More Trouble In Israel

[Jayjay]

So Israel is the dog and Palestinians are you in this metaphor? It's still not very clear.

I think it is pretty clear - shooting at a neighbor's house is an over-reaction to their dog pooping on your lawn. Injuring and killing 10x as many Palestinians (or Israelis if the roles were reversed) is an over-reaction to the injuring and killing of Israelis (or Palestinians if the roles were reversed): the gov't of Israel's response is a vastly disproportionate response to the Hamas instigation.

And Hamas's response to unrest in Jerusalem was vastly disproportionate too. I would say that Israel isn't shooting at the neighbor's house, it's shooting at the dog.

A military response shouldn't necessarily be proportionate to the action that instigated it; it should be proportional to what it takes to stop or deter that instigation. If I steal someone's car, the police will send me to prison for a couple of years. But if I imprison someone for even a year, I'll probably spend a LOT longer time behind the bars myself. Yet the police and the legal system are not disproportionate in their reaction.

 

[Derec]

I think it is pretty clear - shooting at a neighbor's house is an over-reaction to their dog pooping on your lawn.

It's a horrible analogy that breaks down in every aspect.
- It's ridiculous to equate 1000s of rockets Hamas is shooting at Israel with pooping but IDF missiles with shooting at the house. If you must equate one with poop, then both are akin to poop. Except it's precision-guided shit, targeting the original shitter (i.e. Hamas), not widely flinging shit all over the place.
- Hamas is running the Strip and they are the ones shooting the rockets. So they are like the neighbor shitting all over the lawn, not the dog.

 

[Jarhyn]

So Israel is the dog and Palestinians are you in this metaphor? It's still not very clear.

I think it is pretty clear - shooting at a neighbor's house is an over-reaction to their dog pooping on your lawn. Injuring and killing 10x as many Palestinians (or Israelis if the roles were reversed) is an over-reaction to the injuring and killing of Israelis (or Palestinians if the roles were reversed): the gov't of Israel's response is a vastly disproportionate response to the Hamas instigation.

And Hamas's response to unrest in Jerusalem was vastly disproportionate too. I would say that Israel isn't shooting at the neighbor's house, it's shooting at the dog.

A military response shouldn't necessarily be proportionate to the action that instigated it; it should be proportional to what it takes to stop or deter that instigation. If I steal someone's car, the police will send me to prison for a couple of years. But if I imprison someone for even a year, I'll probably spend a LOT longer time behind the bars myself. Yet the police and the legal system are not disproportionate in their reaction.

And at any rate, this is traveling into a position on retributive justice that I will not assent to being a valid premise for the sake of ANY argument, let alone this one. You are not imprisoned in these scenarios, or at least should not be, as a "response"; you are imprisoned because of what you continue to be, ostensibly in the effort to make you not that.

 

[Derec]

you are imprisoned because of what you continue to be, ostensibly in the effort to make you not that.

And Hamas and Islamic Jihad, along with other terrorist groups like PFLP (splitters!!!) and parts of Fatah (see Barghouti, Marwan, the most popular Palestinian politician, currently serving quintuple life for terrorist murders while head of a terrorist wing of Fatah) groups like are continuously seeking to kill Jews and destroy Israel.

Hence the necessity of continued IDF actions, especially in Gaza. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

 

[Jarhyn]

you are imprisoned because of what you continue to be, ostensibly in the effort to make you not that.

And Hamas and Islamic Jihad, along with other terrorist groups like PFLP (splitters!!!) and parts of Fatah (see Barghouti, Marwan, the most popular Palestinian politician, currently serving quintuple life for terrorist murders while head of a terrorist wing of Fatah) groups like are continuously seeking to kill Jews and destroy Israel.

Hence the necessity of continued IDF actions, especially in Gaza. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

You know the best way to make people not want to kill you? Don't murder their friends and family.

You act as if the desire to strike Israel happens in a fucking vacuum.

 

[Patooka]

When former Prime Ministers start openly calling your country's policies synonymous with apartheid, you really have forfeited the moral high ground. But hey, every Palestinian is a member of Hamas amirite?

 

[laughing dog]

So Israel is the dog and Palestinians are you in this metaphor? It's still not very clear.

I think it is pretty clear - shooting at a neighbor's house is an over-reaction to their dog pooping on your lawn. Injuring and killing 10x as many Palestinians (or Israelis if the roles were reversed) is an over-reaction to the injuring and killing of Israelis (or Palestinians if the roles were reversed): the gov't of Israel's response is a vastly disproportionate response to the Hamas instigation.

And Hamas's response to unrest in Jerusalem was vastly disproportionate too. I would say that Israel isn't shooting at the neighbor's house, it's shooting at the dog.

