The IDF starterd opreation "Pillar of Cloud" in Gaza (ended Nov 21 2012 23:00 GMT+2)

Fair enough.

Stengah wrote:

Israel is trying to play the innocent victim that has done nothing to provoke any attacks, and act like the whole mess is Palestine's fault. If they want me to believe them, they need to show some actual restraint in their retaliations, and some compassion for Palestinian civilians. Since they continue to do horrible things to their enemy, they should not be surprised when people compare them to other countries that did similarly horrible things to their enemies. They should also not be surprised that countries that would normally be their allies don't want to be seen as condoning those horrible things.

There's another level to that. One would expect that a country founded by refugees who had been exceptionally poorly treated to have some level of empathy and compassion towards the plight of Palestinians today. Instead, Israel treats them as sub-humans, denies them any rights, and steals their land, which--considering history--is the height of chutzpah.

It's as if the boy who cried wolf has actually become the wolf.

First D, second D, third D...

And then I give her "the vitamin D" ( C ) Ludacris, Nasty Girl

OG_slinger wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Israel is trying to play the innocent victim that has done nothing to provoke any attacks, and act like the whole mess is Palestine's fault. If they want me to believe them, they need to show some actual restraint in their retaliations, and some compassion for Palestinian civilians. Since they continue to do horrible things to their enemy, they should not be surprised when people compare them to other countries that did similarly horrible things to their enemies. They should also not be surprised that countries that would normally be their allies don't want to be seen as condoning those horrible things.

There's another level to that. One would expect that a country founded by refugees who had been exceptionally poorly treated to have some level of empathy and compassion towards the plight of Palestinians today. Instead, Israel treats them as sub-humans, denies them any rights, and steals their land, which--considering history--is the height of chutzpah.

It's as if the boy who cried wolf has actually become the wolf.

...wow, I can't believe I never thought of that. Interesting line of thought for sure.

OG_slinger wrote:

It's as if the boy who cried wolf has actually become the wolf.

I agree with your line of thought, but that seems like a really poor choice of metaphor.

clover wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

It's as if the boy who cried wolf has actually become the wolf.

I agree with your line of thought, but that seems like a really poor choice of metaphor.

It's as if the old woman who lived in a shoe was generously given a large home with room enough for all her children, and supplements her income by now charging too much rent to another woman with two many kids to live in her old shoe-house.

That's much better.

I was quickly trying to think of the craziest and yet most applicable nursery rhyme I could on short order!

OG_slinger wrote:

One would expect that a country founded by refugees who had been exceptionally poorly treated to have some level of empathy and compassion towards the plight of natives today. Instead, Americans, Australians, etc. treats them as sub-humans, denies them any rights, and steals their land, which--considering history--is the height of chutzpah.

Manifest Destiny.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

First D, second D, third D...

Really? I have to pass a test made by a man neocons love who claims that Jews have a special claim to the land because, essentially, they were there first before my argument is accepted as valid?

It doesn't help much that you only avoid the anti-Semite charge unless you accept that the state of Israel's right to exist trumps every other regional claim, Israel can do no harm ever, *and* that Israel has to be only for Jews.

For every Natan Sharansky there is a Gideon Levy.

clover wrote:

I agree with your line of thought, but that seems like a really poor choice of metaphor.

I think several million Palestinians would disagree. And I think it's spot on. The state of Israel wraps itself in the cloak of victimhood while practicing many of the same behaviors. In fact, it relies on it's status as a victim to get away with things that would otherwise earn it instant hatred.

I mean here in the States we hate TSA intrusiveness even though it's largely an ineffectual minor inconvenience. We would go ape-sh*t ballistic if we were a Palestinian who had to wait hours and hours (if we weren't turned away outright) to cross an Israeli checkpoint to simply get to our home, our job, or, god forbid, do something important like getting someone who's sick or injured to a hospital.

OG_slinger wrote:

I think several million Palestinians would disagree. And I think it's spot on. The state of Israel wraps itself in the cloak of victimhood while practicing many of the same behaviors. In fact, it relies on it's status as a victim to get away with things that would otherwise earn it instant hatred.

Since when does Israel not get instant hatred by swarms of people and governments? There seems to be a pretty big portion of the population that thinks Israel is almost always to entirely in the wrong.

Greg wrote:

Manifest Destiny.

You might want to pick something else considering that the basis for Manifest Destiny is the idea that you are racially, spiritually, and technologically superior to whoever you're stealing land from. That and it really helps if you out number them.

Otherwise you end up with something nasty like the King Leopld's Congo or the Boer Republic in South Africa.

Either way, it's not a good idea to justify late 20th and early 21st century events with 19th century morality. We got a lot of things really wrong back then.

OG_slinger wrote:
Greg wrote:

Manifest Destiny.

You might want to pick something else considering that the basis for Manifest Destiny is the idea that you are racially, spiritually, and technologically superior to whoever you're stealing land from. That and it really helps if you out number them.

Otherwise you end up with something nasty like the King Leopld's Congo or the Boer Republic in South Africa.

Either way, it's not a good idea to justify late 20th and early 21st century events with 19th century morality. We got a lot of things really wrong back then.

