. Furthermore, Ireland has a naturalization process whereas the Israeli one is limited to Jews and spouses of existing citizens. Residents of the West Bank and Gaza are NOT classified as citizens of Israel. So either the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel or they are not. If they are not, then the residents there are under occupation. If they are, then why are they not granted citizenship.
I do not think that what Israel is doing is better or worse than what other countries have done or are currently doing and should not be treated any better or worse because of it. But it would be disingenuous to spin it as anything but what it is. To me, the strategy is to occupy and take over territory over time. It works. See the history of the United States versus native people, Australians versus aborigines, Chinese versus Tibetans. Might makes right. For Americans, we still benefit greatly from what happened in the past. Its not to say that the Palestinians are blameless, just that Israel has the 'bigger gun' in this fight.
Say what you will about history, but how people are treated right now is telling.
I do not think that what Israel is doing is better or worse than what other countries have done or are currently doing and should not be treated any better or worse because of it. But it would be disingenuous to spin it as anything but what it is. To me, the strategy is to occupy and take over territory over time. It works. See the history of the United States versus native people, Australians versus aborigines, Chinese versus Tibetans. Might makes right. For Americans, we still benefit greatly from what happened in the past. Its not to say that the Palestinians are blameless, just that Israel has the 'bigger gun' in this fight.
Say what you will about history, but how people are treated right now is telling.
Yea right. Are you saying that Zionists locating Israel in Palestine has nothing to do with their 3,000 year old holy book?
It's fairly uncontroversial historical fact that the Jews are originally from Palestine.
Why don't you do research on the early Zionists, if you're actually curious about the subject and not just trying to score points in an internet debate? Probably most of the early Zionists were very secularist.
Why don't you do research on the early Zionists, if you're actually curious about the subject and not just trying to score points in an internet debate? Probably most of the early Zionists were very secularist.
Unfortunately I do not trust much of what I read about Israel, there is just too much propaganda from all sides. Everything is twisted for some cause. The only thing I know for certain is that the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 was probably a really bad idea since it has led to so many wars.
If you don't want to inform yourself, please spare us your uninformed speculation.
> But then how do you explain the colonization programme?
I don't especially like the settlements, actually, and neither do a lot of Palestinians. I'd be happier if the lot of them were either removed or simply abandoned to the jurisdiction of Palestinian authorities.
Sharon actually closed a lot of them awhile ago, but just like any democracy, it's hard to get away with alienating any constituency. You'll notice that even though Sharon pulled all the settlements out of the Gaza Strip, it didn't seem to improve matters there any. Also, the settlements provide a lot of jobs and economic benefits to Palestinians. It's a complicated issue, much more complicated than this bullshit of yours about "the Israelis are Nazis" (which itself is pretty fucking racist, BTW).
As for the bulldozers, do you have any good sources on that? As far as I can readily find, most demolitions are either carried out because structures were constructed (often in Israel itself) without proper building permits (though this is allegedly enforced unfairly), or because there are terrorists actively holed up inside them. Interestingly, Israel also demolishes a lot of the settlements.
This is probably a good time to point out one of my simple ground rules about this issue: I think any criticism of any party, or any policy, is reasonable, as long as one accepts that both Israel and Palestine have a right to exist as independent states.
I don't especially like the settlements, actually, and neither do a lot of Palestinians. I'd be happier if the lot of them were either removed or simply abandoned to the jurisdiction of Palestinian authorities.
Sharon actually closed a lot of them awhile ago, but just like any democracy, it's hard to get away with alienating any constituency. You'll notice that even though Sharon pulled all the settlements out of the Gaza Strip, it didn't seem to improve matters there any. Also, the settlements provide a lot of jobs and economic benefits to Palestinians. It's a complicated issue, much more complicated than this bullshit of yours about "the Israelis are Nazis" (which itself is pretty fucking racist, BTW).
As for the bulldozers, do you have any good sources on that? As far as I can readily find, most demolitions are either carried out because structures were constructed (often in Israel itself) without proper building permits (though this is allegedly enforced unfairly), or because there are terrorists actively holed up inside them. Interestingly, Israel also demolishes a lot of the settlements.
This is probably a good time to point out one of my simple ground rules about this issue: I think any criticism of any party, or any policy, is reasonable, as long as one accepts that both Israel and Palestine have a right to exist as independent states.
Phil, thanks for clearing this up. I stand corrected. (hey, now, the IDF tweet didn't change my mind about the situation, but blvr and you did! dialog rocks - and thanks for your patience)
As a sidenote, I agree that the Nazi reference was over the top and I regret using it. I do not agree, however, that it was "fucking racist", since I called a government something, not a race or a nation's people.
As a sidenote, I agree that the Nazi reference was over the top and I regret using it. I do not agree, however, that it was "fucking racist", since I called a government something, not a race or a nation's people.
I don't think Israel accepts that Palestine has a right to exist as an independent state. Does that make them unreasonable?
That's a generalization. By my understanding, Labor and Kadima accept that Palestine should exist as an independent state, and Likud do not. This would make Likud unreasonable, but Likud does not represent all Israelis, nor is it fair to equate support for Israel's defense and continued existence with support for Likud's policies in particular.
There are also Palestinian factions which are unreasonable, including Hamas. I think it's doubly unfortunate that both Hamas and Likud have managed to win various elections.
There are also Palestinian factions which are unreasonable, including Hamas. I think it's doubly unfortunate that both Hamas and Likud have managed to win various elections.
Wait, i write a nasty, unfriendly post and get many upvotes. Then I admit that the nasty unfriendly post might've been based on a lack of understanding and ask for someone to explain better, and I get downvoted? What's going on, HN?
EDIT: I'm editing this comment because HN won't allow me to respond to blvr's post. blvr, thanks for elaborating. I don't mean to sound hateful, and I'm willing to accept that I have it all wrong. But still, can you explain the colonization thing? Why do they do it? Note, this is not criticism: I'd really like to understand it better. It's been pointed out by many in this thread by now that I've been assuming things.
EDIT: I'm editing this comment because HN won't allow me to respond to blvr's post. blvr, thanks for elaborating. I don't mean to sound hateful, and I'm willing to accept that I have it all wrong. But still, can you explain the colonization thing? Why do they do it? Note, this is not criticism: I'd really like to understand it better. It's been pointed out by many in this thread by now that I've been assuming things.
Click the permalink to reply.
I don't know what you mean by 'the colonisation thing'. What are you talking about specifically?
I don't know what you mean by 'the colonisation thing'. What are you talking about specifically?
(nice trick!)
Aie, damn. Lost in translation. I meant the settlements. But people have been elaborating about those in other comments by now. And I've come to stand corrected that even if the settlements are horrible, they're less horrible than suicide bombings and the likes.
Aie, damn. Lost in translation. I meant the settlements. But people have been elaborating about those in other comments by now. And I've come to stand corrected that even if the settlements are horrible, they're less horrible than suicide bombings and the likes.
Self-reply: I am ashamed by this comment by now. In particular, the Nazi comparison is way out of line, and unnecessarily offensive. Overall, the comment is short-sighted and childish.
It's a testament to the overall excellence of the HN community that the comment sparked a discussion, not a flamewar.
It's a testament to the overall excellence of the HN community that the comment sparked a discussion, not a flamewar.
And you believe posting anti-semitic remarks in public is appropriate.
We should care about your opinion why?
Flagged.
We should care about your opinion why?
Flagged.
Could you please spare us from the anti-semitic card? HN is not the mainstream media and many here are not ignorant, so this tactic doesn't work here. It also betrays your lack of objectivity on the matter.
Dude, he played the fucking nazi card before i said a word. And you're defending him, and saying I'm super PC b/c i think calling israelis "nazis" is not ok. wtf is your problem.
I'm curious, why do you equate "critical of the Israeli government" to antisemitism? I have no problem with Jews at all. In fact, if you read carefully, you'll see that the word Jew (or anything like it) does not appear in my post.
There are ways to be critical of the Israeli government without being antisemitic. You could be critical of, say, something relating to unemployment insurance.
But that's not what people are usually talking about when this argument comes up - instead, they're criticizing Israel's right to exist or Israel's right to defend itself (which amounts to the same thing). When they're not being so explicit, they want Israel to embark on a policy which would lead to the end of Israel (accepting indefensible borders, the 'right of return', etc.)
In short, they're making the 'anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism' argument. Personally, I think anti-Zionism is just the first type of antisemitism to try and simultaneously deny it's antisemitic. Let me try to explain with an analogy.
Let's say I was anti-France - that I believed French national identity was somehow illegitimate, and that therefore France shouldn't be a country. Since France shouldn't exist, France also isn't entitled to defend itself from external attack. However, I have no problem with French people! Great wine, great cheese - they just shouldn't be able to have a country. If a French person objects, I'll just patiently remind him that I'm not anti-French, I'm merely anti-France. Perhaps I'll criticize him a bit for inappropriately throwing out the anti-French card.
Sound ridiculous? Well, that's exactly how it sounds to me when someone argues that my people can't establish a state (in the same imperfect way most states are established) and then can't defend our state from attack. Everyone else's national self-determination is fine, but ours is somehow not.
So yes, when people make this sort of argument against Israel - a type of argument they would never make against Sweden or France or Mexico - in that case I do believe they're being more than a little biased against my people in particular, and therefore antisemitic.
But that's not what people are usually talking about when this argument comes up - instead, they're criticizing Israel's right to exist or Israel's right to defend itself (which amounts to the same thing). When they're not being so explicit, they want Israel to embark on a policy which would lead to the end of Israel (accepting indefensible borders, the 'right of return', etc.)
In short, they're making the 'anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism' argument. Personally, I think anti-Zionism is just the first type of antisemitism to try and simultaneously deny it's antisemitic. Let me try to explain with an analogy.
Let's say I was anti-France - that I believed French national identity was somehow illegitimate, and that therefore France shouldn't be a country. Since France shouldn't exist, France also isn't entitled to defend itself from external attack. However, I have no problem with French people! Great wine, great cheese - they just shouldn't be able to have a country. If a French person objects, I'll just patiently remind him that I'm not anti-French, I'm merely anti-France. Perhaps I'll criticize him a bit for inappropriately throwing out the anti-French card.
Sound ridiculous? Well, that's exactly how it sounds to me when someone argues that my people can't establish a state (in the same imperfect way most states are established) and then can't defend our state from attack. Everyone else's national self-determination is fine, but ours is somehow not.
So yes, when people make this sort of argument against Israel - a type of argument they would never make against Sweden or France or Mexico - in that case I do believe they're being more than a little biased against my people in particular, and therefore antisemitic.
Hm. That's a very good point. But I believe that there's one hole in your argument: it's that a country defending its right to exist means that it's allowed to commit atrocities. I strongly believe that Isreal has a right to defend itself. In fact, I think they have every right to do what this thread was actually about: track down and assasinate a terrorist.
You cannot deny, however, that Israel has been less than kind to the Palestinian people in many instances. Is pointing that out antisemitic? No. What about if it's pointed out in an absolutely tasteless way, for instance by using a Nazi reference? Still not. It's tasteless, and I apologize, but it's not denying Israel's right to exist or defend itself. I'm not convinced that maintaining a situation that essentially boils down to having first-class and second-class citizens is the only way to guarantee the continued existence of Israel.
And, it's important that we're allowed to discuss this. If any criticism of Israel's actions is called antisemitism, we're effectively censoring the entire debate. Now I'll be the first to admit that arguing on the internet has little direct value, but I daresay that the "antisemitism!!" gut reaction is at least as harmful as people like me rudely denouncing the people running a government in situation as complex as Israel's as "a bunch of Nazis".
You cannot deny, however, that Israel has been less than kind to the Palestinian people in many instances. Is pointing that out antisemitic? No. What about if it's pointed out in an absolutely tasteless way, for instance by using a Nazi reference? Still not. It's tasteless, and I apologize, but it's not denying Israel's right to exist or defend itself. I'm not convinced that maintaining a situation that essentially boils down to having first-class and second-class citizens is the only way to guarantee the continued existence of Israel.
And, it's important that we're allowed to discuss this. If any criticism of Israel's actions is called antisemitism, we're effectively censoring the entire debate. Now I'll be the first to admit that arguing on the internet has little direct value, but I daresay that the "antisemitism!!" gut reaction is at least as harmful as people like me rudely denouncing the people running a government in situation as complex as Israel's as "a bunch of Nazis".
Actually we can deny Israel has committed atrocities or done anything else bad or worse than other countries. in fact it has not.
you're now making factual assertions, which are false, and which you have never researched, you've only heard them from biased unscholarly sources like CNN. and you just believed them, without adequate questioning of them.
is it a coincidence that you believe false factual statements condemning israel, but not ones condemning france? or what?
and that you're so damn sure israel is guilty that you insist no one could even dispute it, even though you're highly ignorant on the topic and do not provide any factual arguments documenting any atrocities. (there are many purported documentations of such things. i've seen them before. they are not exactly high quality or persuasive. they only convince biased people or people who don't look too closely.)
you're now making factual assertions, which are false, and which you have never researched, you've only heard them from biased unscholarly sources like CNN. and you just believed them, without adequate questioning of them.
is it a coincidence that you believe false factual statements condemning israel, but not ones condemning france? or what?
and that you're so damn sure israel is guilty that you insist no one could even dispute it, even though you're highly ignorant on the topic and do not provide any factual arguments documenting any atrocities. (there are many purported documentations of such things. i've seen them before. they are not exactly high quality or persuasive. they only convince biased people or people who don't look too closely.)
It's actually very important to point out when people are being antisemitic, just like it's important to point out when people are being racist or sexist. Most people don't like to think of themselves as bigots, so pointing out their bigotry sometimes wakes them up a bit.
For example, you obviously don't like being called an antisemite, and you don't want to think of yourself as an antisemite. I hope that pointing out your very real bigotry will bother you enough that you'll spend some time exploring the underlying facts and thinking more about why the Jewish state is held to a standard no other nation is, and whether its actions are actually 'atrocities' or whether this belief comes from other antisemitic propaganda and lies.
Best of luck.
For example, you obviously don't like being called an antisemite, and you don't want to think of yourself as an antisemite. I hope that pointing out your very real bigotry will bother you enough that you'll spend some time exploring the underlying facts and thinking more about why the Jewish state is held to a standard no other nation is, and whether its actions are actually 'atrocities' or whether this belief comes from other antisemitic propaganda and lies.
Best of luck.
Dude, you called them nazis and then you assume i'm mad about any kind of criticism? you can't figure out it's actually that specific statement that's a problem?
the excuse that "i am only criticizing israel (which just happens to be the jewish state, what a coincidence), not jews" is an extremely common statement of anti-semites. using it without further elaboration only makes you look more anti-semitic.
the excuse that "i am only criticizing israel (which just happens to be the jewish state, what a coincidence), not jews" is an extremely common statement of anti-semites. using it without further elaboration only makes you look more anti-semitic.
"Dude", I'll again admit that that comment was out of line.
Nevertheless, I have a hard time understanding what you hope to gain by your approach here. While you may be quite right that stating "i am only criticizing israel, not jews" is common among people who hate Jews, did you ever consider that this does not imply the inverse? It does not mean that everyone criticizing Israel hates Jews. As a programmer, you must understand this.
IMHO, the fastest way Israel support organisations can lose popular support in countries outside Israel is by calling people who criticize them (no matter how tastelessly) antisemites. I never understood why commenters like you and pro-Israel organisations appear to be so trigger happy with the term. It moves the entire discussion from the sphere of fact and opinion to the sphere of taboos.
I'll happily discuss fact and opinion with you. So whether or not Israel did right or wrong things - that's an HN-worthy discussion. But playing the antisemite card on a criticism of a government, even if this criticism is exceptionally harsh and inappropriate, that just doesn't work. I called a bunch of politicians something horrible. You called me something comparably horrible.
Nevertheless, I have a hard time understanding what you hope to gain by your approach here. While you may be quite right that stating "i am only criticizing israel, not jews" is common among people who hate Jews, did you ever consider that this does not imply the inverse? It does not mean that everyone criticizing Israel hates Jews. As a programmer, you must understand this.
IMHO, the fastest way Israel support organisations can lose popular support in countries outside Israel is by calling people who criticize them (no matter how tastelessly) antisemites. I never understood why commenters like you and pro-Israel organisations appear to be so trigger happy with the term. It moves the entire discussion from the sphere of fact and opinion to the sphere of taboos.
I'll happily discuss fact and opinion with you. So whether or not Israel did right or wrong things - that's an HN-worthy discussion. But playing the antisemite card on a criticism of a government, even if this criticism is exceptionally harsh and inappropriate, that just doesn't work. I called a bunch of politicians something horrible. You called me something comparably horrible.
I've never seen a single example of a person who:
- criticizes israel in public, in ways anti-semites like to criticize israel - is not anti-semitic - does not include any clarifications in his criticism to differentiate himself from anti-semites
I think all good people know such clarifications are needed when you sound like you might be an anti-semite but actually aren't. If you leave them out, you're giving aid and comfort to anti-semitism and misleading people about your character, at best.
Note that any old clarifications won't work. Many anti-semites try to clarify how they aren't anti-semitic. A decent person would have to figure out how to say something that objectively differentiates himself. And he would care to do it if he wanted to publicly agree with the anti-semitic position on some specific point.
- criticizes israel in public, in ways anti-semites like to criticize israel - is not anti-semitic - does not include any clarifications in his criticism to differentiate himself from anti-semites
I think all good people know such clarifications are needed when you sound like you might be an anti-semite but actually aren't. If you leave them out, you're giving aid and comfort to anti-semitism and misleading people about your character, at best.
Note that any old clarifications won't work. Many anti-semites try to clarify how they aren't anti-semitic. A decent person would have to figure out how to say something that objectively differentiates himself. And he would care to do it if he wanted to publicly agree with the anti-semitic position on some specific point.
Yes, you have seen a single example of such a person: me.
I'm an American who is split on this issue (I find fault on both sides). None of the things you mentioned were ever uncertain to me.
If Israel is looking for more support from people like me, the question I'd like to see them answer is: how do they justify the West Bank settlements? I can't even begin to understand how Israel can claim to want peace with Palestinians while unilaterally moving into the land where 2/3 of them live. Where do they think the Palestinian state should be?
I can't even say I'm disagreeing with Israel's stance on this issue, because I honestly don't understand what theory Israel uses to justify this. Every time I read any news on this issue, there is a conspicuous lack of comment from Israeli leadership about why this is ok. It's like they don't believe it needs explaining. It's very strange to me.
Hamas is awful, but what space are Israel's policies leaving for more moderate Palestinian leadership?
If Israel is looking for more support from people like me, the question I'd like to see them answer is: how do they justify the West Bank settlements? I can't even begin to understand how Israel can claim to want peace with Palestinians while unilaterally moving into the land where 2/3 of them live. Where do they think the Palestinian state should be?
