Holy shit! What the fuck are they doing? This is absolutely insane!
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.
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'.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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 ?
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>> 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.
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.
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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
What propaganda? You're contributing literally nothing to this discussion except to smear Israel with vague counterfactual innuendos, and accusing me of propaganda? I'm trying to be as fair and honest as I can be. What are you trying to do?
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.)
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.
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.
"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.
- 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.
No, but the GP seems to imply that it will help change the mind of those critical of Israel. I'm one of those, and it didn't change my mind. Admittedly, I'm just a single sample though.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!".
>>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.
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.
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.
if a Danish cartoon in a newspaper can set off riots
in countries where it is not published
...and several months after it has been published. What does it tell us? There are people who trigger the riots and decide when and how to influence the crowds. They, or their adjutants, are interested in using the "Danish newspapers"; not the people on the street.
it does just seem a very dehumanized way of approaching a conflict
where actual real people are dying
There are people who need to be stopped, and getting them dead is sometimes the only way.
I 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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.