Meanwhile back in Israel

badbrains said:

dignin said:

This is crazy, we really need to get rid of this government.


Ottawa considering hate charges against those who boycott Israel.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-considering-hate-charges-against-those-who-boycott-israel-1.3067497

Aipac reaching all borders now. Canada taking a page out of our own book. Amazing

dignin said:

This is crazy, we really need to get rid of this government.


Ottawa considering hate charges against those who boycott Israel.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-considering-hate-charges-against-those-who-boycott-israel-1.3067497

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

Drowned Out said:

Only the first three paragraphs deal with your comments. Thanks for the clarification, but I don't think I was making any big leaps...? You made excuses for the appointment - that was my main point. I'm glad youre disgusted, but have to wonder why you only showed up to be nitpicky about my criticism, instead of expressing your disgust...

I asked BS the question regarding the Israel vs PA coalitions first...still hoping he'll take a shot at that one....

Sorry for the delay Drowned. That was a great point on the coalitions and you wouldn't be wrong to suggest a double standard. This sort of gets into a "which came first the chicken or the egg" scenerio. As I see it when Israel completely withdrew from Gaza a number of years back that should have been seen as a softening of the Israeli position. I know it didn't come close to satisfying all Palestinian demands but it was certainly a first step and the appropriate response would have been to work peacefully to additional concessions. However, Hamas very quickly instituted a one-vote/one-time election and seized control of Gaza. This became problematic because Hamas and the PA do not agree ideologically. Hamas is completely rejectionist and by their actions has superseded any ability of the PA to negotiate. Many israeli's, including many on the left, now look back at the Gaza withdrawal and ask themselves "is peace even possible...we returned Gaza and it has only gotten worse?". It is this feeling that has moved the Israeli electorate to the right and has resulted in the Israeli coalition. Lastly...as my personal views often get lost in the weeds on here by being everyone's conservative foil...I am not an Israeli apologist as I see fault on all sides. I want a two-state solution of some type. What I absolutely believe though is at this point Hamas is the true obstacle peace. Egypt agrees with this. The PA agrees with this. Unless they are removed you will unfortunately see this Netanyahu coalition for a long long time.

Israel's population density is close to 400 capita/square kilometre. Gaza's is ten times that, at over 4,000 capita/square kilometre. This, combined with the limited (and controlled) access to fresh water and crops, and restrictions on fishing - essentially mandates imports for the sake of the flourishing of the Palestinian people. When these restrictions or limitations on access are not lifted, and the flow of goods and services into the territories is still limited, I don't see how this would've seen by the Palestinian people as anything but a means to appease global condemnation. A first step would be associated with a true sign of faith, not a meaningless act meant to silence protesters. This was a very solid effort to make the lives of Israelis easier and less affected by what they seem to deem the cancerous cells of Israel. Rather than maintaining the internal harmony of the country, they could simply isolate anything 'problematic', and ensure its strife and turmoil is unseen and unheard elsewhere in the country.

Hamas' one-vote/one-time election is only an issue after what Israel deems the appropriate maximum term length ought to be has elapsed (which, given that Netanyahu is on his fourth term, even interrupted by a term out of office, is strange to me). Until that point, the one-vote/one-time election is a moot point.

Hamas and the PA indeed do not agree ideologically: the PA's stance has been weakened to only have hope for a two-state solution; Hamas have hope for a one-state solution. This has nothing to do with rejectionist viewpoints: it's the simple reality that pushing for a one-state solution and pushing for a two-state solution must have different procedures, so they butt heads. This means that when you say that you believe Hamas is a true obstacle to peace - you should clarify: Hamas is a true obstacle to a two-state solution, inasmuch as the PA is a true obstacle to a one-state solution. Must they align in their goal? Absolutely: pushing for either scenario damages the effort to push for the other.

Hamas is a true obstacle to peace. Full stop. It does not need to be clarified.

A wrongfully segregated and ghettoized population who are an annoyance in their existence, and ruining the perceived purity of a land, are discriminated against and elect a group to represent an opposition to their injustices. The group, stripped of any way of making tangible change through peaceful protest (i.e. no voices heard), opts to violence - a way to shock global powers into condemning those in prolonging the injustices, proposing crippling the oppressors' economy, and ensuring that the oppressed refuse to accept pacifism for the sake of maintaining an unjust status quo.

