Imagine That -- I’m Still Anti-War

backseatLover12

badbrains said:

Not for nothing backseatlover, but for someone preaching all about peace, you sure are coming off very angry in your posts. Which I think is pretty ironic. You're going at byrnzie non stop and then you're taking jabs at others with your finger pointing comment.

Let me ask you a question, do you have any kids? I'm just wondering maybe if that mite have some effect on your stance. Because most if not all that do have kids and are posting, they're posting how awful and fucked up the indiscriminate bombings are. They're not attacking posters but are actually angry and sad at the actual events. I'm not calling you out, just trying to help myself understand your stance.

I stopped even reading Byrnzie's posts quite a while ago, except for one post supporting JimmyV's opinion from a different thread. I guess you relate being peaceful to being a walking mat? And, for the record… I do have kids. Which is why I'm passionate about peace.

backseatLover12

Leezestarr313 said:

What I am wondering about is, so if people decide on a two-state solution - how will this work out. Will they draw back the borders to what they have been in 1947? The people who had to flee from their land can go back and reclaim it? What will the people do who have lived there since back then? Can something like this happen peacefully? It somehow did in Germany after the country came back together. There were personal tragedies, but they were of course not comparable to what is going on in the Middle East right now. Would there be a peaceful solution that is not going to start another battleground?

Yeah, I'm wondering the same thing. That's why I keep repeating, what does a real resolution look like? Forcing Israel to back down is using a violent act, and violence only begets violence. It certainly doesn't cause peace. So far, Leeze, you are one of the few really attempting to think what peace would look like. I'm merely attempting to get people to actually start thinking in that direction rather than spinning the wheels of anger and finger pointing. Because, that gets us no where. You'd think more this concept would get into more people's heads.

backseatLover12

brianlux said:

I really believe that there are a few people on this thread they would very strongly considering punching another member here in the head if the two should happen to meet. That's the vibe I get. Sorry if anyone doesn't want to hear that.

This thread is no longer about being against war or even about finding solutions for the conflict in Gaza. Don't kid yourselves. It's about several other things though- anger, the need to be right, the little jolt of satisfaction to the ego one gets by clever caricaturing of another in vague or generalized or sarcastic terms, the pride of believing one is more well informed than another and doing ones best to prove to everyone else how righteous and correct we are. Famous for 15 minutes, full of shit 8% of the time. All of us. And no one here has all the answers. I'd bet on that any day.

Best post of the thread sadly. Truly defines it.

benjs

backseatLover12 (and to a lesser degree Leezestarr313), there is a very big distinction to be made between pointing fingers and taking positions. For example, as a politician, you're unlikely to receive respect in justifying a political action until you take a position. Is there anger here? Sure. But there's also a lot of good discussion, and viable solutions have been discussed (they are actually littered amongst the plethora of discussions around these forums).

As for what a 'real resolution' looks like, that's still foggy to me. I think at the very least, retreating to 1967 borders, liberating Gaza and the West Bank and allowing them to govern themselves, pushing the fishing boundaries a more reasonable distance and giving financial assistance to allow Gaza to recover from the primarily Israel-imposed devastation in the region would be a great start.

For those who cite security issues, I believe (and someone with a better concept of international law can confirm or deny this) Israel at that point would be entitled to fortify their agreed-upon borders, and it would be solely in the hands of the Palestinian Unity Government to assuage the security concerns of neighbouring countries (Israel included) in order to create their own trade agreements with them.

Edit: Just to clarify - when I say this would be a great "start", I mean that. I think far more is owed to the Palestinian people than what I've mentioned.

dancinacrossthewater

benjs said:

backseatLover12 (and to a lesser degree Leezestarr313), there is a very big distinction to be made between pointing fingers and taking positions. For example, as a politician, you're unlikely to receive respect in justifying a political action until you take a position. Is there anger here? Sure. But there's also a lot of good discussion, and viable solutions have been discussed (they are actually littered amongst the plethora of discussions around these forums).

As for what a 'real resolution' looks like, that's still foggy to me. I think at the very least, retreating to 1967 borders, liberating Gaza and the West Bank and allowing them to govern themselves, pushing the fishing boundaries a more reasonable distance and giving financial assistance to allow Gaza to recover from the primarily Israel-imposed devastation in the region would be a great start.

For those who cite security issues, I believe (and someone with a better concept of international law can confirm or deny this) Israel at that point would be entitled to fortify their agreed-upon borders, and it would be solely in the hands of the Palestinian Unity Government to assuage the security concerns of neighbouring countries (Israel included) in order to create their own trade agreements with them.

