Even though the media doesn't consider it worth reporting, the Arabs in Gaza have continued to fire rockets into the middle of the town of Sderot without let up since the Israeli government unwisely rendered the 9000 Jews living there homeless and gave their towns to the terrorists.
There's a certain irony here, of course, because the folks in Sderot were by and large huge supporters of the deportations and the abandonment of Gaza. Most of them now... well, let's just say that they've had a little change of heart.
Anyway, the children in Sderot have been having a hard time of it, as you might suspect. But they know that running away isn't really a solution. I mean, running away from Gaza is what got them into this mess in the first place, right? So a school teacher in Sderot came up with a way to stop the kids from freaking out.
The truth is, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'm glad that this woman has found a way to destress the situation for the children. But it smacks strongly of the frog-in-a-pot thing. All they're really doing is helping people get used to the hotter water rather than finding a way to turn down the heat before they get boiled alive.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Fire 100 rockets back for every rocket fired into Israel. For every Israeli kidnapped execute 100 Palestinians, for every dollar spent defending Israel makes sure that they have to replace 100$ more, for every vehicle blown up destroy 50 of there's, for every home destroyed bulldoze 50 of theirs.
If in 5 years they still keep at it at least there won't be enough of them left for the world to make a fuss out of deporting them somewhere nice.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm confused about who homeless. 9000 Jews from Gaza? Because the way your sentence reads now, it sounds like the terrorists are bombing themselves.
As for whether reducing their anxiety is impacting necessary readiness... I don't know.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Fire 100 rockets back for every rocket fired into Israel. For every Israeli kidnapped execute 100 Palestinians, for every dollar spent defending Israel makes sure that they have to replace 100$ more, for every vehicle blown up destroy 50 of there's, for every home destroyed bulldoze 50 of theirs.
If in 5 years they still keep at it at least there won't be enough of them left for the world to make a fuss out of deporting them somewhere nice.
That's about on the same level as Tancredo's "let's bomb Mecca to get the terrorists to stop attacking us" idea.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
For the record, in those cases where I advocate running I generally recommend running out of enemy range before stopping Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Fire 100 rockets back for every rocket fired into Israel. For every Israeli kidnapped execute 100 Palestinians, for every dollar spent defending Israel makes sure that they have to replace 100$ more, for every vehicle blown up destroy 50 of there's, for every home destroyed bulldoze 50 of theirs.
Taking a Chinese approach to the problem, eh? *grin*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What's happening? Israel pulled people from settlements, the people stayed in the Palestinian territory anyway, and now the Palestinians are bombing them out?
Why didn't they leave when Israel originally pulled the illegal settlements?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
The idea of the song to calm the kids reminds me a lot of "Duck & Cover" from the cold war atomic scare days.
--Enigmatic
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Put you hands on you head keep low to the ground time to duck and cover the bombs are coming down Duck and cover...
I love that song. It almost makes me sad the cold war is over. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I'm confused about who homeless. 9000 Jews from Gaza? Because the way your sentence reads now, it sounds like the terrorists are bombing themselves.
Sderot isn't in Gaza. It's near Gaza. And yes, the 9000 Jews who had lived in Gaza were expelled by the Israeli government, and their towns turned over to the Arabs, who (of course) immediately started using the towns as a staging ground for more attacks on Israel.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Blayne, you need to be slapped.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The strategy of using overwhelming force to break the enemies will originates in tactical thinking with Von Clauswitz, it is also very effective way of suppresses uprisings and guerrilla insurgencies. I roughly recall starting a thread on the subject some many years ago.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: What's happening? Israel pulled people from settlements, the people stayed in the Palestinian territory anyway, and now the Palestinians are bombing them out?
Why didn't they leave when Israel originally pulled the illegal settlements?
Okay, this is obviously my fault. I didn't explain well enough. The town of Sderot is not in Gaza or any other "disputed" area. But like some of us have been saying all along, the Palestinians aren't interested in the "occupied territories". They want Israel gone. As far as they're concerned, every last square centimeter of the middle east is Arab land, and they will never accept Israel's existence.
People want to make peace in the middle east, but the two sides want different things. Israel wants to exist. The Palestinians want Israel not to exist. Where is there middle ground there?