I think that might have been his point, in that none of us are really blameless. Apologies if I'm misunderstanding that.

By the standard of the 3 D's, I know a shocking number of anti-Semites who are of the Jewish faith.

Greg wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

One would expect that a country founded by refugees who had been exceptionally poorly treated to have some level of empathy and compassion towards the plight of natives today. Instead, Americans, Australians, etc. treats them as sub-humans, denies them any rights, and steals their land, which--considering history--is the height of chutzpah.

Manifest Destiny.

Sort of where I was going with things.

As I said above, Israel is hardly unique in their perceiving the necessity of atrocities for the preservation of a racially homogenous state. There are lots of them out there and some of them have committed far worse acts. Doing so is the prerogative of a nation state.

That said, I don't see a single good reason for our participation in their actions. And our unconditional support creates an environment of moral hazard which enables them to make decisions that would, otherwise, be very much contrary to their own interests.

The relationship between the US and Israel is not only bad for America. It is bad for Israel.

OG_slinger wrote:
clover wrote:

I agree with your line of thought, but that seems like a really poor choice of metaphor.

I think several million Palestinians would disagree. And I think it's spot on. The state of Israel wraps itself in the cloak of victimhood while practicing many of the same behaviors. In fact, it relies on it's status as a victim to get away with things that would otherwise earn it instant hatred.

I mean here in the States we hate TSA intrusiveness even though it's largely an ineffectual minor inconvenience. We would go ape-sh*t ballistic if we were a Palestinian who had to wait hours and hours (if we weren't turned away outright) to cross an Israeli checkpoint to simply get to our home, our job, or, god forbid, do something important like getting someone who's sick or injured to a hospital.

I think the part clover thought was a poor choice (and I agree) was calling Israel "the boy who called wolf." It makes you sound like a holocaust denier.

Stengah wrote:

I think the part clover thought was a poor choice (and I agree) was calling Israel "the boy who called wolf." It makes you sound like a holocaust denier.

How in the heck do you get from "the boy who cried wolf" to holocaust denier?

OG_slinger wrote:
Stengah wrote:

I think the part clover thought was a poor choice (and I agree) was calling Israel "the boy who called wolf." It makes you sound like a holocaust denier.

How in the heck do you get from "the boy who cried wolf" to holocaust denier?

I didn't think that was what you were intending to say, but it stuck out to me as well. In this reading, the boy who cried wolf is the Jewish diaspora, crying out about persecution (that, in the fable, isn't actually happening).

But the fact that the fable hasn't nothing to do with the Jewish diapora is the issue at hand. OG can't be blamed if people a meaning to fables that he is completely unaware and is based a little bit on confusion. Confusion you say? Well I think what people are reading into "the boy who cried wolf" is the poem by Martin Niemöller "First they came..." .

What makes the whole issue even more of a fog is the original poem doesn't actually cite the Jewish population but the Communists, Socialists and the Trade Unionists. Niemöller was imprisoned in Sachsenhausen (Berlin) in 1937 which actually predates the Final Solution and the Nazi's focus on the Jews which didn't actually start until around 1941. Up to that point any and all political opponents were imprisoned or killed and they tended to be the Communists, Socialists and Trade Unionists and why Niemöller selects those groups. Niemöller was a Lutheran pastor, fyi.

What then happened was post-war the poem travelled to the US and the order was changed and Jews replaced Communists for pretty obvious reasons. So the poem actually has two different versions out there. Actually there are many more as people have heard both and then mash them together resulting in various groupings.

Anyway, that's just a quirk of history and something I thought was interesting.

------------------------

On the issue at hand its seems the ceasefire is holding. Great news. On the political front, I think the big winner here is Morsi and Egypt which I suspect Obama had a hand in. Egypt have got to play as peaceful moderate and the bogeyman of the Muslim Botherhood as a fundamentalist group shifts. What do you think, Niseg? That's the theory that Haartez is advancing and it seems plausible. What's the feeling from the Israeli public?

Axon wrote:

On the issue at hand its seems the ceasefire is holding. Great news. On the political front, I think the big winner here is Morsi and Egypt which I suspect Obama had a hand in. Egypt have got to play as peaceful moderate and the bogeyman of the Muslim Botherhood as a fundamentalist group shifts. What do you think, Niseg? That's the theory that Haartez is advancing and it seems plausible. What's the feeling from the Israeli public?

The military and experts about the Arab world really liked the way Morsi's handled the situation they said he handled it better than Mubark. They talked about how he had too many internal problems to deal with foriegn relation but so far he's very successful in the foreign relations field.

There was also a caricature made by Hamas where you see people from other organizations digging a grave for Ahmed Jabari with spades that looks like missiles. ( couldn't find the Image I think I saw it on TV).

What most of the Israeli public is feeling now is Anger at Benjamin Netanyahu, Avigdor Liberman and Ehud Barak. I'm restless until the next election poll (8-9 weeks to go until elections) . The Israeli public generally leans right and a local forum talked about everyone shifting their votes to someone like Naftali Benet which is a bit more extreme than Bibi.