And if they basically hit that dog you'd have a point. Since they are not, you don't.

A military response shouldn't necessarily be proportionate to the action that instigated it; it should be proportional to what it takes to stop or deter that instigation. If I steal someone's car, the police will send me to prison for a couple of years. But if I imprison someone for even a year, I'll probably spend a LOT longer time behind the bars myself. Yet the police and the legal system are not disproportionate in their reaction.

The gov't of Israel has been using their strategy for decades, and it doesn't seem to work.

 

[laughing dog]

you are imprisoned because of what you continue to be, ostensibly in the effort to make you not that.

And Hamas and Islamic Jihad, along with other terrorist groups like PFLP (splitters!!!) and parts of Fatah (see Barghouti, Marwan, the most popular Palestinian politician, currently serving quintuple life for terrorist murders while head of a terrorist wing of Fatah) groups like are continuously seeking to kill Jews and destroy Israel.

And yet, the Palestinian civilians suffer much more property damage, personal injury and death than Israeli citizens. That ought to make one wonder.

Hence the necessity of continued IDF actions, especially in Gaza. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Calling millions of people "a wretched hive of scum and villainy" is a morally detestable characterization.

 

[Jarhyn]

And yet, the Palestinian civilians suffer much more property damage, personal injury and death than Israeli citizens. That ought to make one wonder.

Hence the necessity of continued IDF actions, especially in Gaza. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Calling millions of people "a wretched hive of scum and villainy" is a morally detestable characterization.

IKR? Like it's dehumanization taken to a grand scale.

Like, I know they are capable of complaining after broad brushing, whenever it's "white cis males" being broad brushed... So what's the difference I wonder?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So Israel is the dog and Palestinians are you in this metaphor? It's still not very clear.

I think it is pretty clear - shooting at a neighbor's house is an over-reaction to their dog pooping on your lawn. Injuring and killing 10x as many Palestinians (or Israelis if the roles were reversed) is an over-reaction to the injuring and killing of Israelis (or Palestinians if the roles were reversed): the gov't of Israel's response is a vastly disproportionate response to the Hamas instigation.

Except the rules of self defense are not the rules of sports.

The rockets are lethal force. Once you cross the lethal force line it's crossed you can take whatever force it takes to stop the attacks. There is no issue of proportionality. You're only in the wrong if you use an option heavier than other effective options you have equally available. Thus if someone is shooting at you with a blunderbuss and you have an assault rifle and a bazooka sitting there you shouldn't use the bazooka. However, if you only have the bazooka you're free to use it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You know the best way to make people not want to kill you? Don't murder their friends and family.

You act as if the desire to strike Israel happens in a fucking vacuum.

The attacks predate the very existence of Israel. Unless Israel has a time machine nothing done by Israel can be the driving force. The actual driving force is the very existence of Israel.

 

[Jarhyn]

You know the best way to make people not want to kill you? Don't murder their friends and family.

You act as if the desire to strike Israel happens in a fucking vacuum.

The attacks predate the very existence of Israel. Unless Israel has a time machine nothing done by Israel can be the driving force. The actual driving force is the very existence of Israel.

In the 1950's , a lot of people were attacking each other for a lot of reasons. Most of the states in the region were actual kingdoms. I'm not going to really care about what people were doing before any of these people's parents were born. What matters is that the people living there today are ostensibly part of an educated democracy, and the people they kill they choose to stomp on, and they stomp on them today, over attacks of a sort I endured daily, from more sources, and with better accuracy, and for less reason... Yet I can still forgive the people who did it, and wanted with all my heart to help give them reasons to not hate us both then, and now.

Most Israelis feel the same way. As do most Palestinians. But the side with the power has to be the one to yield, if it is not to be seen as anything but a rape being fended against badly.

 

[lpetrich]

Tensions Among Democrats Grow Over Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - The New York Times - "Divisions within the party have burst into public view, with the party’s ascendant left viewing the Mideast conflict as a searing racial justice issue that carries echoes of U.S. politics."

In 1988, when James Zogby, the founder of the Arab American Institute, pushed Democrats to include a mention of Palestinian sovereignty in their platform, party leaders responded with a clear warning, he recalled: “If the P-word is even in the platform, all hell will break loose.” Eager to stave off an angry confrontation at the convention, the issue was shelved without a vote.

Now, with violence in Israel and the Palestinian territories forcing the issue back to the forefront of American politics, divisions between the leadership of the Democratic Party and the activist wing have burst into public view. While the Biden administration is handling the growing conflict as a highly sensitive diplomatic challenge involving a longstanding ally, the ascendant left views it as a searing racial justice issue that is deeply intertwined with the politics of the United States.