I remember back in 2005, when the explusion was growing near, being told that it was worth throwing 9000 innocent people out of their homes to make this gesture to the Arabs. I said at the time (and it wasn't just me, but I did say it) that every time such "gestures" had been made to the Arabs, they had responded with increased violence. Like everyone else pointing this out, I was labeled racist and a warmonger. And of course, it happened anyway.
Do you realize that throughout these attacks, Israel has continued to supply the Arabs in Gaza with electricity and financial aid? Egypt takes no responsibility for their fellow Arabs, but Israel continues to feed that hand that bites them.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Jon you'll have to get in line.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Fire 100 rockets back for every rocket fired into Israel. For every Israeli kidnapped execute 100 Palestinians, for every dollar spent defending Israel makes sure that they have to replace 100$ more, for every vehicle blown up destroy 50 of there's, for every home destroyed bulldoze 50 of theirs.
If in 5 years they still keep at it at least there won't be enough of them left for the world to make a fuss out of deporting them somewhere nice.
You know, it would probably work. But it's not how we do things. Still, I think they should be escorted to the border with Egypt and let through into the Sinai. Let their Egyptian brethren deal with them for a change.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The strategy of using overwhelming force to break the enemies will originates in tactical thinking with Von Clauswitz, it is also very effective way of suppresses uprisings and guerrilla insurgencies. I roughly recall starting a thread on the subject some many years ago.
I don't think you understand. Killing all of the Palestinians would not solve the problem.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
There's too many of them, once we move them to the border and start moving to the Egpytian side, the Egyptians will simply deploy machine gun nests and tell the to go back, then we'll have to setup machine gun nests and start gunning done some of them as they come back, and then they'll start gunning down the ones moving back to Egypt, eventually the machine gunners on one side will crack under the psycological pressure and we'll have no choice but to let them back in as no soldier wants to keep machine gunning cattle for long.
My solution at leasts spreads it out so that when it is time to deport the ones who wont work a honest living (as Im certain the Israeli economy needs or at least likes some palistinians as cheap labour) there won't be that many left to mow down as they move back across the border.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Death solves all problems - no man, no problem.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: People want to make peace in the middle east, but the two sides want different things. Israel wants to exist. The Palestinians want Israel not to exist. Where is there middle ground there?
A quantumly uncertain Israel which may or may not exist so long as we don't observe it?
("Not observing it" does seem to be American media & public's favorite solution to Israel/Palestinian issues, after all.)
--Enigmatic
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Jon you'll have to get in line.
There's a line? Ooh boy!
*gets a ticket and waits patiently for turn*
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Death solves all problems - no man, no problem.
There are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world. Good luck.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Taking a Chinese approach to the problem, eh?
?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And somehow they're all going to get in a line and march single file to israel to get their revenge?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Blayne: Israel is not allowed to fight back. Every time they do, the world condemns them.
Even firing one rocket back would be a "disproportionate response" (never mind that a proportionate response... or no response at all... is just a way to make sure the violence never ends.)
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And somehow they're all going to get in a line and march single file to israel to get their revenge?
Come on Blayne. What consequences do you think a massively aggressive policy towards Palestinians would have?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The world rants a little they submit a resolution to the UNSC, US veto's it, Arab Ambassadors can say they tried. Some coup d'etats happen, a anti israeli coalition forms they try to invade Israel they get their asses handed to them world quiets down a little.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Fail
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Somehow the line to slap blayne and the line of 1.4 billion Muslims got conflated in my mind.
I don't think there's going to be much left by the time it's your turn, Jon. You better just slap him now.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Actually pooka, I think that's a fantastic idea. If we can get all the angry, violent people in the world mad at Blayne, and then have him run around in an unpopulated area for a long time, they will keep following him around, waiting for their turn to slap him, and everyone else can go about their lives Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The line also in the process of circulating a resolution declaring that I do not exist, paradoxically enough, I wonder if they realie that by signing it they ensure I do exist.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I don't think there's going to be much left by the time it's your turn, Jon. You better just slap him now.
I don't want to cut in line and upset all those people who have waited their turn.