Edit: Just to clarify - when I say this would be a great "start", I mean that. I think far more is owed to the Palestinian people than what I've mentioned.

good stuff in here

Byrnzie

backseatLover12 said:

Yeah, I'm wondering the same thing. That's why I keep repeating, what does a real resolution look like? Forcing Israel to back down is using a violent act, and violence only begets violence. It certainly doesn't cause peace. So far, Leeze, you are one of the few really attempting to think what peace would look like. I'm merely attempting to get people to actually start thinking in that direction rather than spinning the wheels of anger and finger pointing. Because, that gets us no where. You'd think more this concept would get into more people's heads.

You sound like a broken record playing to an empty room. And I couldn't care less whether you read my posts or not. I'm still gonna respond to your gibberish for the benefit of others.

What does a resolution look like? A resolution looks like the resolution that's already accepted by the whole World, and which has been repeatedly blocked by the U.S, which uses it's power of automatic veto to prevent it's implementation. But I know you don't care about these details. And once again you continue pretending that anybody in this thread has called for 'more violence'. I'm not sure why you insist on perpetuating this fantasy.

Byrnzie

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/8/6/can_israel_claim_self_defense_against

Can Israel Claim Self-Defense Against the Territory It Occupies? International Jurist John Dugard Says No.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: John Dugard, you have also made comparisons between apartheid South Africa and the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories. Could you elaborate on what you think the similarities are?

JOHN DUGARD: Well, if I look at the situation in Palestine, which I know very well as former special rapporteur, if I look at it as a former South African, then I see very similar circumstances prevailing in Palestine as prevailed in South Africa during apartheid. But I think it’s also important to look at the situation in terms of the 1973 United Nations Convention on the Suppression of Apartheid, which defines apartheid and which applies it to situations beyond southern Africa. And essentially, it requires three conditions: first of all, that there should be two groups. Here, there are clearly two groups: the Palestinians and the Israelis. Secondly, that the governing group should commit inhumane acts against the subject group. And that clearly is happening in the occupied Palestinian territory. Israel has subjected the Palestinians to all sorts of inhumane acts. And then, thirdly, this should be done with the intention of maintaining the domination. And one can draw that inference from the presence of settlers in the West Bank, because today one has some 600,000 settlers in the West Bank who actually constitute a colonial enterprise. And as with all colonies, the colonial peoples—or, the colonial power subjects the colonized people to domination. And so, if one looks at these three conditions, I think it’s clear that, in terms of the 1973 Convention on Apartheid, Israel’s policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory are tantamount to apartheid.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And John Dugard, how do you respond to Israel’s argument that in fact it was attacking Gaza only in self-defense? Your article, of course, is titled "Debunking Israel’s Self-Defense Argument." So could you lay out what you say there?

JOHN DUGARD: Well, it’s very important for Israel that it should portray itself as the victim in the present conflict. And President Obama and both houses of Congress have endorsed the view that Israel acts in self-defense. But as I see the situation, it is very different. Gaza is an occupied territory. It’s part of the occupied Palestinian territory. The fact that Israel has withdrawn its ground troops, or had before the present incursion, does not mean that it is no longer the occupying power, because it has always retained control, effective control, over the territory of Gaza. That’s the test in international law: effective control. Israel controls Gaza by means of the land crossings, by controlling the air space and the sea space, and by carrying out repeated incursions into the territory.

So given the fact that Gaza is an occupied territory, it means that Israel’s present assault on Gaza is simply a way of enforcing the continuation of the occupation, and the response of the Palestinian militants should be seen as the response of an occupied people that wishes to resist the occupation. It has taken this resistance into Israel itself, but it still remains resistance. And I think it would be very helpful to see the occupation of Gaza in the same context as one might see, for instance, the occupation of, shall we say, Netherlands during the Second World War by Germany. It’s an occupied territory, and if Israel uses force against the occupied territory, it’s not acting in self-defense. It’s acting as an occupying power.

...AMY GOODMAN: Could the U.S. be charged with war crimes, as well? I mean, in United States common law, felony murder, it’s both the person who commits the murder and the one who provides the gun. By Friday, when I don’t know how many people had been killed at that point, say, 1,400 Palestinians, the U.S. said they were resupplying Israel with ammunition.

KENNETH ROTH: Yeah. I mean, I wouldn’t hold your breath on a prosecution, but I do think you bring up a valid point, Amy, which is that the U.S., under U.S. law, should not be sending weapons when they’re going to be used to commit war crimes. And so, if U.S. wants to send, you know, the Iron Dome anti-missile defense to Israel, nobody’s going to quarrel with that. But to continue sending Israel the kind of weapons that it’s using to commit war crimes in Gaza should stop. And, you know, there is a precedent for this. I mean, even Ronald Reagan stopped sending cluster munitions to Israel when it was using them indiscriminately in Lebanon. But President Obama, you know, isn’t going to touch that

dancinacrossthewater

So if Israel relinquished air, sea, and land crossing control over Gaza, it'd be a start. I agree.

dancinacrossthewater

i think there's more common ground on this forum than people realize, even among people starting from seemingly opposite positions, but it's important to realize that not everybody who defends some of what Israel does hates Palestinians or wants to see them suffer.