The positive thing we got out of the ceasefire is a little peace . Temporary but it's better than nothing. My co worker that lives in Ashdod is not satisfied because he knows he'll gonna get more rockets flying toward his city in the future( probably near and not far).

I remember reading a report by Stratfor right after the first Gulf War (the good Bush war) in which the analyst posited that the situation in the Middle East was "as good as it gets" and that expectations for a long term peace were likely to be optimistic given the geopolitical fundamentals. He went on to say that, unless addressed, the fundamentals are likely to result in a stable reality in which equilibrium looks a lot like what we have today. That is political assassinations, rocket attacks, punitive blockades, forced migration and dispossession, buses blown up, and constant low level conflict.

This is what peace looks like until the fundamentals change.

Considering this, I see our involvement in this mess as all risk and no reward. It is a sucker bet and lost cause.

Axon wrote:

But the fact that the fable hasn't nothing to do with the Jewish diapora is the issue at hand. OG can't be blamed if people a meaning to fables that he is completely unaware and is based a little bit on confusion. Confusion you say? Well I think what people are reading into "the boy who cried wolf" is the poem by Martin Niemöller "First they came..." .

I'm confused by this paragraph.

Yeah. When I read "the boy who cried wolf" I thought it didn't fit well because the Jewish people have had real "wolves" to worry about, not fabrications. In my mind it pointed at holocaust denial - which I'm sure wasn't intended. I don't see where folks are confusing that with "First They Came".

To paraphrase a character in Christopher Buckley's book "Florence of Arabia": If there was going to be a book about American policy in the Middle East, it would be called, Turning Molehills into Mountains.

Stengah wrote:
Axon wrote:

But the fact that the fable hasn't nothing to do with the Jewish diapora is the issue at hand. OG can't be blamed if people a meaning to fables that he is completely unaware and is based a little bit on confusion. Confusion you say? Well I think what people are reading into "the boy who cried wolf" is the poem by Martin Niemöller "First they came..." .

I'm confused by this paragraph.

Yep, badly written. If I don't proof read my writing you get this stream-of-consciousness stuff but without the Joycean beauty. Grimlock is my avatar for a reason . Basically all I was saying was I think people were confusing "The boy who cried wolf" with "First they came....".

LouZiffer wrote:

Yeah. When I read "the boy who cried wolf" I thought it didn't fit well because the Jewish people have had real "wolves" to worry about, not fabrications. In my mind it pointed at holocaust denial - which I'm sure wasn't intended. I don't see where folks are confusing that with "First They Came".

My analysis is most probably incorrect. Just a little factoid rattling around my head that I thought applied here. Thinking about it, both tales boil down into directly opposite reactions to threats.

Niseg wrote:
Axon wrote:

On the issue at hand its seems the ceasefire is holding. Great news. On the political front, I think the big winner here is Morsi and Egypt which I suspect Obama had a hand in. Egypt have got to play as peaceful moderate and the bogeyman of the Muslim Botherhood as a fundamentalist group shifts. What do you think, Niseg? That's the theory that Haartez is advancing and it seems plausible. What's the feeling from the Israeli public?

The military and experts about the Arab world really liked the way Morsi's handled the situation they said he handled it better than Mubark. They talked about how he had too many internal problems to deal with foriegn relation but so far he's very successful in the foreign relations field.

There was also a caricature made by Hamas where you see people from other organizations digging a grave for Ahmed Jabari with spades that looks like missiles. ( couldn't find the Image I think I saw it on TV).

What most of the Israeli public is feeling now is Anger at Benjamin Netanyahu, Avigdor Liberman and Ehud Barak. I'm restless until the next election poll (8-9 weeks to go until elections) . The Israeli public generally leans right and a local forum talked about everyone shifting their votes to someone like Naftali Benet which is a bit more extreme than Bibi.

The positive thing we got out of the ceasefire is a little peace . Temporary but it's better than nothing. My co worker that lives in Ashdod is not satisfied because he knows he'll gonna get more rockets flying toward his city in the future( probably near and not far).

I can understand the desire to vote to the extremes after a flare up like this. Netanyahu really hasn't played his hand at all well in the last view years.

Paleocon wrote:

I remember reading a report by Stratfor right after the first Gulf War (the good Bush war) in which the analyst posited that the situation in the Middle East was "as good as it gets" and that expectations for a long term peace were likely to be optimistic given the geopolitical fundamentals. He went on to say that, unless addressed, the fundamentals are likely to result in a stable reality in which equilibrium looks a lot like what we have today. That is political assassinations, rocket attacks, punitive blockades, forced migration and dispossession, buses blown up, and constant low level conflict.

This is what peace looks like until the fundamentals change.

Considering this, I see our involvement in this mess as all risk and no reward. It is a sucker bet and lost cause.

But the fundamentals have changed. As I said above, Haartez seems to think Obama is pulling the strings in the background and getting Morsi to act like a respectable figure while publicly remaining in lockstep with Israel. If that is the case its probably the most sensible path to follow. Reading between the lines its basically saying we don't have a problem with Muslim leaders who are moderate and peaceful and that is an important message with what is going on in the region at the moment.