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
The reactions in this thread are making me really sad. Blayne, I'm going to assume you realize the effect of your statement and that's why you said it, but the situation you described is more of what's happening than people realize. And as for "feeding the hand that bites them", the Israelis have certainly not been doing the best job of that. Palestinians are not just attacking them because they want to eradicate Israel. They're attacking because they're hungry, have no way of leaving, and are not granted the basic civil rights of anyone who lives in a "valid" state. Even when they can get passports, they are only considered to be "travel documents" and not legal passports because they're issued by Palestine, which isn't a country and so it can't do anything.
Israel has been "fighting back" since it came into being. And the Palestinians have been getting the short end of that stick just as long. It's not a case of world opinion being on the side of Gaza at all.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm going to assume Blayne either has a really bad sense of humor, or he's just utterly and hopelessly stupid about this particular matter. And I don't say that to be insulting, I say it because I think it's a statement of fact. If his policies were actually enacted, Israel WOULD cease to exist one way or the other, because either the US would withdraw support, or the nearby Arabs would decimate them. Thanks to the US, Saudi Arabia has lots of bright, shiny toys that are on par with what the Israelis have. That plus a nuke from Pakistan would end them. They might take out Mecca before they go down, but they'd go down.
And Lisa,
quote:Do you realize that throughout these attacks, Israel has continued to supply the Arabs in Gaza with electricity and financial aid?
So what you've decided to do with this statement is lie? Israel has cut off fuel shipments and all aid to Gaza. As a result they have no power, because after Israel cut off their power, they relied entirely on a single power plant fueld by what, the fuel shipments from Israel. Now they have no power, their hospitals don't function so the sick and injured are dying or dead. They want to leave and go elsewhere to seek relief but Israel keeps them trapped inside behind their walls. Their hope is that eventually Palestinians will turn against Hamas as the group that got them into that situation.
But it hasn't worked. Instead the people hate Israel even more. In the last few days the wall has been torn down in large sections between the Sinai and Gaza. Israel told Egypt to close the wall immediately as thousands of Gazans streamed across the wall to get medical supplies, food, fuel, to see family members trapped on the other side, or even just to get a breath of fresh air. Israel's concern is solely that terrorists might use the crossing to sneak in material, and they want the wall closed back up as quickly as possible.
I guess the bright side is that since that's happened, rocket attacks HAVE tappered off. But the situation there is dire. Less dire now that the people have managed to get out and get some relief, but people in Gaza are something like 80% dependent on the UN for shipments of food, and entirely dependent on Israel for electricity. It's an open air prison camp.
quote:Originally Posted by: Dragon Palestinians are not just attacking them because they want to eradicate Israel. They're attacking because they're hungry, have no way of leaving, and are not granted the basic civil rights of anyone who lives in a "valid" state.
And there's more truth to that than I think a lot of Israelis will admit. It's the minority of people that shoots those rockets and riles Israel up. Everyone else is trapped. They want to be free of the whole mess, they want food, they want jobs, and they hate Israel, the PA, Hamas and the US for keeping them where they are. Of all of those groups though, Hamas is the one that can at least claim to protect them, who runs schools for them and provides other government services. Compare that with the group that cuts off your power and guess which group they are going to support.
It's Blayne's tactics that Israel has employed, and it's the reason the status quo will ALWAYS exist so long as they keep doing so.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Gee, up till this point I thought Blayne was just sort of dumb but mostly just silly.
Now I'm starting to realize that he's actually dumb as a post, and as a result his attempt to appear like a learned strategist has put him about a notch below Tom Tancredo on the Cretinometer™
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And Lisa,
quote:Do you realize that throughout these attacks, Israel has continued to supply the Arabs in Gaza with electricity and financial aid?
So what you've decided to do with this statement is lie? Israel has cut off fuel shipments and all aid to Gaza. As a result they have no power, because after Israel cut off their power, they relied entirely on a single power plant fueld by what, the fuel shipments from Israel. Now they have no power, their hospitals don't function so the sick and injured are dying or dead. They want to leave and go elsewhere to seek relief but Israel keeps them trapped inside behind their walls. Their hope is that eventually Palestinians will turn against Hamas as the group that got them into that situation.
The only lie here is yours, Lyrhawn. Israel cut off some fuel to Gaza, and for good reasons. And they never, not for a minute, stopped the supply of electricity into Gaza. Check your facts next time, before you start spreading libel and calling me a liar.
And Israel is hardly keeping them trapped. They have a border with Egypt as well. What, we're supposed to let them freely into Israel with their track record of blowing up innocent bystanders?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: They have a border with Egypt as well.
