ljkeane Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 so forget the US, let's look at other countries:Since the point was about the US lets not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datepalm Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Im doing my masters in IR at the Hebrew university.So at mount scopus? I don't suppose you're somewhere on campus atm?ETA - the point wasn't about the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 he Security Council has repeatedly adopted one-sided resolutions charging Israel with sole responsibility for human rights violations, violence and deportations. On the other hand, Palestinian and other Arab violations and involvement with such incidents are rarely criticized, or even noted by the Council. Another structural issue, despite it's name the UN is an organisation of *states* (but the "United States" was already taken...) Not nations. It's treaties and founding principles by and large applies to states, and there is at the moment no palestinian state.The UN deals (primarily) with the actions of states against other states and (secondarily)in the actions of states and their citizens. A good chunk of the Israeli/Palestinian issues revolve around the fact that *the palestinians do not have a state*.The issue to my mind is that there isn't two sides of the fence here - no one is blindly defending Israel, however much you may like to think so. (None of us have actually put out any of our personal opinions on anything becuase we're too busy dealing with this nonsense. And yes, I would like the government to stop the US funneling its arms industry subsidies through us.) Eh, Iseem to recall Sami claiming explicitly that he (she?) ignored criticism he agreed with in order to oppose the perceived anti-israeli bias.That's pretty mcuh the definition of "blindly defending".THis was a few threads back, mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoadm Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Since the point was about the US lets not.Actually I was replying to a claim of how Israel is judged differently than other countries. Regarding the UN, its hard to compare Israel with the US, so I've shown how the UN treats Israel differently than all other countries combined. Outside the UN, if you look at Fallujah, Kosovo or Afghanistan, Israel receives much more media coverage every time it makes a specific controvercial action than the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoadm Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Since the point was about the US lets not.Actually I was replying to a claim of how Israel is judged differently than other countries. Regarding the UN, its hard to compare Israel with the US, so I've shown how the UN treats Israel differently than all other countries combined. Outside the UN, if you look at Fallujah, Kosovo or Afghanistan, Israel receives much more media coverage every time it makes a specific controvercial action than the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoadm Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 So at mount scopus? I don't suppose you're somewhere on campus atm?Nah Im in Haifa with my family, though Im gonna be there tomorrow. Studying at MS too>? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 ETA - the point wasn't about the US.Yes it was, Yoadm was specifically comparing reactions to the actions of the US and the UK to reactions to the actions of Israel.Regarding the wider complaints I recall going over it at length in the thread about the Goldstone report, suffice to say I agree in some instances and disagree in others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoadm Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Another structural issue, despite it's name the UN is an organisation of *states* (but the "United States" was already taken...) Not nations. It's treaties and founding principles by and large applies to states, and there is at the moment no palestinian state.The UN deals (primarily) with the actions of states against other states and (secondarily)in the actions of states and their citizens. Uhm, there's enough info there to show you how the UN deals with Israel compared to other 'states'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datepalm Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Eh, Iseem to recall Sami claiming explicitly that he (she?) ignored criticism he agreed with in order to oppose the perceived anti-israeli bias.That's pretty mcuh the definition of "blindly defending".THis was a few threads back, mind.This was very many threads back, he has done no such ting this time around, and people ignore things they don't like in debates all the time to focus on the stuff they can take by the juglar. It makes for disingeneous debates, but its not any indication of his (or anyones) actual opinions, which on the rare ocassions when they can be sussed out (no one actually cares - all Israelis, it is known, are mindless representatives of the zionist propaganda machine, after all.) are quite moderate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datepalm Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Nah Im in Haifa with my family, though Im gonna be there tomorrow. Studying at MS too>?Yup. Here all day tommorow. (with a break to got to a protest at city hall around afternoon sometime though.) Want to meet up to coordinate strategy and get some falafel made with the blood of palestinian children? (The best kind, for those interested in the culinary side of things.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowbinding shoe Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Since the point was about the US lets not.And Europe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumer Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 No one has said anything about Israel at all in a good while - this discussion very quickly wandered past some kind of conversational schwartzchild radius of being about itself rather than about anything else and should now be gently allowed to crush itself to nothingness.Wow there, big words for a geography major ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 This was very many threads back, he has done no such ting this time around, and people ignore things they don't like in debates all the time to focus on the stuff they can take by the juglar. It makes for disingeneous debates, but its not any indication of his (or anyones) actual opinions, which on the rare ocassions when they can be sussed out (no one actually cares - all Israelis, it is known, are mindless representatives of the zionist propaganda machine, after all.) are quite moderate.I actually did have a paragraph about how those weren't neccessarily his own opinions, but the board ate it and I couldn't be arsed to type it all out again :P So obviously someone commnts about it :P ¨Nor do I think anyone's actual political stance has much bearing on whether or not you are blindly defending something. I think it's quite possible to want to see a two-state solutioon ad still blindly defend Hamas, for instance. (logically that is) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datepalm Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 ¨Nor do I think anyone's actual political stance has much bearing on whether or not you are blindly defending something. I think it's quite possible to want to see a two-state solutioon ad still blindly defend Hamas, for instance. (logically that is)No, it isn't, becuase Hamas do not want a two state solution. Its possible to do so with screaming cognitive dissonace, intellectual dishonesty and acts of cirque de soleil worthy moral acrobatics, but thats fascinating to observe but impossible to argue with. I never support the current governments actions, for example. Lumer - Let no one claim the אבני פינה program is useless! "Astronomy for Poets" class yay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 No, it isn't, becuase Hamas do not want a two state solution. Its possible to do so with screaming cognitive dissonace, intellectual dishonesty and acts of cirque de soleil worthy moral acrobatics, but thats fascinating to observe but impossible to argue with. I never support the current governments actions, for example. Lumer - Let no one claim the אבני פינה program is useless! "Astronomy for Poets" class yay!Ah, no, I think you misunderstood me. Hypotethical "blind defender" would be someone who disagreed with Hamas politically but still considered their actions justified.Basically you don't have to agree with someone to defend them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datepalm Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Basically you don't have to agree with someone to defend them.Yes, you do. Oh, I can defend Hamas from the standpoint of their perspective as some kind of intellectual exercise, "If I thought like Hamas, this is what I would think is right", or even "this is why this makes sense and is a good action from the Hamas perspective," but the fact is I don't think like them. (moreover, their position is in direct opposition with mine. It is literally impossible for us both to be right.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Yes, you do. Oh, I can defend Hamas from the standpoint of their perspective as some kind of intellectual exercise, "If I thought like Hamas, this is what I would think is right", or even "this is why this makes sense and is a good action from the Hamas perspective," but the fact is I don't think like them. (moreover, their position is in direct opposition with mine. It is literally impossible for us both to be right.)Allow me to rephrase: It is entirely possible to defend (or agree with) someone's actions even if you disagree with their ultimate objective or agenda.My point is that saying that Sami has reasonable political positions (which I agree with) doesen't really say anything about his behaviour. (or anyone else's really) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datepalm Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Allow me to rephrase: It is entirely possible to defend (or agree with) someone's actions even if you disagree with their ultimate objective or agenda.My point is that saying that Sami has reasonable political positions (which I agree with) doesen't really say anything about his behaviour. (or anyone else's really)To get back to the blame game, this holds entirely for the anti-current-actions-of-Israel faction - except there has been no distinction there between political aims and current actions in support of the flotilla, whihc needed responding too, on account of being stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 As said in the previous thread, it is perfectly valid to believe that Israel has a right to exist whilst not blindly supporting every decision they've ever made. I'd go further and say that during the period when Israel was under a realistic threat of destruction (lasting from the founding to after the Yom Kippur War), Israel's tendency to go for the ruthless option was understandable, defensible and even admirable: the Six-Day War is a masterclass in the legitimate use of pre-emptive warfare, and arguably Israel listening to the international furore of taking that action and staying their hand in Yom Kippur until the enemy forces had launched their attack could have been catastrophic for them if they had not recovered so quickly. Israel also behaved with extremely admirable restraint during the Gulf War, but not responding to Iraqi bombardment when they legitimately could have done, due to the political consequences of that act.However, I think a key problem with Israeli politicians (many of whom are veterans of, or at least grew up during, those conflicts) is that they respond to considerably lesser provocation with much the same mentality that their predecessors responded to far greater threats that warranted such a response when Israel's existence was at stake. Whenever that excuse is used today, it is purely hyperbolic. Hamas no more has the power to destroy Israel than al-Qaeda has to destroy the entire West, and responding to them as if they did and Israel was still in a desperate battle for its very existence is disproportionate. But of course Israeli politicians cannot adopt a more surgical, internationally-aware response because they need to appear forceful and serious on security issues for domestic consumption.Simultaneously, the international community does need to refocus attention on addressing the Hamas problem. Whilst Israel's policy of collective punishment on the civilian population of Gaza for voting Hamas into power is clearly unacceptable and unsustainable, the fact that Hamas, a government hostile to Israel, exists there and still calls for Israel's destruction is often completely ignored by Western media and commentators. Aside from Israel's settlement building, the splintering of the Palestinian people between Fatah (an acceptable partner for peace) and Hamas (who are not) is what has frozen the peace process, which cannot continue until that problem has been resolved, either by Hamas being removed from power or destroyed, or by Hamas recognising Israel and declaring a permanant ceasefire. More pressure and attention should be focused at that end than perhaps Israel being blindly blamed for all the problems in the situation (though it has its part to play as well). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datepalm Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 either by Hamas being removed from power or destroyed, or by Hamas recognising Israel and declaring a permanant ceasefire. More pressure and attention should be focused at that end than perhaps Israel being blindly blamed for all the problems in the situation (though it has its part to play as well).So you don't support actions which strengthen Hamas and give it legitimacy and standing as well as strengthening its position amongs the Gaza population? Such, as for example, a flotilla expressely more interested in the political and media ramification of breaking a blockade against Hamas than actually getting their supplies to the civilian population? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.