This seems to be the story in South Africa and in Israel. In both cases, the violent resistance force is seen as heroic and noble by the supporters of the oppressed; and coined a terrorist organization by those in opposition (typically those in a position of power with a ways to fall and profit to be lost).

Injustice and prejudice go hand in hand. When your prejudice refuses to allow your brain to consume and debate in details related to context related to premises related to viewpoints, you are relegated to a status of unwavering conviction in your opinions in spite of logic. This way of being is a true obstacle to peace, more so than Hamas could ever be.

By the way, I'm still looking forward to a response to my thought experiment which I thought adequately represented the basics of the situation in Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Perhaps a response besides "I'm hungover and it's nice outside".

I answered your "living room" thought experiment. You didn't like my answer and proposed a new, larger experiment. I hate to say this but your experiment is silly and makes zero sense. Why deal with the issue in the abstract? We are not talking about living rooms and renters...blah blah. We are talking about Israel and there is no need to bury the facts we all know under silly terms. Hamas is an obstacle to peace. The end. Your experiment cannot paper over the current facts on the ground.

I see that the intellectually lazy struck again. Bibi is an obstacle to peace. Deal with it.

Drowned Out said:

BS44325 said:

Sorry for the delay Drowned. That was a great point on the coalitions and you wouldn't be wrong to suggest a double standard. This sort of gets into a "which came first the chicken or the egg" scenerio. As I see it when Israel completely withdrew from Gaza a number of years back that should have been seen as a softening of the Israeli position. I know it didn't come close to satisfying all Palestinian demands but it was certainly a first step and the appropriate response would have been to work peacefully to additional concessions. However, Hamas very quickly instituted a one-vote/one-time election and seized control of Gaza. This became problematic because Hamas and the PA do not agree ideologically. Hamas is completely rejectionist and by their actions has superseded any ability of the PA to negotiate. Many israeli's, including many on the left, now look back at the Gaza withdrawal and ask themselves "is peace even possible...we returned Gaza and it has only gotten worse?". It is this feeling that has moved the Israeli electorate to the right and has resulted in the Israeli coalition. Lastly...as my personal views often get lost in the weeds on here by being everyone's conservative foil...I am not an Israeli apologist as I see fault on all sides. I want a two-state solution of some type. What I absolutely believe though is at this point Hamas is the true obstacle peace. Egypt agrees with this. The PA agrees with this. Unless they are removed you will unfortunately see this Netanyahu coalition for a long long time.

Don't apologize for a delay in replying...I can only find time to post here once or twice a week these days (I do lurk daily, but I'm pretty anal about my responses and won't bother unless I have time to do so properly). I don't want to be accused of avoiding anything, so I wouldn't do the same to anyone else....

Now.....let's look at your supposed 'softening of the Israeli position' in relation to the Gaza withdrawal. First, we should point out that at the time, Bibi was finance minister, and he resigned when it was determined that the withdrawal was moving forward. This was not promoted internally as a softening of Israel's position - it was promoted in the Kadima Party Platform as a way to ensure the jewishness of the state: "...in order to maintain a Jewish majority, part of the Land of Israel must be given up to maintain a Jewish and democratic state," It was not meant as a peace initiative, but an injection of 'formaldehyde' for the peace process: “the significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process […] Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda […] All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress.”

Is pulling out of the strip truly a softening of Israeli position, when the conditions dictated that Israel maintained control all of the borders, airspace, territorial waters, utilities, garbage collection, population registry, tax systems, supply of goods, freedom of movement etc etc...They turned Gaza into a prison and attempted to wash their hands of any legal responsibility - their position is that they were no longer bound by the Geneva conventions, or Hague regulations in Gaza.
You also have to consider the fact that the settlers removed were relocated to the West Bank. I'm not going to spend the time to look up exact numbers from 2005 - 2015, but found this within seconds: "From the beginning of 2009 until the beginning of 2014 — Netanyahu returned to office in March 2009 — the Jewish settler population in the West Bank grew 23 percent, to 355,993 people. In comparison, the overall population has grown 9.6 percent to just over 8 million in that time". In other words, Israel withdrew it's troops and illegal settlements from a tiny strip of land, in order to maintain the jewish demographic, and to re-focus on expanding the theft of land in the West Bank.
Onto the one-vote/one-time election, and the seizure of control by Hamas....Hamas won the election in 06. It was internationally observed and fair.
In response, the West ended all aid to Palestine, and the 'talking points memo' was sent (left behind) to the PA, instructing them to issue a state of emergency and dissolve the government. Instead, Fatah and Hamas negotiated a unity government. The west then went to work attempting to ensure that Fatah was built up enough to destroy Hamas, thru regional allies. Hamas preempted this by 'seizing control' of Gaza. In other words; they were forced to do this because of Western support for Fatah....Fatah was shown in 'the Palestine Papers' to have been working directly with the West and Israel. It's documented fact. They were supposed to be representing the oppressed, not the occupiers. And you wonder why people back Hamas?