Fixed. I hit my thumb earlier tonight and it got so bad that I took a vicodin about 2 hours ago. My bad.
But I don't apologize for what I posted to Lyrhawn. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Israel supplies all of Gaza's fuel and 2/3 of its electricity. Cutting the fuel (which, why the hell does Israel have to supply them with fuel rather than Egypt?) resulted in their power plant going down, but Israel never stopped supplying electricity. The Palestinians don't pay for the electricity, mind you. They refuse to pay, but Israel continues to supply them. It's insane.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
And let me add that Israel didn't cut off all fuel, either. They reduced the amount of fuel they were sending in. Even Al-Jazeera pointed that out.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: They have a border with Egypt as well.
And those poor, poor Palestinians, living in squalor... and running into Egypt to buy motorcycles, televisions, new cellphones... yeah, my heart bleeds for them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The border with Egypt is sealed by a wall and a border crossing, which is closed a majority of the time by Egypt to appease Israeli security soncerns. When the wall was torn down to let them out, Israel screamed bloody murder and told the Egyptians to close the border and repair the wall as quickly as possible. Blithely saying they can just leave if they want isn't accurate. And you could just as easily say that those people being hit by rockets could just leave too couldn't they? You don't like that argument any more than I do, so don't use it.
It's not a clam bake over there. Israel's actions are causing immense hardship. We can argue justification all you want, but denying the actual effects of their actions is wrong, and it's dishonest.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The Palestinians DO pay for that electricity, via taxes collected on their behalf by Israel. The fuel is paid for by the EU.
You're painting a false image of what the situation in Gaza is Lisa.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Al-Jazeera is hardly a reliable news source, and citing it as one hardly helps your credibility, Lyr. Some of those other sources are rather sketchy as well.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
She quoted Al-Jazeera above! It's magically okay when she does it for the sake of being sarcastic but when I do it all of a sudden they aren't reputable? And Al-Jazeera English is perfectly reputable. Whenever I read the BBC I pop over to Al-Jazeera English to check for differences, and though from time to time the wording is different, the content is by and large the same. How often do you read it? (I know that sounds confrontational, but I'm asking an honest question).
And I guess that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are terrorist sympathizers?
Some of those I could agree with dismissing as blogs and not necessarily reputable news sources. But not all of them. You can't throw a blanket dismissal over my point. Well I guess you can, but I don't think it helps yours and Lisa's credibility much either to dismiss something out of hand like that.
But if you want something you'd probably consider more "reliable" :
None of them detail the electricity cut offs, but then finding ANY news on Gaza wasn't easy. Certainly not as easy as looking at more domestic sources or human rights organizations.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Al-Jazeera is hardly a reliable news source, and citing it as one hardly helps your credibility, Lyr.
Why would you say that? EDIT: Or what Lyr said.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't believe I made any comment that can be interpreted as blanket agreement with Lisa or blanket dismissal of you.
Feel free to take it that way if you like. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well now that you said that I don't take it that way. But when I first read it it came off as "you quoted Al-Jazeera, so I'm just going to dismiss you there," which seemed odd because you're a reasonable person.
Plus I suppose I'm a little testy in this thread anyway. I apologize for the overreaction.
But I'm still curious as to your reaction to Al-Jazeera English.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lyrhawn: I think Lisa's point was that Al-Jazeera, a news outlet that is no friend to Israel, still pointed out that they reduced fuel delivery to Palestine, they didn't out and out cut all fuel shipments.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't want to comment again on Al-Jazeera English (seriously, it's an important distinction to add that English on the end, it's an entirely different thing) until Lisa and riv respond, as I don't want to conflate their positions or respond to something they haven't said themselves.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In a few years you won't need to worry about incandescent rocket attacks any more -- they'll all be compact fluorescent rocket attacks.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What, expensive but more efficient, and lasting a lot longer?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
I've never seen any problems with Al-Jazeera Arabic.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
From what few translations I've seen of their articles, I wouldn't consider them as reliable as their English counterpart, the BBC, AP or CNN.
But I'll admit that I don't speak Arabic, so I don't read them ever really.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The most obvious problem with Blayne's solution is that it ignores the retaliatory escalation by the opposing side.