I can't even say I'm disagreeing with Israel's stance on this issue, because I honestly don't understand what theory Israel uses to justify this. Every time I read any news on this issue, there is a conspicuous lack of comment from Israeli leadership about why this is ok. It's like they don't believe it needs explaining. It's very strange to me.
Hamas is awful, but what space are Israel's policies leaving for more moderate Palestinian leadership?
The justification for settlements is as follows: buying land, and living there, is legal. Describing this process is "unilaterally moving into land where 2/3 of them live" is false. A way to stop being split on the issue is to stop believing false factual claims.
Palestine will have moderate leadership sometime after the majority of Palestinians are decent people who will vote for decent leaders. Blaming Israel for the hatred of its extremist enemies is nasty.
Palestine will have moderate leadership sometime after the majority of Palestinians are decent people who will vote for decent leaders. Blaming Israel for the hatred of its extremist enemies is nasty.
I find your argument unconvincing, but reading more about it did lead me to this page, so at least I can now say I understand Israel's official position on the matter: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+P...
Paraphrased, their position is: we won the 1967 war, and because there was no formal country in the West Bank prior to that, we can keep the land that we won in that war legally. Since we own it, we see no reason to keep Israelis from moving there if they want to.
It still seems hard to justify, saying on one hand that the "right of return" would threaten Israel's identity as a Jewish state (I agree; this is an unrealistic demand), but simultaneously arguing that Israelis are free to continue moving to the West Bank if they so choose, as if that doesn't threaten the identity of a future Palestinian state.
Paraphrased, their position is: we won the 1967 war, and because there was no formal country in the West Bank prior to that, we can keep the land that we won in that war legally. Since we own it, we see no reason to keep Israelis from moving there if they want to.
It still seems hard to justify, saying on one hand that the "right of return" would threaten Israel's identity as a Jewish state (I agree; this is an unrealistic demand), but simultaneously arguing that Israelis are free to continue moving to the West Bank if they so choose, as if that doesn't threaten the identity of a future Palestinian state.
That's not what that link actually says. it doesn't say Israel as a country owns the place b/c of the (defensive) war. It argues the place has a status such that there's nothing wrong with individual israelis choosing to build homes there. it also makes some important points you left out, e.g. that trying to kick all jews out of the area would be ethnic cleansing, and that whatever you think of this issue it cannot justify terrorism.
the issue with millions of hostile persons becoming israel voters is not paralleled by any similar issue with some settlements in palestine. first, isn't the population figures of the settlements more in line with the amount of arabs already in israel than with trying to take over? second, the israel settlers are not, as a whole, hostile/violent/dangerous to have in your country, so there's no reason to mind them. palestinians, while some individuals are decent folk, as a group they are dangerous, like it or not it's simply a fact: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01...
the issue with millions of hostile persons becoming israel voters is not paralleled by any similar issue with some settlements in palestine. first, isn't the population figures of the settlements more in line with the amount of arabs already in israel than with trying to take over? second, the israel settlers are not, as a whole, hostile/violent/dangerous to have in your country, so there's no reason to mind them. palestinians, while some individuals are decent folk, as a group they are dangerous, like it or not it's simply a fact: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01...
In my view there is a difference between maintaining/allowing existing settlements and constructing new ones. I agree that the issue of existing settlements has some more difficult questions, because it is, as you say, a serious thing to talk about evicting people from where they currently live.
That said, the construction of new settlements seems like a totally unnecessary provocation that undermines the prospect of a future Palestinian state. It very much gives me the impression that Israel is not serious about a two-state solution (in contrast with the withdrawal from Gaza, which very strongly had given me the opposite impression). I don't think it's appropriate to say what Palestinians should or should not "mind" having around; a major element of (future) sovereignty is a people being able to make their own decisions about immigration, as Israel does now. And while Israeli settlers may not be violent "as a whole," there is certainly a noticeable incidence of Israeli settler violence that targets Palestinians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settler_violence
I agree that empirically, a lot of violence is waged on Israelis by Palestinians. However I think it's wrong to frame them as an inherently violent people. You might have said the same thing about Jordanians in 1967, but now Israel and Jordan are allies. Likewise the PLO, which called for the destruction of Israel in its founding charter, has since recognized Israel's right to exist and rejected violence and terrorism. I'm not denying current Palestinian violence, which is awful.
That said, the construction of new settlements seems like a totally unnecessary provocation that undermines the prospect of a future Palestinian state. It very much gives me the impression that Israel is not serious about a two-state solution (in contrast with the withdrawal from Gaza, which very strongly had given me the opposite impression). I don't think it's appropriate to say what Palestinians should or should not "mind" having around; a major element of (future) sovereignty is a people being able to make their own decisions about immigration, as Israel does now. And while Israeli settlers may not be violent "as a whole," there is certainly a noticeable incidence of Israeli settler violence that targets Palestinians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settler_violence
I agree that empirically, a lot of violence is waged on Israelis by Palestinians. However I think it's wrong to frame them as an inherently violent people. You might have said the same thing about Jordanians in 1967, but now Israel and Jordan are allies. Likewise the PLO, which called for the destruction of Israel in its founding charter, has since recognized Israel's right to exist and rejected violence and terrorism. I'm not denying current Palestinian violence, which is awful.
The problem is that the West Bank isn't exactly sovereign territory of anyone. If it was, settlements would be a non-issue--some Israelis want to move into Palestine, it's up to the Palestinian immigration authorities, just like if some Egyptians wanted to move into Israel today. But there are no Palestinian immigration authorities, just the Israeli government, and since that government is democratic that puts them in a bit of a pickle.
If Israel is serious about holding the West Bank as a future homeland for Palestinians, they should be more restrictive about building new settlements and gently push for closing existing settlements. It's hard to do that when the settlers are your own people and they vote, though.
If Israel is serious about holding the West Bank as a future homeland for Palestinians, they should be more restrictive about building new settlements and gently push for closing existing settlements. It's hard to do that when the settlers are your own people and they vote, though.
I mostly agree with your comment except for the first sentence.
The problem is that while Arafat officially recognized Israel in 1993, Israel never reciprocated. Would it still be war if Israel recognized the right for a Palestinian State to exist, and how this Palestinian demand for a right to have a state can be denied by people who asked for the exact same thing and obtained it (leading to the existence of Israel) a few decades before ?
The problem is that while Arafat officially recognized Israel in 1993, Israel never reciprocated. Would it still be war if Israel recognized the right for a Palestinian State to exist, and how this Palestinian demand for a right to have a state can be denied by people who asked for the exact same thing and obtained it (leading to the existence of Israel) a few decades before ?
There isn't really a de facto Palestinian state to recognize, unfortunately. In the dying days of the Clinton administration Barak offered Arafat a recognized Palestinian state, but Arafat didn't agree to the terms. Maybe the terms were unreasonable, but most sources agree that Arafat didn't even bother with a counteroffer. Sharon made enough concessions to the Palestinians to alienate his own party. Even Netanyahu acknowledged the right of Palestinians to their own state in May, though I'm not optimistic on the chances of him successfully negotiating terms. Still, the two-state solution is agreed in principle. It would be a positive development for Israel to officially commit to that, though.
The offer Barak made to Arafat apparently carved the West Bank up into little Palestinian enclaves that could not function as a whole due to the settlements and settlers only roads that went through it.
By now it's pretty established that this is just wrong. Here's two maps that Dennis Ross published in his book 'The Missing Piece' that illustrate the issue:
http://cl.ly/image/10350b3Q052P
http://cl.ly/image/10350b3Q052P
So what ?
Why would Palestinian Authorities accept any borders except the ones from 1967, which is already very generous ?
Why would Palestinian Authorities accept any borders except the ones from 1967, which is already very generous ?
So false facts shouldn't be claimed, and that should be enough to not respond with snark. If there's another point to make, by all means, but be civil about it.
As for accepting borders - there are many reasons, but first and foremost pragmatism. Some Israeli cities in the West Bank will never be moved, and insisting on their evacuation is just an excuse to not make peace. These large inhabited areas are practically suburbs of large Israeli cities which are not in the West Bank, and wouldn't inhibit Palestinian life in any way. A land swap is the reasonable thing to do.
For comparison, up until the 40s the Israeli government (to be) accepted pretty much any proposal that would just let them get on with it and build a state (Peel Comission 1930s, UN Partition Plan 1940s). They too had endless justifications for why they should get more than they were offered, and how unjust it would be to settle for less, but ultimately they chose the future over the past.
Palestinians can cling to their version of a just solution for another hundred years and go nowhere, or accept the perfectly reasonable framework that was already put on the table by Clinton in 2000 and accepted by Israel:
* Over 95% of 1967 territory, with the rest made up for in land swaps * Full control over East Jerusalem * Billions of dollars in aid to resettle all refugees in Palestine
Many countries have defensible grievances over which pieces of territory should or should not be under their control, but still get on with their lives and live peacefully with their neighbours. Palestinians don't, and we should ask ourselves why.
As for accepting borders - there are many reasons, but first and foremost pragmatism. Some Israeli cities in the West Bank will never be moved, and insisting on their evacuation is just an excuse to not make peace. These large inhabited areas are practically suburbs of large Israeli cities which are not in the West Bank, and wouldn't inhibit Palestinian life in any way. A land swap is the reasonable thing to do.
For comparison, up until the 40s the Israeli government (to be) accepted pretty much any proposal that would just let them get on with it and build a state (Peel Comission 1930s, UN Partition Plan 1940s). They too had endless justifications for why they should get more than they were offered, and how unjust it would be to settle for less, but ultimately they chose the future over the past.