Byrnzie

dancinacrossthewater said:

So if Israel relinquished air, sea, and land crossing control over Gaza, it'd be a start. I agree.

I can actually see a loosening of restrictions on both Gaza and the West Bank now that the Palestinians are signing up to the ICC. Let's not kid ourselves, the Israeli leadership are shitting themselves about this.
It's only a matter of time now before the whole lot of them end up in the Hague charged with multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity. And it's also a possibility - I'm not too sure about this - that certain individuals from Israel's chief sponsor and provider of arms - the U.S - will also end up there.

Bentleyspop

brianlux said:

I really believe that there are a few people on this thread they would very strongly considering punching another member here in the head if the two should happen to meet. That's the vibe I get. Sorry if anyone doesn't want to hear that.

This thread is no longer about being against war or even about finding solutions for the conflict in Gaza. Don't kid yourselves. It's about several other things though- anger, the need to be right, the little jolt of satisfaction to the ego one gets by clever caricaturing of another in vague or generalized or sarcastic terms, the pride of believing one is more well informed than another and doing ones best to prove to everyone else how righteous and correct we are. Famous for 15 minutes, full of shit 8% of the time. All of us. And no one here has all the answers. I'd bet on that any day.

You are absolutely 100% correct
Which is an opinion not fact.
Which, like your post, means you will be most likely be ignored . Or insulted and degraded for daring to state your personal opinion.

dancinacrossthewater

Byrnzie said:

dancinacrossthewater said:

So if Israel relinquished air, sea, and land crossing control over Gaza, it'd be a start. I agree.

I can actually see a loosening of restrictions on both Gaza and the West Bank now that the Palestinians are signing up to the ICC. Let's not kid ourselves, the Israeli leadership are shitting themselves about this.
It's only a matter of time now before the whole lot of them end up in the Hague charged with multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity. And it's also a possibility - I'm not too sure about this - that certain individuals from Israel's chief sponsor and provider of arms - the U.S - will also end up there.

I don't think Israel's very worried about The Hague. I respect what The Hague does, but if you charge Israel you have to charge Hamas too.

I know we disagree here, but let's try and do it civilly.

benjs

dancinacrossthewater said:

Byrnzie said:

dancinacrossthewater said:

So if Israel relinquished air, sea, and land crossing control over Gaza, it'd be a start. I agree.

I can actually see a loosening of restrictions on both Gaza and the West Bank now that the Palestinians are signing up to the ICC. Let's not kid ourselves, the Israeli leadership are shitting themselves about this.
It's only a matter of time now before the whole lot of them end up in the Hague charged with multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity. And it's also a possibility - I'm not too sure about this - that certain individuals from Israel's chief sponsor and provider of arms - the U.S - will also end up there.

I don't think Israel's very worried about The Hague. I respect what The Hague does, but if you charge Israel you have to charge Hamas too.

I know we disagree here, but let's try and do it civilly.

Ironically, by Israel's presence in Gaza, Israel itself is ensuring that Hamas, in a trial, would not be charged as it could claim merely resisting an occupation.

dancinacrossthewater

Right but in this case Israel technically has withdrawn from Gaza for some years now (although I agree that it has maintained de facto control) and re-entered as a response to the kidnapping and murder of three of its citizens.

dankind

From what I've read, Hamas's alleged criminals are prepared to face charges in the ICC so that Israel's alleged criminals can finally be brought before the ICC.

Again, from what I've read.

rr165892

Byrnzie said:

backseatLover12 said:

Yeah, I'm wondering the same thing. That's why I keep repeating, what does a real resolution look like? Forcing Israel to back down is using a violent act, and violence only begets violence. It certainly doesn't cause peace. So far, Leeze, you are one of the few really attempting to think what peace would look like. I'm merely attempting to get people to actually start thinking in that direction rather than spinning the wheels of anger and finger pointing. Because, that gets us no where. You'd think more this concept would get into more people's heads.

You sound like a broken record playing to an empty room. And I couldn't care less whether you read my posts or not. I'm still gonna respond to your gibberish for the benefit of others.

What does a resolution look like? A resolution looks like the resolution that's already accepted by the whole World, and which has been repeatedly blocked by the U.S, which uses it's power of automatic veto to prevent it's implementation. But I know you don't care about these details. And once again you continue pretending that anybody in this thread has called for 'more violence'. I'm not sure why you insist on perpetuating this fantasy.