A: fires one missile B: fires 10 missiles A: fires 100 missiles and so on.
The "winner" is whoever doesn't run out of missiles. Meanwhile both sides lose innocent members of their population in huge numbers, increase their mutual hatred, and shunt an ever increasing proportion of their resources into their military.
The less obvious problem, but one that I think needs to be recognized, is that the deliberate targetting of civilians (which is what random firing of weapons into areas occupied by non-combatants really amounts to) is evil.
Fighting evil with evil is not a good thing for any nation.
Israel has far more to lose in such a tit-for-tat exchange. They have nation status. They have an economy. They have stable government. They look like the more evil party because it would be the STATE making calling for indiscriminate killing, whereas their enemy is characterized as a fanatical band that operates among an innocent civilian population.
The terrorists among the Palestinians would actually benefit greatly if Israel fought on their level using disgusting tactics that kill indiscriminately. Every innocent civilian killed means another family more likely to support anyone who can strike a blow in revenge, and thus more likely to support the terrorists.
I don't see how Israel can fight its way out of this quandary, really. If Palestinians were slaughtered (which I gather no-one here is suggesting other than Blayne), there are still millions of Arabs just a border away. And among them would be some who had relatives among the killed, and some who would take a terrorist approach to Israel.
There are also the powerful nations in the vicinity, some of whom would feel less constrained about attacking Israel if the Palestinian Arabs were no longer in the vicinity having some stake in the territory.
If a way were possible to create a stable Palestinian state, prosperous and well-governed, in the areas that are either not disputed or which have been ceded by Israel, the effect would be a general improvement in Israel's security from the threats from other Arab nations as well.
Much of the push for that to happen is going to have to come from the Palestinians themselves, and from the International community. It might mean setting up economic zones within Palestinian areas, airports, seaports, manufacturing, etc. and power separate from the Israeli supplies, and, perhaps, without Israel's blessing. International money will be the only way to do that, and this "investment" is extremely high risk. In fact, the international community should expect to never see a dime in return -- at least not for a very long time.
It will take massive infusions of cash in a highly volatile, poorly administered area. And the corrupt governments that have plagued the Palestinian people make it almost impossible to put aid dollars to good use in terms of development and long-range plans.
By rights, most of the leaders they have had would've been indicted in most of the rest of the world.
When it comes right down to it, there is little that Israel can do on its own to secure the peace. When the rest of the world gets serious about the issues there, it may become painfully obvious that the best way to make improvement is to require a certain type of government in Palestine.
That ultimately implies the use of force.
Which is pretty much the last thing the area needs.
A firm rejection of terrorism by the Palestinian people as a whole -- to include rejection of all groups like Hamas, etc., is, the only thing that would make me think a peaceful solution is possible.
It would not mean that Palestinians would have to give up on their fight for justice, but it would mean that they'd have to do so using only non-violent means -- using Israel's and international law only.
They are probably going to have to make that step regardless of what they fear Israel may do. And Israel, in turn, is going to have to respond by staying out of the way when the International community steps in...and by easing restrictions in a stepwise manner as the Palestinian non-violence movement takes hold. Even in the face of massive non-violent protests.
I don't think I'll ever see it happen.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: They have a border with Egypt as well.
And those poor, poor Palestinians, living in squalor... and running into Egypt to buy motorcycles, televisions, new cellphones... yeah, my heart bleeds for them.
That generalization is not supported by factual evidence. Evidence points to the fact that the vast majority of Palestinians are poor.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: ... International money will be the only way to do that, and this "investment" is extremely high risk. In fact, the international community should expect to never see a dime in return -- at least not for a very long time.
It will take massive infusions of cash in a highly volatile, poorly administered area.
High risk, low return, massive amounts needed. I really feel motivated to invest. You're a horrible salesperson, go sell hedge funds or something Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
quote:A firm rejection of terrorism by the Palestinian people as a whole -- to include rejection of all groups like Hamas, etc., is, the only thing that would make me think a peaceful solution is possible.