Palestinians can cling to their version of a just solution for another hundred years and go nowhere, or accept the perfectly reasonable framework that was already put on the table by Clinton in 2000 and accepted by Israel:
* Over 95% of 1967 territory, with the rest made up for in land swaps * Full control over East Jerusalem * Billions of dollars in aid to resettle all refugees in Palestine
Many countries have defensible grievances over which pieces of territory should or should not be under their control, but still get on with their lives and live peacefully with their neighbours. Palestinians don't, and we should ask ourselves why.
Interesting thanks, shame the map as drawn was never presented at the talks...
Wow, it's well known that the settlements are illegal under international law. This is acknowledged by many academics and intellectuals such as Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky.
you think saying your position being right is "well known" and that Noam Chomsky agrees is an objective, rational argument that will persuade people who don't already agree with you...?
The position is indeed well known, and it is also well known to be poorly supported by facts or legal reasoning, and rather supported by fringe figures like the parental post mentioned.
But we will not get anywhere in this discussion: if someone's mind is closed, it is hard to deal with that.
But we will not get anywhere in this discussion: if someone's mind is closed, it is hard to deal with that.
Calling the majority of Palestinians as indecent people is nasty.
are you disputing facts like these?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01...
I am shocked you would actually try and make that argument about a whole country of people and still have the guts to call someone criticising the Israeli government antisemetic. What possible moral high ground do you have now?
I said the majority, I linked to something saying the majority.
Your mistake is no random accident. You should go learn positive things about Israel until you wouldn't make such a mistake again.
Your mistake is no random accident. You should go learn positive things about Israel until you wouldn't make such a mistake again.
> I said the majority, I linked to something saying the majority.
You also implied they are not decent because of their voting preferences, completely ignoring the complex factors that may have led each to make that decision. There are so many ways you could have gotten the point across that the Palestinion public needs to make better choices in their elected officials, yet you decided to just call those people indecent.
> Your mistake is no random accident. You should go learn positive things about Israel until you wouldn't make such a mistake again.
Is your attitude regarding the people of Palestine no random accident? Should I advise you to learn more about individual Palestinions with the assumption that would change your mind?
You also implied they are not decent because of their voting preferences, completely ignoring the complex factors that may have led each to make that decision. There are so many ways you could have gotten the point across that the Palestinion public needs to make better choices in their elected officials, yet you decided to just call those people indecent.
> Your mistake is no random accident. You should go learn positive things about Israel until you wouldn't make such a mistake again.
Is your attitude regarding the people of Palestine no random accident? Should I advise you to learn more about individual Palestinions with the assumption that would change your mind?
[deleted]
Coming from someone who isn't really engaged in the whole Israel-Palestine thing (and, honestly, won't be until they cause the next world war), this little display makes me feel like IDF is presenting a very real, serious act (killing a person) as if it is a game.
The trophy eliminated graphic and youtube video.. it's almost like they aren't even serious about killing people and using military force. It has a reckless feeling to it and it doesn't sit well with me.
The trophy eliminated graphic and youtube video.. it's almost like they aren't even serious about killing people and using military force. It has a reckless feeling to it and it doesn't sit well with me.
>>as if it is a game.
Its not even a game actually. I mean you are comparing two forces of totally unequal magnitude. Israel probably has several hundreds of times a more military power, air power and naval power than the Palestinians. The Palestinians do not even have a remote chance of even touching Israel.
>>it's almost like they aren't even serious about killing people and using military force.
Your opponents have a fleet of most advanced air power backed by the biggest, most powerful and technically sophisticated army owned by a super power in the whole world. Coupled with this unmatched ground power. What you have is a gun, crude weapons and rockets.
Is this even a competition? Think of it more like practice sessions.
Its not even a game actually. I mean you are comparing two forces of totally unequal magnitude. Israel probably has several hundreds of times a more military power, air power and naval power than the Palestinians. The Palestinians do not even have a remote chance of even touching Israel.
>>it's almost like they aren't even serious about killing people and using military force.
Your opponents have a fleet of most advanced air power backed by the biggest, most powerful and technically sophisticated army owned by a super power in the whole world. Coupled with this unmatched ground power. What you have is a gun, crude weapons and rockets.
Is this even a competition? Think of it more like practice sessions.
> The Palestinians do not even have a remote chance of even touching Israel.
Tell that to all the Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorism.
Tell that to all the Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorism.
What an idiot. Calling genocide and occupation legal and the struggle against occupation terrorism. Poor Israelis who have been killed by these terrorists! Here are the number of Palestinians/Israelis killed since 1948. This is no two-state battle as it's portrayed to be. These numbers indicate nothing but genocide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_con...
So you support suicide bombing and rocket strikes against civilian targets?
Check the numbers. In 2009 Israel killed 1034, Palestinians killed... 9!!! That's around 115 for each one Israeli killed. That's genocide, not retaliation. And it's done with US military jet fighters and tanks, that Palestinians don't have (talk about terrorism!)
Let's look at it simply, Israel has the land, settlements in Palestinian territory, denying right of return and controlling East Jerusalem. All of which are Palestinian rights according to the UN. Give them back and whine all you want about terrorism to the world, until you do, any attacks on you are legitimate. And your retaliation is nothing other than trying to subject a free people to surrender their rights, which they never will.
Let's look at it simply, Israel has the land, settlements in Palestinian territory, denying right of return and controlling East Jerusalem. All of which are Palestinian rights according to the UN. Give them back and whine all you want about terrorism to the world, until you do, any attacks on you are legitimate. And your retaliation is nothing other than trying to subject a free people to surrender their rights, which they never will.
Genocide? I'm sorry, but that holds no water at all and is plain insulting to the intelligence of this community. A genocide is the deliberate destruction of at least a significant part of a people. Your numbers (if they are even true, I see no sources) do not in the slightest support that.
You really do the Palestinian position no favours by claiming absurdities.
You really do the Palestinian position no favours by claiming absurdities.
So you support suicide bombing and rocket strikes against civilian targets.
There is only a insane person that will justify killing anybody. I mean anybody. No matter who kills whom.
[deleted]
> Do you want to enrage your enemy into more violence
Yes, in a "go on, make my day" kind of way, to justify even more future military action, since Israel is likely to win any future conflict.
> This is why the US military didn't release anything
US military's goal was not the same as Israel's goal.
> or do you want to win?
They want to win, but not as you think.
Their definition of "win" is to ethnically clean Palestinians from biblical Israel, so yes, engaging them in more and more and more violence is the way to go.
> You're just setting up the next wave of violence.
And the next wave of violence will lead to the next way of Israel wins, and the next way of Israel wins will lead to the next way of settlements and land expropriation. Mission accomplished. The Israeli far right loves it when a plan comes together.
> It's not a fucking game.
Your problem is that you dont even for a second consider the possibility that Israel is the bad guy in this game, i.e. the Nazis, so youre all the time "wrong move, wrong move, WTF are they doing?!?!". From a bully's point of view, Israels tactics fully make sense. You start a conflict and then you win and you take your victims toys and chase him from the playground.
Yes, in a "go on, make my day" kind of way, to justify even more future military action, since Israel is likely to win any future conflict.
> This is why the US military didn't release anything
US military's goal was not the same as Israel's goal.
> or do you want to win?
They want to win, but not as you think.
Their definition of "win" is to ethnically clean Palestinians from biblical Israel, so yes, engaging them in more and more and more violence is the way to go.
> You're just setting up the next wave of violence.
And the next wave of violence will lead to the next way of Israel wins, and the next way of Israel wins will lead to the next way of settlements and land expropriation. Mission accomplished. The Israeli far right loves it when a plan comes together.
> It's not a fucking game.
Your problem is that you dont even for a second consider the possibility that Israel is the bad guy in this game, i.e. the Nazis, so youre all the time "wrong move, wrong move, WTF are they doing?!?!". From a bully's point of view, Israels tactics fully make sense. You start a conflict and then you win and you take your victims toys and chase him from the playground.
I agree in principle, but honestly this is pretty low on the list of things that Israel does that helps build the next wave of Palestinian militants. The blockade of the Gaza Strip, for example - whatever you think of its merits - has had a fairly harsh effect on average people living there, and has been a effective tool in keeping the support for Hamas high. It's let up somewhat recently, though it'll be interesting to see what happens with the ongoing political turmoil in Egypt.
"blockade of the Gaza Strip"
Gaza strip borders Egypt on the southwest (11 km) and Israel on the east and north (51 km (32 mi))[1]. Israel can only "blockade" it's borders. The border to Egypt is open, and that where the rockets come from. The strip was occupied too long, true (38 years), but once Israel pulled you would expect something better than a fundamentalist militant Islamic regim that is focused on terror rather then encouraging better life after the occupation. One can hardly call "free from occupation" the Palestinians who live under this Islamic brutal oppression.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip
Gaza strip borders Egypt on the southwest (11 km) and Israel on the east and north (51 km (32 mi))[1]. Israel can only "blockade" it's borders. The border to Egypt is open, and that where the rockets come from. The strip was occupied too long, true (38 years), but once Israel pulled you would expect something better than a fundamentalist militant Islamic regim that is focused on terror rather then encouraging better life after the occupation. One can hardly call "free from occupation" the Palestinians who live under this Islamic brutal oppression.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip
I agree that the tone is childish and unnecessary, but I doubt it makes much of a difference.