Btw - even Israelis view their government's coalition as fragile at best. It won't be around 'for a long time'. But if history teaches us anything, that doesn't mean anything will improve for Palestinians when it inevitably fails.

You talk about the Israeli public's response to what happened after the withdrawal.....After the withdrawal, a majority of Palestinians considered the violent resistance of Hamas the reason it was achieved....but a majority also no longer supported violent resistance. Their focus shifted to infrastructure and nation building. Knowing the west and Israel then tried to implement a coup, didnt live up to obligations under the withdrawal, and have killed thousands in major military operations since, what do you think this did to the Palestinian mindset regarding the withdrawal?

Also, how can you acknowledge the double standards between the two coalitions and the extremists within both, then turn around and state that Hamas is the obstacle to peace?

dignin said:

Drowned Out said:

dignin said:

This is crazy, we really need to get rid of this government.


Ottawa considering hate charges against those who boycott Israel.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-considering-hate-charges-against-those-who-boycott-israel-1.3067497

Utter bullshit. I doubt this will ever pass the Supreme Court if challenges as a charter violation, tho.
Just pandering to his base....right BS?

Seems to be a pattern with this government. They have been losing a lot at the supreme court lately, think of all the wasted time and money. You would think the conservative base would be appalled by the wasted resources.

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

Drowned Out said:

dignin said:

This is crazy, we really need to get rid of this government.


Ottawa considering hate charges against those who boycott Israel.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-considering-hate-charges-against-those-who-boycott-israel-1.3067497

Utter bullshit. I doubt this will ever pass the Supreme Court if challenges as a charter violation, tho.
Just pandering to his base....right BS?

Seems to be a pattern with this government. They have been losing a lot at the supreme court lately, think of all the wasted time and money. You would think the conservative base would be appalled by the wasted resources.

I'm appalled by this for sure. It's actually a complete misreading of where the (canadian) conservative base actually is. We (me?) look at free speech as "the thing". I am for the right of the BDS person as much as I am for the right of Pamela Geller or the right of Occupy Wall Street. Provided that you are not violent or invading someone else's private property then you should have the right to say whatever the hell you want without being accused of committing a Hate Crime. Speech should be answered with more speech and not arrest warrents.

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

Yosi, does Hamas not exist to champion a one-state solution and condemn Jewish sovereignty over the region (and don't get me wrong - it's inexcusable for them to champion Islamic sovereignty as well)? When they say Israel has no right to exist - that's exactly the statement they make: a state with Jewish sovereignty ought not to exist when the region houses Jews and non-Jews alike. This is relevant not only at the time of the birth of Israel, but even at the time when Zionism pinpointed this very parcel of land to situate itself on. Until then, Zionism was not a problematic concept. Israel's existence promotes an outright elitist and racist point of view through the discrepancy of treatment between conforming Jews and all others, and was outdated decades ago. Why it is accepted in the case of Israel and condemned elsewhere is beyond me.

Until Israel acknowledges this initial injustice of self-appointed Jewish sovereignty (along with the affiliated injustices that are much more tangible: inappropriate seizure of land, humiliation, mistreatment, the segregation of a people even from each other with regards to Gaza and the West Bank, discrepancy in rights provided, etc) and begins to enter damage control in tangible and meaningful ways, Israel will never have peace, and as the BDS movement grows, Israel will never have economic stability. The sanctions will become stronger. The opposition will become louder. Canada and America's indigenous populations would not be peaceful without the meagre reparations granted by our respective governments. The reparations granted to the Palestinian population at this point fall short and fluctuate around (but just barely) non-existent, occasionally adding or retracting rights or land here or there when the inactivity is more damaging than minor change, as granted by the self-perceived superior and charitable race.