I agree, and I also agree that it's unlikely ever to happen. The problem with rejecting violence is that it's one thing to say "ok, I won't fire back when you fire at me in the hopes that you'll stop when you look evil doing it" but it's another thing entirely to say that when you live in the worlds largest refugee camp and you threw molotov cocktails at Israeli tanks on your way home from school growing up, because they'd bombed your house the night before. That's the sort of escalation of violence that isn't just about shot-for-shot retaliation but also about lifelong resentment and antagonism. Which is perfectly understandable in the situation.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The situation demands a third party intervention. Israel needs to pull back and not respond. The third party, a neutrally trusted group would provide security, take the brunt of the terrorist hits, and still be the one providing food, schools, money etc. That way Israel doesn't get tagged for the responses, and the neutral party can come to be trusted by the regular people, giving them a reasonable chance to actually reject Hamas.
Without a third party military intervention, I don't see the problem being solved.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Actually, Al-Jazeera is not at all what we tend to imagine. Several of the people I work with and for - journalism and communication media experts - have had occasion to become familiar (firsthand) with Al-Jazeera recently. They have been quite impressed with the level of objectivity, freedom, and professionalism. Also, it seems that a lot of the journalists there have also worked for the BBC.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Which one? or both of them?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The actual headquarters in Qatar. So both, I'm guessing. This is based on the operation and who is running it and how it is run not just on output.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:And I guess that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are terrorist sympathizers?
In a word: Yes.
Or if not sympathizers, then certainly heavily biased.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Bob is mistaken, lobbing bombs at each other until one runs out of bombs is not the ultimate result of this strategy. Outside groups are backing both sides, so money is basically unlimited.
No, the ultimate solution to this strategy is Genocide. If they kill one of yours, you kill 10 of theirs, no matter if they are active members of the enemy or just related to them however distantly. They have the same response to you. Eventually one side will realize that peace will come only when they systematically slaughter every one of the enemy. Nuke them all and let God sort them out.
It will be a truly terrible day if Isreal and all her people have to suffer that Genocide.
It will be a truly terrible day if Israel and all her people inflict it.
Justices is relative to when you start keeping count of the bodies. Perhaps we should stop brutalizing for justice and talk to each other of peace.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dan: So what do you do when you offer them almost everything they ask for and they just take it as a sign of weakness and turn up the heat?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Pixiest: i don't quote Ayn Rand much, but she did say one thing that I agree with. When faced with an illogical conclusion, check your assumptions.
You limit the possible field of answers by saying "Them" and "they". That assumes that all Palestinians are one group, with one set of goals and one set of aims. They are not. The goals of each are different, and some of them are things that you can not give them even if you wanted too. Hamas wants to destroy Israel. Hamas's backers want Israel to be seen as "Every Arab's Enemy" so that every Arab won't realize their true enemy is the corrupt government that rules them. One group wants to be king of Palestine, so they want the other group destroyed. Heck, all Arafat ever wanted was to be a petty tyrant over as many people as possible.
So what do you do? You follow standard insurgent doctrine. You win the hearts and minds of the Palestinians by befriending them, not killing or humiliating them at random.
A "punishment" only approach is never effective. The other side can't win by playing by your rules, they can only be hurt a bit less, so they quit trying.
Obviously a "reward" only approach is just as ineffective.
Balance.
Terrorists are like ants. You can take really big boots and stomp on their anthill all day long, but you won't get rid of them that way. Stomp all over the garden and you'll just crush the flowers. How you get rid of ants is by poisoning their food supply--which translates to stopping their funding, stopping their recruitment, stopping their support.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:And I guess that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are terrorist sympathizers?
In a word: Yes.
Or if not sympathizers, then certainly heavily biased.
What about the UN?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The third party, a neutrally trusted group would provide security, take the brunt of the terrorist hits, and still be the one providing food, schools, money etc...
Who in that part of the world would be seen as a neutral party at this point? Out of those, who would have the capability to do such a thing and more importantly, what would motivate them to do such a thing?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The EU.
Before Bush came to office I might have suggested the United States. Palestinians in the past have largely avoided attacking the US because they knew any brokered peace deal would have to come from the US pressuring Israel, but given what we've done in the last 7 years, there's no hope for that now.
But the European Union still has the credibility with the Palestinians to make it happen. It'll still take US help, probably in the form of money and pressure on Israel, to make it happen, but the Union is the one actually feeding the Palestinians, the vast majority of whom are dependent on them for food. The EU pays for the fuel they use in the power plant in Gaza, and Egypt is rather desparate at the moment for EU monitors to come back and take control of the Rafah border crossing.