Large organisations are still figuring out how to use social media, but in principle publishing an operation on twitter is no different than putting our a press release or sending someone for an interview at a major TV channel.
Same goes for making videos available on YouTube, I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, since I don't watch TV I would have never seen this video if it wasn't made available online.
Large organisations are still figuring out how to use social media, but in principle publishing an operation on twitter is no different than putting our a press release or sending someone for an interview at a major TV channel.
Same goes for making videos available on YouTube, I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, since I don't watch TV I would have never seen this video if it wasn't made available online.
Reminds me of a key tenet I heard about PR is: It's not what you say, but how you say it.
A dry press release, no image data, and a dry political report from the relevant spokesperson is perfect for this - there's nothing to latch onto - if you just list the facts, and get it over with.
It's what Obama did after Osama was assassinated, and it worked well - there was nothing offensive to latch on to, nothing to point to, and say "Look, that's what you are fighting for!".
A dry press release, no image data, and a dry political report from the relevant spokesperson is perfect for this - there's nothing to latch onto - if you just list the facts, and get it over with.
It's what Obama did after Osama was assassinated, and it worked well - there was nothing offensive to latch on to, nothing to point to, and say "Look, that's what you are fighting for!".
>>Do you want to enrage your enemy into more violence or do you want to win?
Provoke your enemies to launch small time worthless rocket(Without much firepower or guidance system to cause organized damage) attacks at you. Use those attacks, now as a reason- Call it terrorism and then bomb them left right and center with F-16s and call it defending yourself.
I am not supporting anybody here. But this is a valid defense strategy in a war.
You can do anything in a war so as long you can justify it.
Provoke your enemies to launch small time worthless rocket(Without much firepower or guidance system to cause organized damage) attacks at you. Use those attacks, now as a reason- Call it terrorism and then bomb them left right and center with F-16s and call it defending yourself.
I am not supporting anybody here. But this is a valid defense strategy in a war.
You can do anything in a war so as long you can justify it.
I dont think this matters at all. When their provocation of Israely soldiers fails to give them what they want the fake it. Israel exists is all the provacation they need.
> This is why the US military didn't release anything to do with Osama's assassination
I distinctly remember footage, on al-Jazeera of all networks, of Americans outside the White House singing "na na na na hey hey hey goodbye". OK, nothing official, but it's there. But oddly, no reprisals.
I distinctly remember footage, on al-Jazeera of all networks, of Americans outside the White House singing "na na na na hey hey hey goodbye". OK, nothing official, but it's there. But oddly, no reprisals.
Wild guess: This is for domestic consumption, or consumption by western allies. The face you present to your own citizens is not the face you present to your enemy. Most Palestinians probably don't read english anyways.
It may be for domestic consumption but there are plenty of Palestinians who do speak English and I'm pretty sure at least some of them are on Twitter. After all, if a Danish cartoon in a newspaper can set off riots in countries where it is not published then I'm sure public posts on a very popular website will get some coverage.
Regardless of how the Palestinians react to it, it does just seem a very dehumanized way of approaching a conflict where actual real people are dying.
Regardless of how the Palestinians react to it, it does just seem a very dehumanized way of approaching a conflict where actual real people are dying.
if a Danish cartoon in a newspaper can set off riots
in countries where it is not published it does just seem a very dehumanized way of approaching a conflict
where actual real people are dyingI agree absolutely. There are individuals and groups out there drumming up controversy whenever they can, whatever their motives are.
I didn't mean to compare the two in terms of which was ok, I was just pointing out that saying " Most Palestinians probably don't read english anyways." doesn't mean they won't be aware of it regardless of whether or not they are the "intended" audience
I didn't mean to compare the two in terms of which was ok, I was just pointing out that saying " Most Palestinians probably don't read english anyways." doesn't mean they won't be aware of it regardless of whether or not they are the "intended" audience
What dehumanizing? You give no examples. I go to the twitter feed and see tweets like this:
> Over 50 rockets fired from #Gaza hit Israel since yesterday -- more than 800 rockets in 2012 alone. RT this. #Hamas
> 1 million citizens in #Israel slept in bomb shelters tonight, barraged by dozens of rockets from #Gaza. pic.twitter.com/LqPfjaTj
Seems like they are explaining things in simple terms so more humans can understand what's happening. I don't get how communicating so more humans will understand is dehumanizing.
> Over 50 rockets fired from #Gaza hit Israel since yesterday -- more than 800 rockets in 2012 alone. RT this. #Hamas
> 1 million citizens in #Israel slept in bomb shelters tonight, barraged by dozens of rockets from #Gaza. pic.twitter.com/LqPfjaTj
Seems like they are explaining things in simple terms so more humans can understand what's happening. I don't get how communicating so more humans will understand is dehumanizing.
It's dehumanizing because the targets are painted as one-dimensional figures to be "eliminated" not a people who have been killed. See paragraph 3 in the linked post
I'm not saying they're not justified in doing what they're doing (that's a whole other 70+ year conversation) but this is the same as any other propaganda to 'other' the enemy.
I'm not saying they're not justified in doing what they're doing (that's a whole other 70+ year conversation) but this is the same as any other propaganda to 'other' the enemy.
I don't see any emotional tones attached to the Tweets, like you seem to suggest in your comment. Now you receive the news from tweets -from the moment it happens- instead of reading about it in tomorrow's paper.
I guess Israel feels they need to be more in control of the news that will be send out, sending the news out themselves from the moment it happens is one way of achieving this.
I see the need for this. Here in Europe many countries, organisations (like the EU) and media outlets seem to be more politically aligned with Arab nations compared to Israel. I believe this to be because the Arab nations are much more worth as trade partner to Europe compared to Israel and in the end money makes the world go round. Perhaps by sending these tweets Israel can gain more support from the (European) citizens.
I guess Israel feels they need to be more in control of the news that will be send out, sending the news out themselves from the moment it happens is one way of achieving this.
I see the need for this. Here in Europe many countries, organisations (like the EU) and media outlets seem to be more politically aligned with Arab nations compared to Israel. I believe this to be because the Arab nations are much more worth as trade partner to Europe compared to Israel and in the end money makes the world go round. Perhaps by sending these tweets Israel can gain more support from the (European) citizens.
There are two sides to the coin. One that they take the media personally and another that it boosts morale for a people who are bombed and hurt mentally and physically. It is my feeling that the latter benefit will outweigh the earlier cost.
I'm trying to be objective and not emotionally involved about this issue.
This is what I understand: historically you don't defeat and dominate your enemy and after some generations all is good. Historically you killed everyone to ensure no new generations would come back to fight back.
This means that historically all children were murdered too. Total eradication of entire civilizations.
The modern western warfare now respects children and woman. This is a HUGE change, and the consequences are still being discovered.
Now everything is a public relations issue. I don't agree or disagree with what's happening, I simply watch in fascination as an external unrelated entity.
This is what I understand: historically you don't defeat and dominate your enemy and after some generations all is good. Historically you killed everyone to ensure no new generations would come back to fight back.
This means that historically all children were murdered too. Total eradication of entire civilizations.
The modern western warfare now respects children and woman. This is a HUGE change, and the consequences are still being discovered.
Now everything is a public relations issue. I don't agree or disagree with what's happening, I simply watch in fascination as an external unrelated entity.
What Obama did with Osama was a fucking scandal and should have cost him the presidency.
The only way thing the muslim murders fear is humiliation. A quick martyrdom followed by a dignified burial at sea is not going to deter anybody. And they have all the reason they need to hate the US so long as there are soldiers on 'muslim' land. Just as they have plenty of things to hate Israel for, no matter what they are posting on twitter.
The only way thing the muslim murders fear is humiliation. A quick martyrdom followed by a dignified burial at sea is not going to deter anybody. And they have all the reason they need to hate the US so long as there are soldiers on 'muslim' land. Just as they have plenty of things to hate Israel for, no matter what they are posting on twitter.
What Obama did with Osama was a fucking scandal
and should have cost him the presidency. The only way thing the muslim murders fear is humiliation. A quick martyrdom followed by a dignified burial at sea
is not going to deter anybody.Look, I understand frustration and feelings, but we can talk rationally here.
You are confusing a feature for a bug here.
The objective requires an enemy.
The objective requires an enemy.
you mean besides the 'iconic' picture of the war room with Obama and his top aides watching the raid? detailed accounts of what happened? pictures of the aftermath? an onslaught of books, movies, references?
nope, nothing at all. but somehow everyone knows that seal team six is BADASS.
pointing to the US, of all countries, as a counter example is a cognitive dissonance of such magnitude, it is baffling.
greetings from Europe.
nope, nothing at all. but somehow everyone knows that seal team six is BADASS.
pointing to the US, of all countries, as a counter example is a cognitive dissonance of such magnitude, it is baffling.
greetings from Europe.
Those were press releases - they happen everyday to report serious events.
The White House pictures showed no glee and did not trivialise the situation - they were serious and released appropriately. No photos of Osama or his assassination were released.
The pictures of the aftermath were from Pakistan.
Books/Movies/References occur with any high impact event - you cannot stop them.
Greetings from "get off your high horse", the real world is messy - hence you deal with the situations as best you can as they arise - but obviously Europe is doing just fine - so we should all probably listen to you.
Oh wait - no you aren't.
The White House pictures showed no glee and did not trivialise the situation - they were serious and released appropriately. No photos of Osama or his assassination were released.
The pictures of the aftermath were from Pakistan.
Books/Movies/References occur with any high impact event - you cannot stop them.
