ABC News said:
You are giving Put-put way too much credit. This conflict has been going on longer than Putin has been alive. And the association between far-leftists and Palestinian terrorists is also a longstanding one. Remember the Entebbe raid in 1976? Palestinian and far-left German terrorists hijacked an El Al airplane, leading to a commando raid to rescue the hostages. Btw, in the raid Bibi Netanyahu's brother Yonatan lost his life.
While I disagree with him on Ukraine. Mass Muslim migration is threatening the very identity of the European continent. Of course, there are many politicians on the left in Europe who actually desire that.
If you look at all the rioting in Europe and US from the pro-Palestinian side, where the participants are mostly Muslims, you have to admit he has a point. The rise in antisemitism in Germany is almost entirely due to accelerating Muslim mass migration over the last two decades.
You know, if they don't think Israel has a right to defend itself against Hamas terrorism and continuous Hamas aggression, then they do not belong into the Democratic fold. Or democratic fold for that matter. Maybe FBI should be looking into possible material support for a designated terrorist organization as well. CAIR and other Muslim organizations in the US have ties to Hamas after all.
You know, Putin is not necessarily behind everything bad that happens in this world.
It is snark, but not particularly good one.
Hamas wasn't. Perhaps Mujama al-Islamiya was, until they started stockpiling weapons in the 80s.
You are conflating decades. The election that Hamas won was in 2006, and by that time there was no Israeli support for them. Quite the opposite. As I said, their founder was assassinated in 2004. Other high-ranking Hamasniks were also assassinated around that time, for example Salah Shehade in 2002.
PLO was created by those who could not countenance the very existence of Israel. The only thing Israel could have done to avoid the creation of PLO terrorist group was not to exist. Which is what many on the far left would like it to do.
Israel did not create Hamas. That's ludicrous.
And how do you propose that to happen? To meekly accept Hamas massacres?
The May operation was not terrorism, and it was also not an attack on "people of Gaza", or even on Hamas. It was a counterattack against Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a separate terrorist group operating in Gaza. It started after PIJ launched 102 rockets at Israeli civilians. It's funny how you always ignore Palestinian terrorism and aggression, and only concentrate on Israeli response to it.
What dreams? Dreams of destroying Israel?
They are not congruent sets, of course, but there is lot of of overlap.
A shorthand is not the same as a logical fallacy. I did not say "the entire civilian population".
And these Hamas supporters are not innocent of the Hamas atrocities.
What history? Germany was bombed extensively, and yet militarily crushing the Nazi state was necessary in order to pacify and denazify Germany. Even if it took a lot of civilian casualties in Germany to accomplish that.
It worked in both Germany and Japan.
Replace "direct cause of" with "directly caused by". My bad.
Yes. It took two wars to hammer the lesson into the thick Teutonic skulls.
Hardly surprising that the oppressed support violence against their oppressors.
Apparently the thick skull club has at least one more member
Was a complete military defeat necessary? Perhaps, but you cannot know that for a fact. Was strategic bombing necessary, or even helpful? Almost certainly not.
You are totally missing the connections. Putin met with Hamas leaders before the attack, Iran is also helping Russia and Hamas, the two of them are allied against the United State’s interests across the world. The conflict may be old, but it is being stoked by players with alternative motives. And it is working. And now it appears that he is encouraging his ally Maduro in Venezuela to cause more mayhem for the United States.
I.e., if we don't try to summarize a complex situation in a one-word slogan, and look at all the pieces, we'll find that the Venn diagram of South Africa's and Israel's policies has a degree of overlap. That's probably true of any two countries' policies.Apartheid had numerous reasons for its origin and for its continued existence: economic and social reasons. One could say it was to protect white people’s economic, political status along with personal safety. social status.
...
Apartheid - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
South African practices had the same purpose as Israeli practices because the word "protect" is used both for protectionist economic policies and for keeping people from being murdered. Got it.
Israel’s policies toward Palestinian and Israeli Arabs are geared to protect Israeli Jews personal safety and political status with the added bonus of some economic bonus.
Israel’s policies are not perfect replicas of South Africa’s apartheid but there are parallels.
Anybody who calls Israeli policy apartheid on the basis of the "parallels" is deliberately sweeping under the rug the fact that the primary reasons for South Africa's choices were prejudice, social status preservation and economic exploitation, and the primary reason for Israel's choices is murder prevention. The reason anybody is motivated to sweep that difference under the rug is because he or she is a propagandist.
You have a gift for understatement, on both points.
I focus solely on murder because murder is precisely what is being systematically swept under the rug. "Apartheid was put in place to protect South Africans." is ridiculous and anybody who claims it deserves all the ridicule he gets.
The question is the degree of overlap which is something reasonable people can disagree without being disingenuous.