I just saw the part where you said "in that part of the world," and in the Middle East, the answer is no one. Israel would never let an Arab nation move in any heavy war materiel or troops into the area. It'd be an unquestionable threat to their security. It'd have to be a Western power (no one in the East as much reason to care at the moment), and with the United States out of the picture, that leaves the rest of NATO. Which is the EU plus Canada. If they only had to contain Gaza, I think they could do it with a relatively small number of troops, if it was Gaza and the West Bank, it'd still be fewer troops than the US is using in Iraq.
The Union has the capability certainly. Their motivation is self preservation, and this is more true for the US than the EU but, Palestine/Israel is a major source of fundraising and recruitment for terrorists in the Middle East. Solving that problem, regardless of the cost, would garner good will, and the stability would dry up terrorist resources throughout the region, to say nothing of the fact that it would make Israel a lot safer. They spend billions every year just to keep the status quo in Gaza. Why not spend billions more to solve the situation permanantly?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:And I guess that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are terrorist sympathizers?
In a word: Yes.
Or if not sympathizers, then certainly heavily biased.
What about the UN?
Yeah, them too.
Honestly, I think most places are pretty heavily biased against Israel.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Lyrhawn: Actually, thats not a half-bad idea. Albeit that depending on the memories in that part of the world, Britain (and perhaps some of the former colonial powers) would need to exempt itself with its history of disastrous meddling in the Middle East or risk making the situation worse with their presence.
Still, the way you put it I personally would not mind giving that *idea* a shot with the caveat that I wouldn't bet any money on it actually happening. I just don't buy that the *motivation* would be enough to compel those nations to spend and put their troops in harms way and in sufficient numbers to permanently solve what they would see as "someone else's problem." I'd like to be proved wrong though Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh I don't think it'll happen anytime soon, but I do think that it would have the best chance of succeeding.
The thing is, it requires a shift in thinking. It IS their problem, and not just a wishy washy "it's a human problem" moralistic argument. Europe's Arab population is on the rise, dramatically, and solving Palestine/Israel is going to be crucial I think for longterm European stability. But I think it'll be awhile before they pick up on that.
We could have done it. After 9/11 we could have. On the news we saw images of people chanting "death to America" but there were also candle light vigils for America's fallen. I don't want to get bogged down in talking about how the Middle East feels about us, but with the international good will we had, I think we could have gotten them to go into Palestine. With small troop commitments, mostly cash donations to the cause really, we could've done it. And not only would we be celebrated as the country that saved Palestine, we'd be the country that was attacked by Arabs, and instead of primal anger, we responded with compassion. It would've been the biggest PR coup for the US since WWII.
But now Europe is the last hope.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:We could have done it. After 9/11 we could have.
I hear this said quite often, but honestly I am unconvinced that the public sentiment 9-11 initially generated really went very deep. There was a lot of big talk, though.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The way I look at it is, look at who we got to go into Afghanistan with us, and to a lesser degree, Iraq. If they were willing to spend lives and billions for that, why wouldn't they for Palestine, which arguably would've been cheaper and less deadly?
I honestly think that if the US had really called the world out, and not just the crappy way that usually gets done, but really called them out, and offered to put our own foot forward, we would've gotten the support necessary.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Bob is mistaken, lobbing bombs at each other until one runs out of bombs is not the ultimate result of this strategy. Outside groups are backing both sides, so money is basically unlimited.
No, the ultimate solution to this strategy is Genocide. If they kill one of yours, you kill 10 of theirs, no matter if they are active members of the enemy or just related to them however distantly. They have the same response to you. Eventually one side will realize that peace will come only when they systematically slaughter every one of the enemy. Nuke them all and let God sort them out.
It will be a truly terrible day if Isreal and all her people have to suffer that Genocide.
It will be a truly terrible day if Israel and all her people inflict it.
Justices is relative to when you start keeping count of the bodies. Perhaps we should stop brutalizing for justice and talk to each other of peace.
I agree with Dan_Raven
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
kmbboots,
I realize you're only calling Al-Jazeera "better than we've been told," but I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that they're presenting a balanced view of the U.S., or that doing so was ever their goal.
A news outlet that willingly gives air-time (or print space, whatever) to items prepared and submitted by terrorists is, in my opinion, starting in a very deep credibility hole.