Greetings from "get off your high horse", the real world is messy - hence you deal with the situations as best you can as they arise - but obviously Europe is doing just fine - so we should all probably listen to you.
Oh wait - no you aren't.
so what's your beef with @IDFSpokesperson then? those are press releases, just in Twitter not through Reuters.
@USArmy, @USFOR_A + @ISAF_RC_South + @ISAFmedia, @DeptofDefense, @StateDept, @NATO, http://www.pentagonchannel.mil/ ... all exist and post war content directly.
the IDF is doing the same.
@USArmy, @USFOR_A + @ISAF_RC_South + @ISAFmedia, @DeptofDefense, @StateDept, @NATO, http://www.pentagonchannel.mil/ ... all exist and post war content directly.
the IDF is doing the same.
An adaption from an earlier comment of mine:
Lets be frank, this was a targeted assassination by a nation state that consistently tries to paint itself as a beacon of democracy in the region.
Say all you want about Ahmed Jabari but his modus operandi was a direct result of a life of occupation and subjugation. You don't go into prison at the age of 22 and come out 13 years later a happy individual. I mean it was only 6 years ago that Hamas was democratically elected in a process considered fair and transparant, only for the elections to be found null and void by those (US/Israel et al) outside of Gaza!
Edit: On a side note, I wonder whether many people know that Likud, the Netanyahus political party, does not recognise Palestines right to exist!
Lets be frank, this was a targeted assassination by a nation state that consistently tries to paint itself as a beacon of democracy in the region.
Say all you want about Ahmed Jabari but his modus operandi was a direct result of a life of occupation and subjugation. You don't go into prison at the age of 22 and come out 13 years later a happy individual. I mean it was only 6 years ago that Hamas was democratically elected in a process considered fair and transparant, only for the elections to be found null and void by those (US/Israel et al) outside of Gaza!
Edit: On a side note, I wonder whether many people know that Likud, the Netanyahus political party, does not recognise Palestines right to exist!
I find it very strange that people criticize Israel for assassinating terrorist, but say nothing about Obama's kill list or drone strikes.
Interesting, how people hold the world's only Jewish state to a different moral standard than every other country. There's a word for that.
I'm sure there's people who do this, but I doubt there are many of them in this thread. The fact of the matter is that both the Israelis and the Palestinians consistently commit horrible crimes, in the name of some perceived God-declared right to a strip of desert.
On individual cases, you can't blame Israel for defending against hand-made rockets flying over the Gaza strip border. Similarly, you can't blame your average Palestinian for joining the resistance after an Isreali army bulldozered his village to make place for Israeli houses and theatres.
Both sides, in many ways, are equally bad. The main difference is that Israel can choose to stop colonizing, can choose to give Palestinians basic human rights to allow some sort of economy to develop. The only thing Palestinians can choose to do is to stop fighting. There's a difference here.
I don't see how all of that has anything to do with Israel being a Jewish state, except of course that declaring a single-religion state, in general, is asking for trouble.
EDIT: In a different set of comments here, it was pointed out to me that Isreal is in fact a "surprisingly secular state". I tend to believe that. So in that case, you can scratch my last line. In exchange, we all stop calling Israel a Jewish state.
On individual cases, you can't blame Israel for defending against hand-made rockets flying over the Gaza strip border. Similarly, you can't blame your average Palestinian for joining the resistance after an Isreali army bulldozered his village to make place for Israeli houses and theatres.
Both sides, in many ways, are equally bad. The main difference is that Israel can choose to stop colonizing, can choose to give Palestinians basic human rights to allow some sort of economy to develop. The only thing Palestinians can choose to do is to stop fighting. There's a difference here.
I don't see how all of that has anything to do with Israel being a Jewish state, except of course that declaring a single-religion state, in general, is asking for trouble.
EDIT: In a different set of comments here, it was pointed out to me that Isreal is in fact a "surprisingly secular state". I tend to believe that. So in that case, you can scratch my last line. In exchange, we all stop calling Israel a Jewish state.
I'm not going to say Israel is a font of ethical behavior or that your analysis is, in broad strokes, wrong, but there are a few facts that should get clarified.
First, the settlers aren't settling in Gaza, they're settling in the West Bank. This makes the idea of rockets-as-retribution a bit strange, since relations with the West Bank are decent and they obviously undergo a lot more daily molestation than Gazans do since Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_statistics_for_Israe...
Also, Israel is in no sense a single religion state. There is complete freedom of religion in Israel. There is an "official" orthodox Judaism there which sadly has the authority to determine if you get a real Jewish wedding among other things, but there are Muslim and Christian Israelis among everything else, and the stripe of ones Judaism is not relevant to immigration.
First, the settlers aren't settling in Gaza, they're settling in the West Bank. This makes the idea of rockets-as-retribution a bit strange, since relations with the West Bank are decent and they obviously undergo a lot more daily molestation than Gazans do since Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_statistics_for_Israe...
Also, Israel is in no sense a single religion state. There is complete freedom of religion in Israel. There is an "official" orthodox Judaism there which sadly has the authority to determine if you get a real Jewish wedding among other things, but there are Muslim and Christian Israelis among everything else, and the stripe of ones Judaism is not relevant to immigration.
No but you can think of Gaza as a giant prison camp and the rockets as the equivalent of throwing rocks over the wall
Not really. Rockets are rockets. You'd be an imbecile to think you could fire nearly a thousand into the country across the border without experiencing military repercussions. If you live in one of the densest places on earth, you're not just a moron, you're also endangering hundreds of innocent bystanders by doing it. If you've seen the results of this antagonism in the past and you do it anyway, you're maliciously insane. If you launch your rockets from your apartment building, your kid's school, you must know what's going to happen as a result. Israel hasn't summarily executed six people in the street for being "Palestinian conspirators" during this mess, but Hamas has. Ten percent of rockets fired by Gazans land in Gaza, destroying their own buildings, infrastructure and killing their own people.
Who's holding the gate closed to this giant prison camp? Nobody, as it turns out, except Gaza itself. Look at questions 14 and 15 on this poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion:
http://www.pcpo.ps/polls/poll171.htm
80% of Palestinians won't give up on right of return, and they won't accept a cash buyout either. The former is as likely as America peacably returning the land to the Native Americans. The latter is an actual possibility, but what's the point if they don't want it. The Palestinian Authority doesn't want a large migration rate out, because it hurts their appeal for statehood and the argument for right of return. Hamas is responsible for turning Gaza into a prison camp, not Israel. Compare to the situation in the West Bank, where you could legitimately say there is too much Israeli interference, yet there is peace. If Gaza wants peace, they should show Hamas the door and elect Fatah. It worked for one half.
Israel has a fundamental responsibility to its citizens to guarantee their safety, and that responsibility has precedence over protecting the lives of innocent bystanders living in an enemy territory surrounded by agents who are actively attacking them. As far as this particular Gaza expedition goes, their hands are clean. This one's on Gaza.
Who's holding the gate closed to this giant prison camp? Nobody, as it turns out, except Gaza itself. Look at questions 14 and 15 on this poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion:
http://www.pcpo.ps/polls/poll171.htm
80% of Palestinians won't give up on right of return, and they won't accept a cash buyout either. The former is as likely as America peacably returning the land to the Native Americans. The latter is an actual possibility, but what's the point if they don't want it. The Palestinian Authority doesn't want a large migration rate out, because it hurts their appeal for statehood and the argument for right of return. Hamas is responsible for turning Gaza into a prison camp, not Israel. Compare to the situation in the West Bank, where you could legitimately say there is too much Israeli interference, yet there is peace. If Gaza wants peace, they should show Hamas the door and elect Fatah. It worked for one half.
Israel has a fundamental responsibility to its citizens to guarantee their safety, and that responsibility has precedence over protecting the lives of innocent bystanders living in an enemy territory surrounded by agents who are actively attacking them. As far as this particular Gaza expedition goes, their hands are clean. This one's on Gaza.
> I don't see how all of that has anything to do with Israel being a Jewish state, except of course that declaring a single-religion state, in general, is asking for trouble.
Israel isn't a state for Judaism, it's simply a state for Jewish people. The set of Jewish people is not equal to the set of people who practice Judaism.
Israel isn't a state for Judaism, it's simply a state for Jewish people. The set of Jewish people is not equal to the set of people who practice Judaism.
You know, many people don't know that Jews form an ethnic group, not just a religion. There is a surprising lack of knowledge about our, admittedly small, but still widespread and supposedly familiar group of people.
different in that Israel is allowed to do things we'd never accept from any other nation?
"I find it very strange that people criticize Israel for assassinating terrorist, but say nothing about Obama's kill list or drone strikes."
You should try asking them how they feel about this instead of claiming hypocrisy.
You should try asking them how they feel about this instead of claiming hypocrisy.
Erm, I haven't seen this at all. In fact, most of the people I know who are most critical of Israel are also critical of Obama's foreign policy (though most begrudgingly voted for him anyways, because, y'know, Romney).
> though most begrudgingly voted for him anyways
Is there anyone in Israel running for office on the platform of "let's not assassinate terrorists"? Are these people under the illusion that they would vote for such a person, or abstain from voting if no such candidate presented themselves?
Once you vote for an assassin in your country, you lose the moral authority to denounce another country's assassinations. Romney or not.
Is there anyone in Israel running for office on the platform of "let's not assassinate terrorists"? Are these people under the illusion that they would vote for such a person, or abstain from voting if no such candidate presented themselves?
Once you vote for an assassin in your country, you lose the moral authority to denounce another country's assassinations. Romney or not.
So they wouldn't truly be critical of him then.