This is the reality: If Israel doesn't push for owed reparations (likely akin to those given to indigenous populations around the world - i.e. familiar), the world will watch as Israel burns slowly and painfully. My personal hope is for an iota of progress: there has never been a status quo of stability in Israel, and there's a reason for that. The world accepts two outcomes to injustice: work to rectify it slowly or partially to an unfortunate but acceptable state, or rectify it entirely. To minimize it only when convenient does not work, as injustices are done to seize or preserve power, and to undo injustice by definition would mean the return or rebalancing of power (i.e. it is inherently inconvenient).

As for my thought experiment, I stand by it, as plenty of scientists have stood by thought experiments that increase clarity to abstract scenarios and to extract and remove bias. Renter A and Renter B, and Landlord Joe have no prior biases in our minds - when you label them as Israel, Palestine, and England, they sure as hell do. BS, your response acknowledged the fact that I had omitted critical contextual points necessary to validate it, and so I tweaked it to add analogous historical context. If you had thought it did not relate whatsoever, why did you not speak up in the first iteration? Why now?

Once again, BS, you claim to be fact-driven, but you can not claim to be fact-driven if you make blanket statements (Hamas is an obstacle to peace) and ignore the subtext used to justify them (literally any statement providing nuance or refuting this notion). That's not logic: that's cherry-picking your arguments with a tunnel vision commitment to the outcome you've already decided upon. You had your mind made up prior to entering this discussion, and you manipulate, omit, or refuse to address conflicting facts, in an effort to reveal what you coin the 'truth'.

As long as people act this way on the Israeli/Palestinian topic, Israel is destined for global condemnation, violence, political and socioeconomic unrest, and impactful economic sanctions. Deal with it.

Unfortunately Benjs your very first paragraph will forever be our sticking point. It makes any analogy you post unworthy of a response. You do not believe Israel should exist as a state with Jewish sovereignty yet it will always and forever be that. It is that kind of belief which convinces the average Israeli to give up on the peace process and move to the right come election season. There can be no negotiation with someone who is completely opposed to your very existence.

In that case, Israel in its current iteration is destined to be forever fighting for its survival. To offer reparations to Palestinians is to admit that the founding was unjust. To admit that the founding was unjust is to admit that the region shouldn't be run with a notion of Jewish sovereignty. Working backwards, to refuse to question the notion of the righteousness of Jewish sovereignty is to refuse to acknowledge an unjust founding, and by extension to refuse to offer reparations to Palestinians. Once again, this is why Israel is in the midst of a self-perpetuated existential crisis, and the world (with the exception of pro-Israel lobbyists) is unlikely to care about their hardships for too much longer.

Edit: Before Netanyahu backtracked on his words the day after winning the election, he also said that there will never be a Palestinian state so long as he is in office. In this statement, and the implied notion of a Jewish-sovereign state, is Netanyahu not saying that he is opposed to the existence of Palestine? How could Hamas or the PA aspire to negotiate with him then?

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

Yosi, does Hamas not exist to champion a one-state solution and condemn Jewish sovereignty over the region (and don't get me wrong - it's inexcusable for them to champion Islamic sovereignty as well)? When they say Israel has no right to exist - that's exactly the statement they make: a state with Jewish sovereignty ought not to exist when the region houses Jews and non-Jews alike. This is relevant not only at the time of the birth of Israel, but even at the time when Zionism pinpointed this very parcel of land to situate itself on. Until then, Zionism was not a problematic concept. Israel's existence promotes an outright elitist and racist point of view through the discrepancy of treatment between conforming Jews and all others, and was outdated decades ago. Why it is accepted in the case of Israel and condemned elsewhere is beyond me.