...
“The base of the party is moving in a very different direction than where the party establishment is,” Mr. Zogby said. “If you support Black Lives Matter, it was not a difficult leap to saying Palestinian lives matter, too.”

But some Democrats continued to express "unwavering and steadfast support" for Israel.

“Please don’t be fooled by false choices: Israel or Hamas,” Representative Ted Deutch, a Democrat from Florida, said in a floor speech. “If I am asked to choose between a terrorist organization and our democratic ally, I will stand with Israel.”

Yet, even Senator Robert Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee known for his staunch support of Israel, offered a rare rebuke on Saturday, condemning recent strikes that killed Palestinian civilians and destroyed media offices.

It's remarkable how far the debate has shifted.

“We oppose our money going to fund militarized policing, occupation and systems of violent oppression and trauma,” Representative Cori Bush of Missouri, a Black Lives Matter activist now in her first term in Congress, said in her own floor speech on Thursday. “Until all our children are safe, we will continue to fight for our rights in Palestine and in Ferguson.”

Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, a Palestinian-American from Detroit, referred to herself as “a reminder to colleagues that Palestinians do indeed exist, that we are human,” before condemning “Israel’s apartheid government” from the House floor.

Among American Jews, "An older generation sees Israel as an essential lifeline amid growing global anti-Semitism, while young voters struggle to reconcile the right-wing policies of the Israeli government with their own liberal values."

 

[lpetrich]

Tlaib Confronts Biden on Israel, Saying Support Enables Crimes Against Palestinians - The New York Times
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, MI-13

During a conversation on a tarmac in Detroit, where Mr. Biden had arrived to visit a Ford factory near her congressional district, Ms. Tlaib echoed a scathing speech she delivered last week on the House floor, telling the president that he must do more to protect Palestinian lives and human rights, said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe her remarks.

...
Mr. Biden shook Ms. Tlaib’s hand after the conversation, and later praised the congresswoman during his public remarks at the factory in Dearborn.

“I admire your intellect, I admire your passion and I admire your concern for so many other people,” said Mr. Biden, before referring to Ms. Tlaib’s grandmother, Muftia Tlaib, who lives in the West Bank. “From my heart, I pray that your grandmom and family are well. I promise you, I’ll do everything to see that they are.”

What Rashida Tlaib Told President Biden On The Detroit Tarmac : NPR

Dearborn is home to a sizable Arab American population, and protesters took to the streets Tuesday in the city to voice support for Palestinians.

"Palestinian human rights are not a bargaining chip and must be protected, not negotiated," the aide said Tlaib expressed to Biden. "The U.S. cannot continue to give the right-wing [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu government billions each year to commit crimes against Palestinians. Atrocities like bombing schools cannot be tolerated, much less conducted with U.S.-supplied weapons."

This issue reminds me of
Truman Adviser Recalls May 14,1948 US Decision to Recognize Israel – 1991 May-June - WRMEA

In a Nov. 10, 1945 meeting with American diplomats brought in from their posts in the Middle East to urge Truman not to heed Zionist urgings, Truman had bluntly explained his motivation:

"I'm sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism: I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents."

 

[lpetrich]

More from that article.

Most people who knew the Middle East at first hand opposed the partition plan, adopted by the United Nations on November 29, 1947. Patently unfair, it awarded 56 percent of Palestine to its 650,000 Jewish inhabitants, and 44 percent to its 1,300,000 Muslim and Christian Arab inhabitants.

Partition was adopted only after ruthless arm-twisting by the US government and by 26 pro-Zionist U.S. senators who, in telegrams to a number of UN member states, warned that U.S. goodwill in rebuilding their World War II-devastated economies might depend on a favorable vote for partition.

The Zionists were willing to go along with it, but the Arabs weren't. They had no plan of their own, unless one counts driving the Zionists into the sea.

Immediately after the plan was adopted, however, extensive fighting broke out between Jews and Arabs, just as U.S. diplomats had predicted. The Arab states categorically rejected the partition by outside parties of an overwhelmingly Arab land.

David Ben-Gurion, soon to be Israel's first prime minister, had ordered his representatives at the UN to accept the plan, but not to enter into any discussion or agreement defining the new Jewish state's borders. To his followers, who, like the Arabs, laid claim to the entire land, Ben-Gurion promised that his acceptance was only tactical.

As well-organized Jewish militias seized Village after village assigned by the UN plan to the Arabs, and badly organized Arab villagers retaliated with bloody but purposeless attacks on Jewish vehicles and convoys, Secretary of State George C. Marshall urged Truman to reconsider.

The fighting included the massacre of Deir Yassin, something that scared many Palestinians into fleeing. The Zionist militiamen who did that massacre claimed that the Palestinians there had done a false surrender, raising a white flag and then attacking.

GM preferred UN trusteeship, meaning that the UN would take over from the British when they withdrew.

The article then went into detail about the high-level bureaucratic battle over what to do about the Zionist movement and the State of Israel.

Nor, apparently, does Clifford, who never once expresses any regret about the 750,000 Palestinians pushed out of their country during the 1947 to 1949 fighting, and never allowed by Israel to return to their homes. Nor does Clifford seem to realize that his opponents in the bureaucratic battle he describes are vindicated by the five Arab-Israeli wars. These and the Middle East instability that has led to the overthrow of several Arab governments and, perhaps, the two bloody wars in the Persian Gulf, are largely attributable to US recognition of Israel before it officially agreed to the borders assigned it by the United Nations in 1947.

...
Clearly he seeks mercy in his travails not from the courts, but from the media. What better way to get it than to remind a younger generation of American journalists, many of them avid Jewish supporters of Israel, that he, as much as any other American, was responsible for Truman-era policies that not only created Israel, but also turned it into the pampered client state of a reluctant America?

 

[laughing dog]

So Israel is the dog and Palestinians are you in this metaphor? It's still not very clear.

I think it is pretty clear - shooting at a neighbor's house is an over-reaction to their dog pooping on your lawn. Injuring and killing 10x as many Palestinians (or Israelis if the roles were reversed) is an over-reaction to the injuring and killing of Israelis (or Palestinians if the roles were reversed): the gov't of Israel's response is a vastly disproportionate response to the Hamas instigation.

Except the rules of self defense are not the rules of sports.

Pure jibber-jabber.

The rockets are lethal force. Once you cross the lethal force line it's crossed you can take whatever force it takes to stop the attacks. There is no issue of proportionality.....

More jibber-jabber nonsense. There are different options than deliberately inflicting 10x+ death and destruction - a policy that clearly does not work since it has not permanently stopped the attacks. And that does not even address the morality and the optics.

 

[bilby]

The leaders on both sides are a bunch of cunts, and the only solution would be to move the entire nation state of Israel lock, stock, and barrel to the United States. Give them a big chunk of desert the same size as their current nation, taken from Nevada and Arizona, and maybe a bit of Eastern California. America is the only country that likes the state of Israel; The jews don't need to be anywhere near the arabs.

Tell the orthodox jews that God got the coordinates mixed up, and that the promised land is elsewhere.

 

[Derec]

The leaders on both sides are a bunch of cunts, and the only solution would be to move the entire nation state of Israel lock, stock, and barrel to the United States. Give them a big chunk of desert the same size as their current nation, taken from Nevada and Arizona, and maybe a bit of Eastern California.

Why should Israel be the one to move? It's the land of Israel, not Arabia.
How about moving so-called Palestinians to the Sinai desert or something. Since they call "Jerusalem" by the fake name "Al Quds", they can build a city by that name and even move the so-called Al Aqsa mosque there brick by brick.

 

[TV and credit cards]

“Please don’t be fooled by false choices: Israel or Hamas,” Representative Ted Deutch, a Democrat from Florida, said in a floor speech. “If I am asked to choose between a terrorist organization and our democratic ally, I will stand with Israel.”

Got many old Jews in your district, Ted? Is there a third choice? Do I have to choose between the Israelis and Hamasians? Asshole.

Only the Democrats can watch the Republican Party implode and say, yeah, let’s do that.
The jig is up. The media recognizes it and has largely stopped whitewashing the conflict to show Israel in a positive light. All our allies have been standing in opposition to us on this issue for decades. Most everyone has got a clue. Where’s Kamala? Has she made a statement?

Oh well. Back to mowing the grass.

 

[Derec]

The jig is up. The media recognizes it and has largely stopped whitewashing the conflict to show Israel in a positive light.

The media has been carrying water for Palestinian terrorists for decades. What is different is that now we have the Squad which is taking the side of Hamas.

All our allies have been standing in opposition to us on this issue for decades. Most everyone has got a clue.

No, they haven't got a clue. Israel is the good guys here. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are no different than Al Qaeda or ISIS.

Where’s Kamala? Has she made a statement?

She is half-Indian and Indians have suffered under Islamic terrorism as well. Remember Mumbai 2008?

Oh well. Back to mowing the grass.

Biden should give Bibi a carte blanche to proverbially till the grass over and plant a more wholesome ground cover than the nasty weeds of Hamas. No more half measures!