Most people I know who tend to criticize Israel, tend to also believe that America's self-assigned world wide license to kill is an atrocity.
What do targeted assassinations have to do with democracy? The USA, the great bastion of democracy, engages in those as a matter of daily practice. I don't think these tactics are always useful but it's one of the things that can happen in situations where you have two parties who want to fight a war. I would say the outcome was a result of choosing to wage an armed struggle (mostly targeting civilian population) towards the destruction of Israel. He made his choices (which included firing hundreds of rockets to population centers). What does "recognizing" someone's right to "exist" mean in this context? "Palestine" is not recognized by anyone in the world so why should the Likud recognize it? This is a new entity that the Palestinians want to create. Perhaps it is the best solution for the region but for it to actually exist some sort of agreement has to be reached.
[deleted]
does Hamas recognize the right of Israel to exist?
this is war.
this is war.
No, this is occupation and apartheid.
Since this is HN let met just say that I hope you don't apply the same sort of oversimplification to the code you write. Technically Gaza may have been under Egyptian control historically but Egypt doesn't want it back. Israel has no presence in Gaza. So there's no occupation in Gaza and no apartheid in Gaza any more than there is South Korean occupation and apartheid in North Korea. That doesn't mean everything is right in that region but unfortunately there are no simple solutions that satisfy the wishes of both sides.
If Israel has no presence in Gaza then why is the municipality not given access to the sea and to the air. Is there a sea port in Gaza?
Attempts to whitewash Israels treatment of the Palestinians falls short the minute facts enter the argument.
Attempts to whitewash Israels treatment of the Palestinians falls short the minute facts enter the argument.
Why can't North Korea import missiles and parts for their nuclear program through the South Korean border? I say, we must protest that. Israel is at war with the Gaza entity so they blockade it (partially, oddly enough Gaza does get a lot of supplies from Israel). To continue the analogy, just like North Korea can import through its border with China so can Gaza through its border with Egypt. As evidence of there being no effective blockade look at the amount of weaponry available to the Gaza people. Israel doesn't pretend to treat Gaza well so there's no need to whitewash that. However to some extent it's a function of Gaza's attacks on Israel. In the west bank Israel also doesn't treat the Palestinians that well and the "apartheid/occupation" argument may hold a tiny bit more water there but it's also some sort of more stable Palestinian partial autonomy over there. The west bank used to be under Jordanian control and Jordan doesn't want it back either. Anyway, as I was saying the situation is far from simple. It's not black and white.
Because if they had that access, they would import weapons to use to kill Israeli civilians. Are you forgetting which side of this conflict tends to strap bombs onto their chests before walking into a nightclub?
Is it the same side that straps children to the front of armoured troop carriers? You're trying to make this a dichotomic issue when its not. How do you expect Hamas to maintain a truce with Israel when Israel prevents them from acquiring the basic tools necessary to govern!
Why does Israel ban confectionary into Gaza?
Why does Israel ban confectionary into Gaza?
I get it, no confectionery == we'll fire missiles randomly at your country. If confectionery is so important why don't they smuggle some from Egypt. Israel does have a policy of minimizing what they allow through their border to a bare minimum but there is another border and there is an option to negotiate improving the situation. If you said the policy was stupid I might agree with you but it doesn't justify the Hamas. If Hamas was motivated to reach some sort of long term stability they would act differently.
> How do you expect Hamas to maintain a truce with Israel
I don't, because Hamas is a terrorist organization with the express goal of destroying Israel. And it's not for lack of candy, either.
> Is it the same side that straps children to the front of armoured troop carriers?
Um, do you have any kind of evidence of that ever happening, or is this just another blood libel? Google literally brings up your comment as the only relevant result.
I don't, because Hamas is a terrorist organization with the express goal of destroying Israel. And it's not for lack of candy, either.
> Is it the same side that straps children to the front of armoured troop carriers?
Um, do you have any kind of evidence of that ever happening, or is this just another blood libel? Google literally brings up your comment as the only relevant result.
I'm agape at such a bizarre use of social media. If I didn't know better, I'd say this was satire. Hell, this image alone is Onion-worthy: http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/war-of...
Thing is, I can't pinpoint why, exactly, it feels so strange. Just... militant combatants pledging mutual annihilation, living right alongside a photo of your aunt's cat peering out of a shoebox. The dissonance is off the charts.
Thing is, I can't pinpoint why, exactly, it feels so strange. Just... militant combatants pledging mutual annihilation, living right alongside a photo of your aunt's cat peering out of a shoebox. The dissonance is off the charts.
This whole social media being used in war strikes me as something right of of a Vonnegut novel
I shared this because for me seems like a significant change on the force multiplier of the Internet. How will it affect the thoughts and impressions of folks who deal with this locally, or remotely? Will it inure us to violence or create hypersensitivity? Out of control rumor mills or inability to cover up anything. I don't know where this road leads but I'm not sure I even want to know.
Do you know anyone who has changed their opinion about anything to do with Israel?
These tweets just re-enforce people's existing opinion.
Also, 'ELIMINATED' is a distasteful way of saying 'DEAD' or 'KILLED'.
These tweets just re-enforce people's existing opinion.
Also, 'ELIMINATED' is a distasteful way of saying 'DEAD' or 'KILLED'.
Yes I do know people who have changed points of view. But I am more interested in the way in which technology has changed the way all of the parties involved are acting. During the Egypt uprising as part of the Arab spring there was a tremendous backlash on Egypt for cutting off (or trying to) Internet access to keep word of what was going on from getting out. I felt that was pretty egregious, but I wouldn't feel bad if Twitter said "We don't want to enable you to prosecute your war and advertise it on our service."
So I find myself internally at a conflicted point. Why was it 'bad' for Egypt to do? Why wouldn't it be 'bad' for Twitter to do? (remember this is me asking myself if I can deduce through introspection why I'm conflicted) I'm not on either 'side' of the Palestinian conflict, but I am interested in trying to reason about morality and the Internet's impact on it.
So I find myself internally at a conflicted point. Why was it 'bad' for Egypt to do? Why wouldn't it be 'bad' for Twitter to do? (remember this is me asking myself if I can deduce through introspection why I'm conflicted) I'm not on either 'side' of the Palestinian conflict, but I am interested in trying to reason about morality and the Internet's impact on it.
I'm really sorry that I derailed your thread.
You make some interesting points, and they could have led to some useful discussion.
I'll try (and I'll avoid the traditional flame-war aspects of the discussion.)
I think the difference may be the perceived power balances: in one situation there is an oppressive regime censoring communications to hinder rebels who are protesting against that oppressive regime. In the other situation there is a network who would be asking some account holders not to make posts on their network. Their servers, their rules.
We might dislike twitter for taking a stance, but it's not censorship.
You make some interesting points, and they could have led to some useful discussion.
I'll try (and I'll avoid the traditional flame-war aspects of the discussion.)
I think the difference may be the perceived power balances: in one situation there is an oppressive regime censoring communications to hinder rebels who are protesting against that oppressive regime. In the other situation there is a network who would be asking some account holders not to make posts on their network. Their servers, their rules.
We might dislike twitter for taking a stance, but it's not censorship.
No worries, it was destined to be de-railed.
I think you are correct about the power balances. People revolting in Egypt don't have a 'voice' but the government does, similarly Israel has its own 'voice' in the form of television media, etc and doesn't "need" the amplification that Twitter provides.
Its an interesting dichotomy that I'll have to think more about. Meanwhile this whole thread has been modded into oblivion :-)
I think you are correct about the power balances. People revolting in Egypt don't have a 'voice' but the government does, similarly Israel has its own 'voice' in the form of television media, etc and doesn't "need" the amplification that Twitter provides.
Its an interesting dichotomy that I'll have to think more about. Meanwhile this whole thread has been modded into oblivion :-)
The US as a whole tends to be very pro-Israel.
I doubt that a majority of the American people support Israel the way that a majority of American politicians apparently do. My perception is that Zionists are a very powerful special interest group.
"Support Israel" is such a vague term. You can oppose individual policies or decisions while still supporting the basic existence of the country.
The American right tends to be supportive of Israel. The American left is slightly more split, but since American Jews tend to be left-wing they exert enough of an influence on the rest. This doesn't tend to be as true in Europe, where anti-semitism never went fully out of fashion.
The American right tends to be supportive of Israel. The American left is slightly more split, but since American Jews tend to be left-wing they exert enough of an influence on the rest. This doesn't tend to be as true in Europe, where anti-semitism never went fully out of fashion.
Hm, I'm curious: where in Europe is anti-semitism not "fully out of fashion"? I only know my own experience, of course (the Netherands). My impression is that here, apart from Arab immigrants, people couldn't really care less whether someone's Jewish. Most Dutch Jews are so Dutch that it's hard to tell they're Jewish at all, except possibly by their names. But all of this may also be because there are so few Jews in the Netherlands these days (the Nazis did a pretty, ehm, thorough job here, unfortunately).
(This, of course, assumes that by antisemitism you mean actual hatred of Jews, and not "being critical of the something the Israeli government does or did")
(This, of course, assumes that by antisemitism you mean actual hatred of Jews, and not "being critical of the something the Israeli government does or did")
> (This, of course, assumes that by antisemitism you mean actual hatred of Jews, and not "being critical of the something the Israeli government does or did")
Well, for example, there's being critical of something the Israeli government does or did, and then there's literally calling them Nazis.
There's also that charming little incident in your country where football supporters, specifically of Ajax, took on a "Jewish" identity for some reason, which was cute until rival supporters chanted "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas". Oddly enough, this kind of racist abuse doesn't seem to happen in the United States. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E7DB153FF...
Well, for example, there's being critical of something the Israeli government does or did, and then there's literally calling them Nazis.
There's also that charming little incident in your country where football supporters, specifically of Ajax, took on a "Jewish" identity for some reason, which was cute until rival supporters chanted "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas". Oddly enough, this kind of racist abuse doesn't seem to happen in the United States. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E7DB153FF...
I agree that calling the Israeli government Nazis was way out of line, but I don't see how it's antisemetic. I did not say anything about the Jewish people or about Judaism - I said something (tasteless) about the government of a country. Very tasteless, because many of the people of that particular country are the descendents of those who were persecuted by the Nazis. But how is the comment, in itself, antisemetic? There was no ethnic or religious undertone at all.
Fair point though about the football supporters. Their behaviour show the worst in any people. That said, if Ajax had happened to be associated with Catholics instead of Jews, the rival supporters would've come up with something horribly offensive to Catholics. So I'm not sure that this was real decent antisemitism: more like a very inappropriate form of anti-Ajaxism.
In fact, the way I understand that incident, it's much like using the term "Nazi" to criticize the Israeli governmen. I don't see how that's antisemitic, but it's still ridiculously offensive. When I wrote that, I lowered myself to the standards of mindless hooligans.
Fair point though about the football supporters. Their behaviour show the worst in any people. That said, if Ajax had happened to be associated with Catholics instead of Jews, the rival supporters would've come up with something horribly offensive to Catholics. So I'm not sure that this was real decent antisemitism: more like a very inappropriate form of anti-Ajaxism.
In fact, the way I understand that incident, it's much like using the term "Nazi" to criticize the Israeli governmen. I don't see how that's antisemitic, but it's still ridiculously offensive. When I wrote that, I lowered myself to the standards of mindless hooligans.
Hm, I'm curious: where in Europe is anti-semitism not "fully out of fashion"?
-- Anti-semitism is rampant: In the UK, France, and Germany, etc. Its quite possibly, even trendy. [1,2,3]
____________________________
[1] How my hate-filled family spawned Merah the monster
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/how-my-hatefi...
[M. Merah murdered seven people, including three Jewish <children>, in a series of scooter-borne attacks in the Toulouse area in March 2012.]
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/how-my-hatefi...
[2] 'One in six' east Germans think like neo-Nazis
Published: 12 Nov 12 15:51 CET
http://www.thelocal.de/national/20121112-46121.html
[3] Anti-Israel culture war of British liberal elites is not a grassroots movement Too many of our leading British academic and cultural institutions are in the thrall of left-wing activists, but anti-Semitism is far from rife at the British grassroots
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1381/anti_israel_cultu...
[4] "There is in England a saying that an anti-Semite is someone who hates the Jews more than is necessary." - 2010. Y. Rabim, Nobel Laureate.
-- Anti-semitism is rampant: In the UK, France, and Germany, etc. Its quite possibly, even trendy. [1,2,3]
____________________________
[1] How my hate-filled family spawned Merah the monster
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/how-my-hatefi...
[M. Merah murdered seven people, including three Jewish <children>, in a series of scooter-borne attacks in the Toulouse area in March 2012.]
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/how-my-hatefi...
[2] 'One in six' east Germans think like neo-Nazis
Published: 12 Nov 12 15:51 CET
http://www.thelocal.de/national/20121112-46121.html
[3] Anti-Israel culture war of British liberal elites is not a grassroots movement Too many of our leading British academic and cultural institutions are in the thrall of left-wing activists, but anti-Semitism is far from rife at the British grassroots
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1381/anti_israel_cultu...
[4] "There is in England a saying that an anti-Semite is someone who hates the Jews more than is necessary." - 2010. Y. Rabim, Nobel Laureate.
The Christian right, which although maybe isn't a majority of Americans is a significant fraction, unconditionally supports Israel for a number of reasons, from Israel being necessary for the Rapture to it being better than its neighbors, to simply being anti-Muslim.
See http://www.patrobertson.com/Speeches/IsraelLauder.asp for their own words, and http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/north7.html for an non-evangelical viewpoint.
See http://www.patrobertson.com/Speeches/IsraelLauder.asp for their own words, and http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/north7.html for an non-evangelical viewpoint.
Uh-huh. Do they also control the media?
By your rhetorical question ("Do they also control the media?") I assume that you're trying to paint sk5t as some kind of conspiracy nut.
sk5t's comment was: "My perception is that Zionists are a very powerful special interest group." Which strikes me as a calm, rational opinion. (Whether or not you or I agree with it is another matter...)
sk5t's comment was: "My perception is that Zionists are a very powerful special interest group." Which strikes me as a calm, rational opinion. (Whether or not you or I agree with it is another matter...)
Yup. AIPAC makes it rain.
The scary thing is that I heard "some expert" recently on NPR that Iran does more harm to us (e.g. 1979-1980 hostage crisis) when the Democrats are in control, because usually the Democrats don't have the strong military stance of the Republicans.
This could be extrapolated to "if Israel doesn't do this sort of thing, then it will be a sign of weakness to the Palestinians, Iran, and others", however I don't think that is true. There is a line between an aggressive posture and just downright being awful, and they crossed it.
Also assassination is wrong no matter who it is done to. Geneva convention or not, life is sacred and even those that have committed the utmost atrocities deserve only to be separated from everyone else so they can do no more harm and perhaps learn from their mistakes and repent. I know that I would be just as angry as the Israelis or Palestinians if I had to experience what they have, though.
This could be extrapolated to "if Israel doesn't do this sort of thing, then it will be a sign of weakness to the Palestinians, Iran, and others", however I don't think that is true. There is a line between an aggressive posture and just downright being awful, and they crossed it.
Also assassination is wrong no matter who it is done to. Geneva convention or not, life is sacred and even those that have committed the utmost atrocities deserve only to be separated from everyone else so they can do no more harm and perhaps learn from their mistakes and repent. I know that I would be just as angry as the Israelis or Palestinians if I had to experience what they have, though.
What is awful?
Israel defends themselves -- not enough (if some Israeli innocents still get murdered and Israel still attacked in the future, how can that be enough defense?) -- and you call it "awful"? Explain yourself!
Israel defends themselves -- not enough (if some Israeli innocents still get murdered and Israel still attacked in the future, how can that be enough defense?) -- and you call it "awful"? Explain yourself!
From the Reuters article, "Panicking civilians ran for cover and the death toll mounted quickly. Ten people including three children were killed, the health ministry said, and about 40 were wounded. Also among the dead were an 11-month-old baby and a woman pregnant with twins."
This definitely has historical significance, and I find it fascinating. Thanks for sharing! Generally, I believe that more direct channels between governments and citizens will be a long term win for everyone.
Anyone else notice how the IDF has a verified account but "Alqassam Brigades" does not?
I wonder how you would go about verifying an account for the Alqassam Brigades.
I think israel war tactics are better. They are creating phobia amongst all the Hamas leaders and members. They are deliberately showing their superior discipline and power and challenging the indisciplined hamas members.
Good thing is they killed a well known military leader and a terrorist . Just to send a message , I mean striking terror in the heart of enemy is the single most accurate technique that has worked since the origin of war. I think those who volunteer for Hamas now will think twice about it.
Frankly enforcing religion in military used to work when people fought with knives and swords . Here most wars are won with discipline and intelligence . No religion led military will ever win , they are just a bunch of monkeys jumping here and there and are too emotional to think with their heads .
Good thing is they killed a well known military leader and a terrorist . Just to send a message , I mean striking terror in the heart of enemy is the single most accurate technique that has worked since the origin of war. I think those who volunteer for Hamas now will think twice about it.
Frankly enforcing religion in military used to work when people fought with knives and swords . Here most wars are won with discipline and intelligence . No religion led military will ever win , they are just a bunch of monkeys jumping here and there and are too emotional to think with their heads .
I really don't think an article like this belongs on this site. The only discussion is going to be hate vs. hate. Nothing about innovation, technology, start ups or anything close.
The best (relatively) short, online history of Israel:
http://www.settingtheworldtorights.com/node/74
http://www.settingtheworldtorights.com/node/74
Joke time
I wonder how many people who have followed IDF since this attack are terrorists.
IDF Twitter status: Following @terrorist... with my laser! LMAO
They might as well setup a FourSquare account also. IDF is now mayor of license plate xxxxx.
I wonder how many people who have followed IDF since this attack are terrorists.
IDF Twitter status: Following @terrorist... with my laser! LMAO
They might as well setup a FourSquare account also. IDF is now mayor of license plate xxxxx.
What better way to create more terrorists than by laughing in their faces, publishing military operations on Twitter as if they were trivial events, showing military kill strikes on YouTube and using game like graphics stating their leaders have been "eliminated".
Do you want to enrage your enemy into more violence or do you want to win?
Do your military operations - kill terrorists or don't - protect your borders or don't - I don't frankly give a damn.
But don't give the enemy more emotional ammunition than necessary, especially since you know they will use this as perfect fodder to indoctrinate even more people to their cause - especially children. This is the stuff they'll show kids, stating "Look, do you see how they mock us! - This is why you must fight and die!". You're just setting up the next wave of violence.
This is why the US military didn't release anything to do with Osama's assassination, and buried him at sea - nothing to worship, nothing to point to, nothing to show the people you want to brainwash - and say "Look how they mock us!".
You don't poke a cornered enemy unnecessarily. The expected value of that is negative.
It's not a fucking game.