I have the same reaction when papers/media here in the US print things like the Unabomber's manifesto, and similar.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: kmbboots,
I realize you're only calling Al-Jazeera "better than we've been told," but I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that they're presenting a balanced view of the U.S., or that doing so was ever their goal.
A news outlet that willingly gives air-time (or print space, whatever) to items prepared and submitted by terrorists is, in my opinion, starting in a very deep credibility hole.
I have the same reaction when papers/media here in the US print things like the Unabomber's manifesto, and similar.
I agree with Bob_Scopatz.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:We could have done it. After 9/11 we could have.
I hear this said quite often, but honestly I am unconvinced that the public sentiment 9-11 initially generated really went very deep. There was a lot of big talk, though.
There were candelight vigils in Iran for America after 9/11. And Paris'Le Monde famously published the "We Are All Americans" piece. I suppose we'll never really know what could have been achieved with the sentiments of sympathy and unity rising out of 9/11, but I'm inclined to agree with Lyrhawn.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan & Bob
How often do you read it? And again, I'm talking about Al Jazeera English, not Arabic (though they aren't necessarily horrible). A lot of their news is just as mundane as what you read on CNN or the BBC. And when I read material on Iraq and Israel, there's no obvious bias. I even look for it, and once in a great while I might see a word here or there that seems to be taking sides, but they aren't nearly as biased as the rep their sister organization is. The reputation shouldn't extend to them.
Ironically, the original Al Jazeera was considered by many especially the US, to be a beacon of truth in the region. In the 90's, when most Arab nations could only see the news through state news agencies, Al Jazeera punched through with dissenting opinions, and were harassed for it by the nations in the region. Now they have as many viewers as the BBC (and have in the past and currently employ former BBC members by the way) and are shunned in the Western world, or at least in America. Times sure do change.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I do know that our dean and our faculty and the dean of the school of journalism were sufficiently impressed (and they started with some serious doubts) that we are willing to partner with them in our Education City endeavor.
We have some serious, world class scholars on media theory, freedom of speech issues and public policy on our faculty. This is not a decision they took lightly.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: There were candelight vigils in Iran for America after 9/11.
However there were none in the Palestinian territories. Instead, there was dancing in the street. Nice civilized folks.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There were candelight vigils in Iran for America after 9/11. And Paris'Le Monde famously published the "We Are All Americans" piece. I suppose we'll never really know what could have been achieved with the sentiments of sympathy and unity rising out of 9/11, but I'm inclined to agree with Lyrhawn.
I'm not suggesting the effort shouldn't have been made. I'm suggesting that initial reactions don't necessarily mean very much as a predictor of long-term commitments. People always feel really sorry for victims like that at first.
How much of the world cares about tsunami victims today? When was the last time you heard about it in a big, ongoing way?
----------
You're not really addressing the concerns Bob was talking about, kmbboots.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nor am I claiming to address Bob's concerns. I don't myself have first hand knowledge of them or the expertise of our faculty. All I can do is pass on what experts have said in my presence which was that they were surprised and impressed by their objectivity, freedom, and professionalism. That these were concerns that our faculty had before entering into this agreement and that those concerns were satisfactorily addressed.
I suppose I could also add that the sheikh and sheikha whose government sponsors Al Jazeera are pro-western enough to have launched and nurtured the Qatar Foundation and Education City - which is designed to bring the best of western education to the people of Qatar and the middle east. A branch of Cornell's Medical School, Texas A&M engineering, Georgetown for foreign policy and now Northwestern for Communication and Journalism.
I hope that is helpful.
[ February 11, 2008, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: A news outlet that willingly gives air-time (or print space, whatever) to items prepared and submitted by terrorists is, in my opinion, starting in a very deep credibility hole.
I'm having trouble understanding why this would be the case. I'm assuming you're talking about the tapes of Bin Laden, am I correct?
If you were a major news outlet in possession of those tapes, would you not air them? Hell, they've taught us more about his location, strategies and weaknesses. Furthermore, when I listened to it on A-J Arabic, they prefaced it with (translation) "We received this in an unmarked envelope. We believe it to contain a message from the terrorist Osama Bin Laden. It points to his location being..."
I've never seen them give a single piece of biased commentary, and almost always present both sides of an issue equally.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)