Until Israel acknowledges this initial injustice of self-appointed Jewish sovereignty (along with the affiliated injustices that are much more tangible: inappropriate seizure of land, humiliation, mistreatment, the segregation of a people even from each other with regards to Gaza and the West Bank, discrepancy in rights provided, etc) and begins to enter damage control in tangible and meaningful ways, Israel will never have peace, and as the BDS movement grows, Israel will never have economic stability. The sanctions will become stronger. The opposition will become louder. Canada and America's indigenous populations would not be peaceful without the meagre reparations granted by our respective governments. The reparations granted to the Palestinian population at this point fall short and fluctuate around (but just barely) non-existent, occasionally adding or retracting rights or land here or there when the inactivity is more damaging than minor change, as granted by the self-perceived superior and charitable race.

This is the reality: If Israel doesn't push for owed reparations (likely akin to those given to indigenous populations around the world - i.e. familiar), the world will watch as Israel burns slowly and painfully. My personal hope is for an iota of progress: there has never been a status quo of stability in Israel, and there's a reason for that. The world accepts two outcomes to injustice: work to rectify it slowly or partially to an unfortunate but acceptable state, or rectify it entirely. To minimize it only when convenient does not work, as injustices are done to seize or preserve power, and to undo injustice by definition would mean the return or rebalancing of power (i.e. it is inherently inconvenient).

As for my thought experiment, I stand by it, as plenty of scientists have stood by thought experiments that increase clarity to abstract scenarios and to extract and remove bias. Renter A and Renter B, and Landlord Joe have no prior biases in our minds - when you label them as Israel, Palestine, and England, they sure as hell do. BS, your response acknowledged the fact that I had omitted critical contextual points necessary to validate it, and so I tweaked it to add analogous historical context. If you had thought it did not relate whatsoever, why did you not speak up in the first iteration? Why now?

Once again, BS, you claim to be fact-driven, but you can not claim to be fact-driven if you make blanket statements (Hamas is an obstacle to peace) and ignore the subtext used to justify them (literally any statement providing nuance or refuting this notion). That's not logic: that's cherry-picking your arguments with a tunnel vision commitment to the outcome you've already decided upon. You had your mind made up prior to entering this discussion, and you manipulate, omit, or refuse to address conflicting facts, in an effort to reveal what you coin the 'truth'.

As long as people act this way on the Israeli/Palestinian topic, Israel is destined for global condemnation, violence, political and socioeconomic unrest, and impactful economic sanctions. Deal with it.

Unfortunately Benjs your very first paragraph will forever be our sticking point. It makes any analogy you post unworthy of a response. You do not believe Israel should exist as a state with Jewish sovereignty yet it will always and forever be that. It is that kind of belief which convinces the average Israeli to give up on the peace process and move to the right come election season. There can be no negotiation with someone who is completely opposed to your very existence.

In that case, Israel in its current iteration is destined to be forever fighting for its survival. To offer reparations to Palestinians is to admit that the founding was unjust. To admit that the founding was unjust is to admit that the region shouldn't be run with a notion of Jewish sovereignty. Working backwards, to refuse to question the notion of the righteousness of Jewish sovereignty is to refuse to acknowledge an unjust founding, and by extension to refuse to offer reparations to Palestinians. Once again, this is why Israel is in the midst of a self-perpetuated existential crisis, and the world (with the exception of pro-Israel lobbyists) is unlikely to care about their hardships for too much longer.

Edit: Before Netanyahu backtracked on his words the day after winning the election, he also said that there will never be a Palestinian state so long as he is in office. In this statement, and the implied notion of a Jewish-sovereign state, is Netanyahu not saying that he is opposed to the existence of Palestine? How could Hamas or the PA aspire to negotiate with him then?

On your first point...i am not against reparations necessarily but that doesn't mean they have to come with an admission of guilt. A just settlement can include a financial component

On your second point...Netanyahu is not against the existence of a Palestinian state but that he just can't possibly see one happening under current conditions. The Arab world is in absolute turmoil and is also in the middle of a confrontation with Iran. Hamas and the PA are going at each other, ISIS has declared war on Hamas, Saudi and Turkey are now fighting Assad and Iran, Hezbollah is in the mix, Egypt is fighting Hamas, never mind a whole host of other unaffiliated islamist groups that are trying to carve up their own slice of the pie! Who in god's name is Israel supposed to negotiate with right now? I honestly do not have a clue.

The one thing I do know is that the only Middle Eastern Arab with an opportunity these days is the Israeli Arab. So much for your Apartheid.