Byrnzie,In reality the resolution the "Whole World"recognizes Dosent and won't carry much weight here.When the fighting stops(hopefully)for good and this story moves past the front page,with no bad press flowing in either direction this conflict,war,occupation whatever title you give it will again be left to be brokered by just the main players and of course the USA and our allies,like your government.The rest of the world will sit back and do shit about Palestine just as it has done for 60 + years.Even the big Arab countries with all the money don't want to dirty their hands here.
So it will boil down to Can the Israelies and the PA with the help of few(America'Egyptetc)generate proper dialogue to forge a forward with a peace plan.It is unrealistic no matter how loud you yell to think 3 months from now the world will be on the edge of their seats and protesting this issue.Some new travesty will take center stage.You know like what's up with the downed plane kinda thing.
When Palestinians move away from Hamas,you will see other players get involved.I think these innocent Palestinians should be left to govern themselves and have open borders and live free of occupation,but the Israelies and the west will see to it that it Dosent happen with a known terrorist backed orginazation speaking for them.
If only all these players would take advantage of the world stage they have right now and make some progress on the common ground they do have.Something truly meaningful and substantial could be at hand.
Our(USA)$$ speaks very loud.Right or wrong it flows to everyone and those who recieve it won't stop the money train to rock the boat.I think the PA should request immediate aid from the USA to help rebuild and help with humanitarian issues since we are so involved in this mess.That might be a another good step in healing here.

lolobugg

Byrnzie said:

dancinacrossthewater said:

So if Israel relinquished air, sea, and land crossing control over Gaza, it'd be a start. I agree.

I can actually see a loosening of restrictions on both Gaza and the West Bank now that the Palestinians are signing up to the ICC. Let's not kid ourselves, the Israeli leadership are shitting themselves about this.
It's only a matter of time now before the whole lot of them end up in the Hague charged with multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity. And it's also a possibility - I'm not too sure about this - that certain individuals from Israel's chief sponsor and provider of arms - the U.S - will also end up there.

I agree they should be charged but,
I don't believe that the US recognizes the ICC,
could be wrong unless something has changed recently.

hedonist

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

I really believe that there are a few people on this thread they would very strongly considering punching another member here in the head if the two should happen to meet. That's the vibe I get. Sorry if anyone doesn't want to hear that.

This thread is no longer about being against war or even about finding solutions for the conflict in Gaza. Don't kid yourselves. It's about several other things though- anger, the need to be right, the little jolt of satisfaction to the ego one gets by clever caricaturing of another in vague or generalized or sarcastic terms, the pride of believing one is more well informed than another and doing ones best to prove to everyone else how righteous and correct we are. Famous for 15 minutes, full of shit 8% of the time. All of us. And no one here has all the answers. I'd bet on that any day.

You are absolutely 100% correct
Which is an opinion not fact.
Which, like your post, means you will be most likely be ignored . Or insulted and degraded for daring to state your personal opinion.

Yes. Cheers to you both.

An aside - this almost seems like some kind of unintentional social experiment. Start with a peaceful anti-war post by someone who I assume most of us respect for our own reasons. Will it remain peaceful?

Page 54 in this laboratory, and we're just...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfU53Do7SWs

backseatLover12

benjs said:

backseatLover12 (and to a lesser degree Leezestarr313), there is a very big distinction to be made between pointing fingers and taking positions. For example, as a politician, you're unlikely to receive respect in justifying a political action until you take a position. Is there anger here? Sure. But there's also a lot of good discussion, and viable solutions have been discussed (they are actually littered amongst the plethora of discussions around these forums).

As for what a 'real resolution' looks like, that's still foggy to me. I think at the very least, retreating to 1967 borders, liberating Gaza and the West Bank and allowing them to govern themselves, pushing the fishing boundaries a more reasonable distance and giving financial assistance to allow Gaza to recover from the primarily Israel-imposed devastation in the region would be a great start.

For those who cite security issues, I believe (and someone with a better concept of international law can confirm or deny this) Israel at that point would be entitled to fortify their agreed-upon borders, and it would be solely in the hands of the Palestinian Unity Government to assuage the security concerns of neighbouring countries (Israel included) in order to create their own trade agreements with them.

Edit: Just to clarify - when I say this would be a great "start", I mean that. I think far more is owed to the Palestinian people than what I've mentioned.

Agreed Benjs, but it's difficult to see good discussion (the last couple pages have been pretty good actually) when you are being attacked almost constantly.

Yeah, I brought the 'resolution' idea to the table to get a good, thought provoking discussion going. I admit I don't know the answer either, but it's good to throw around ideas. I'm just not sure about going back and retreating to borders from any date. Perhaps a new approach ti setting borders will and can come about. Who knows. At least the discussion is started.

backseatLover12

dancinacrossthewater said:

i think there's more common ground on this forum than people realize, even among people starting from seemingly opposite positions, but it's important to realize that not everybody who defends some of what Israel does hates Palestinians or wants to see them suffer.

I agree.