I.e., if we don't try to summarize a complex situation in a one-word slogan, and look at all the pieces, we'll find that the Venn diagram of South Africa's and Israel's policies has a degree of overlap. That's probably true of any two countries' policies.Apartheid had numerous reasons for its origin and for its continued existence: economic and social reasons. One could say it was to protect white people’s economic, political status along with personal safety. social status.
...Apartheid - Wikipedia
South African practices had the same purpose as Israeli practices because the word "protect" is used both for protectionist economic policies and for keeping people from being murdered. Got it.
Israel’s policies toward Palestinian and Israeli Arabs are geared to protect Israeli Jews personal safety and political status with the added bonus of some economic bonus.
Israel’s policies are not perfect replicas of South Africa’s apartheid but there are parallels.
Huh? How do you figure that means they aren't really in power? They decide when attacks on Israel will happen; they decide where weapons will be stored and where tunnels will be dug and where rockets will be launched from; they decide which Gazan civilians will be allowed to run away and which used as human shields; they decide how much international aid goes to civilians and how much to their own militants. Sure looks like power to me. If you mean they aren't in power because they haven't won an election in about twenty years, that's not how power works.
It is your mistake; I said nothing of the sort; and no, I'm not swapping Hamas and Palestinians at all. I wrote carefully and I said exactly what I meant. (Of course I wasn't talking about Hamas -- the defeat of Hamas is a precondition for the proposed situation ever coming to pass!) The previous poster's moral claim amounted to "the Israelis ought to make their own human rights and their own survival conditional on the Palestinians choosing to tolerate them.", and the fact that it amounted to that is a matter of logic that's independent of whether the Palestinians in point of fact have a drive towards Israeli extinction. If the democratic one-state-solution of his dreams gets set up, maybe the Palestinians will tolerate the Israelis and respect their human rights, and maybe they'll kill them or expel them or treat them as an oppressed underclass. I don't know; you don't know; the previous poster doesn't know. I make no claim about which of those will happen; I merely point out that which will happen will be up to the collective social choice of the Palestinians. So he is arguing that the Israelis have a moral obligation to acquiesce to that scenario -- to abandon their own military precautions and trust their physical security to faith in the good will of their enemies. It is perfectly possible that the Palestinians would live up to their obligations and protect ethnic minorities; it is also perfectly possible that they wouldn't. The odds of one outcome or the other, we can all make our own subjective judgment of; but what our opinions of the odds are doesn't change the fact that the Israelis would be running a risk by accepting that outcome. So to anybody who agrees with the previous poster's moral claim, what the bejesus moral theory implies it's immoral for the Israelis to choose not to run that risk?Other than the Palestinians... and their drive towards Israeli extinction? If you didn't mean that, it'd be my mistake, however, you are swapping Hamas and Palestinians rather carelessly in your post.Who the heck am I supposed to have broad-brushed?
Yes, of course they are. You say "But" as though Israel not being an apartheid state means their policies aren't a problem -- well, that's a bloody low bar you're setting for something to be not a problem. The only at all moral solution is the two-state solution -- what a more hopeful age called "Land for Peace" -- and like you said, Netanyahu doesn't want the two-state solution. So Netanyahu needs to go. And so do the illegal settlements in the West Bank. Israel needs another Rabin. Prospects for getting one do not look good.
It was an absolute and certain article of faith amongst white South Africans during apartheid.
And it was an absolute and certain article of faith amongst white southern Americans that secession was about States' Rights, and they just swept the original secession documents that talked about slavery under the rug. When the original reasons for decisions become an embarrassment people come up with post hoc rationalizations that sound like better justification. And they even believe their own excuses. But it's anachronistic. When white South Africans started with the segregation and discrimination and Jim Crow practices they didn't hide the racist motivations because racism hadn't been discredited yet.
And in a sane world that would mean Palestinians would support violence against Hamas militants, who oppress them, and not against Israeli babies, who don't.
76% support for Hamas. 84% support for Islamic Jihad, who blew up the Palestinians' hospital. And we call ourselves the rational animal.
If the dispute were happening in a context-free vacuum, maybe. But the point of labeling Israel's practices "apartheid" is to cast Israel in the role of sole oppressor and misdirect the audience into not observing that Hamas and the other terrorists and their numerous civilian supporters are also oppressors. It's verbal sleight-of-hand.
You do know what the word "primary" means, don't you? Calling one motivation primary effectively stipulates that there are others and policy cannot be reduced to just one and the situation is complex.
In a sane world, there’d be no religion and no need for an Israel.
For some reason, you feel that in a complex world with multiple motivations, there is single reason that motivates everyone .#Bomb20 said:
So why bother isolating one as “primary”? Especially since it is difficult, if not impossible, to rank motivations by importance.#Bomb20 said:laughing dog said:
