Danivon:

Gaza alone is not sustainable as a state.

Why not?

I had to look up the Karni crossing because I didn't know much about it. Per Wikipedia:

The Karni terminal has been attacked several times by Palestinian terrorists since the beginning of the al-Aqsa Intifada, in either mortar attacks or frontal infantry assaults, forcing temporary shut-downs for repairs and enhancement of security procedures. Both Palestinians and Israelis have been killed in these attacks. As a passage point between Israel and the Gaza Strip, the Karni crossing has been used for hostile activities by armed forces from the Palestinian side. Palestinian terrorists have used the Karni terminal to smuggle suicide bombers and explosive belts into Israel. The deadliest suicide attack to come via Karni was the Port of Ashdod bombing.[4][5]

In 2006, the Israeli authorities closed the crossing for over 100 days, after the discovery of vast tunnelling from across the border to underneath the facility, meant to be filled with explosives and detonated.[6] From September 2006 to June 2007, the crossing has been open daily save some brief closures due to Palestinian labour strikes.

Ray Jay wrote:

theshrizzz wrote:I've always believed that the reason groups like Hamas call for things like death to all Jews (or, certainly, the only reason they're able to garner significant support among the populace) is becuse Gazans are being occupied/blockaded. The militant Islamic groups in the Middle East who want to destroy the West are a direct result of the foreign policy of the Western superpowers. If we stopped sticking fingers in everyone's pie, you think all the young Arab kids would still be signing up to give their lives for jihad? The recruiting slogans would likely start to fall on deaf ears.

Hamas' call for the end of Israel and all Jews is not at all like the Nazi platform. Hamas at least is not acting in a completely unprovoked manner.

I think you've just defined wishful thinking. There is absolutely no evidence that the various Islamic terror groups would stop if the West behaved differently. The Arabs have been calling for death to the Jews since at least 1920, and to Israel since 1948. There is a hundred years of bad faith on their part.

What western power caused Boko Haram?

We are where we are. The notion that somehow the Arabs would give up Jihad if Israelis behaved differently has no evidence to support it, and a dangerous notion to bet your life on.

There's certainly no evidence to support my claim, because as far as I can see, we've hardly ever tried behaving differently. So there isn't really any evidence that it would be the wrong way forward, either.

What do you think would happen? Would they feel empowered and take the fight into enemy territory? Maybe, but it doesn't seem likely to me. The radicals, Boko Haram included, probably would still have existed, I just don't think they'd be nearly as powerful. Their power base lies in full generations of young Muslim men who grow up in war-torn countries and have very little opportunity. They see the West as having created their situation and they are at least partially right. Don't you think Boko Haram, ISIS, Hamas, etc. would have a harder time recruiting teenagers if their claims about America were to become less and less accurate? I do.

Of course I could be wrong. It's an extreme position to support pulling out entirely. But what else is going to work? Does anyone actually see a realistic end to the bloodshed?

The only example I can think of where someone really attempted to stop the potentially endless cycle of revenge is Nelson Mandela. It's rare, but it's happened before. Yitzhak Rabin tried it, and paid with his life.

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

Gaza alone is not sustainable as a state.

Why not?

Well, under Oslo it has no control over its borders or airspace. It has low quality land, little potable water (most of which is from Wadi Gaza, which is dammed in Israel). Most of the population are refugees living in slum conditions.

I had to look up the Karni crossing because I didn't know much about it.

It was pretty much the only crossing, and so any activity across the border would have likely gone through it.

What do you think would happen? Would they feel empowered and take the fight into enemy territory? Maybe, but it doesn't seem likely to me. The radicals, Boko Haram included, probably would still have existed, I just don't think they'd be nearly as powerful. Their power base lies in full generations of young Muslim men who grow up in war-torn countries and have very little opportunity. They see the West as having created their situation and they are at least partially right. Don't you think Boko Haram, ISIS, Hamas, etc. would have a harder time recruiting teenagers if their claims about America were to become less and less accurate? I do.

Boko Haram originated in Nigeria, which is where they're still primarily based. Nigeria is not a war torn country, although it obviously has its troubles. 'Boko' roughly translates as 'western education' and 'haram' is the opposite of 'halal' and means something like 'forbidden', but with a strictly Islamic context. So essentially Boko Haram means 'western education is forbidden'. It started out as an Islamic protest group that was opposed to secular education in the western style, particularly the education of girls. The kidnapping of those girls from a Nigerian school was entirely in keeping with their stated mission. I fail to see how we could change our behaviour in the west in a way that would appease them unless we suddenly stop sending our girls to school.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

Gaza alone is not sustainable as a state.

Why not?

Well, under Oslo it has no control over its borders or airspace. It has low quality land, little potable water (most of which is from Wadi Gaza, which is dammed in Israel). Most of the population are refugees living in slum conditions.

Yes, but had the Gazans behaved reasonably they would have gained control over their borders and airspace in time.

I'm not an expert on resource quality but Hong Kong and Singapore do come to mind as very successful small dense countries (or whatever in HK's case) which have low resources and are modern success stories. Also, I'm sure if you observed Israel in 1948 you would have commented about its low quality land and resources. Most of it is desert. There is a reason that Israel is one of the world leaders in drip irrigation and solar power.

If Singapore devoted its GNP to sending rockets and building tunnels (designed to kill and capture soldiers) to Malaysia I bet they wouldn't be the success that they are today.

Here's an interesting Op Ed in the NYT which may interest American Jews as well as others. There are also some very intelligent comments on both sides of the argument.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/opini ... egion&_r=0

Ray Jay wrote:Here's an interesting Op Ed in the NYT which may interest American Jews as well as others. There are also some very intelligent comments on both sides of the argument.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/opini ... egion&_r=0

Pretty good article, Ray. It does make some good points on both sides.

"I have no other country, even if my land is on fire."

Sassenach wrote:

What do you think would happen? Would they feel empowered and take the fight into enemy territory? Maybe, but it doesn't seem likely to me. The radicals, Boko Haram included, probably would still have existed, I just don't think they'd be nearly as powerful. Their power base lies in full generations of young Muslim men who grow up in war-torn countries and have very little opportunity. They see the West as having created their situation and they are at least partially right. Don't you think Boko Haram, ISIS, Hamas, etc. would have a harder time recruiting teenagers if their claims about America were to become less and less accurate? I do.

Boko Haram originated in Nigeria, which is where they're still primarily based. Nigeria is not a war torn country, although it obviously has its troubles. 'Boko' roughly translates as 'western education' and 'haram' is the opposite of 'halal' and means something like 'forbidden', but with a strictly Islamic context. So essentially Boko Haram means 'western education is forbidden'. It started out as an Islamic protest group that was opposed to secular education in the western style, particularly the education of girls. The kidnapping of those girls from a Nigerian school was entirely in keeping with their stated mission. I fail to see how we could change our behaviour in the west in a way that would appease them unless we suddenly stop sending our girls to school.

Maybe Boko Haram isn't a good example. But it doesn't change my view of many of the Middle Eastern groups.

Shrizzz:

Maybe Boko Haram isn't a good example. But it doesn't change my view of many of the Middle Eastern groups.

What about ISIS or al Qaeda? Yes, sometimes western actions -- and sometimes actions over the top -- have exacerbated the situation, but fundamentally (in both senses of the word) these groups are not compatible with your world view in any which way. It's all well and good for you to have your noble view based on your own goodness and the diverse good people that you've met, but just read what some of these groups say and observe what they do.

(I'm writing this to my self as much as to you, just trying to figure it out.)

There's an interesting controversy that's broken out recently here which to my mind is both extremely trivial and deeply disturbing:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... val-debate

The article is written as a dialogue between writers on either side of the debate and it sums things up perfectly well, so I'll not repeat the details here. What I will say is that I'm in full agreement with Nick Cohen on this, the actions of the Tricycle Theatre over this are quite obviously anti-semitic because they apply a standard that they expect jews to adhere to which they don't apply either to themselves or any other group. I don't think they'd have intended it to be that way of course, arts bodies in the UK are all terribly right-on and would probably be horrified to think they might have committed some form of inadvertant racism. The fact is though that it's jews who are being singled out, and an awful lot of mainstream leftist opinion seems to be completely cool with that and not to see any problem.

Like I said, in the grand scheme of things this is a very trivial issue, but I do think it's a little worrying too. The focus of anger on Israel is disproportionate in my view, when you consider all of the atrocities going on in other parts of the world that fly totally under the radar. This in turn is driving an increase in anti-semitism. In some cases it's blatant (violent attacks for example) but more often it's very subtle like this situation. It's a dangerous trend.

There has been a lot of hot air about the Tricycle theatre thing.

They objected to funding for the festival coming from the Israeli government. That is not 'anti-semitic', it is opposing the Israeli government. They offered to make up the shorfall themselves so that the festival could go ahead.

Maybe it was ham-fisted, but I think equating it with actual anti-semitism demeans the term. It's less of a problem than chants at Spurs games, IMO.

I don't agree (about either point). What they did was subject a Jewish group to a standard that they wouldn't expect any other group to have to adhere to. It wasn't the 'Israeli Film Festival' after all.

As for the Spurs chants, I think you have that backwards. Spurs are a club that originates in a traditionally Jewish area of London with a large Jewish fanbase and who have traditionally been subject to anti-semitic chants from opposition fans. Their adoption of the 'yid army' chants was intended as a show of ironic solidarity with their jewish fans, akin to the adoption of the word 'queer' by elements of the gay community. I realise that most of those singing it aren't actually Jewish, but the intent is obvious nevertheless and it's never been a problem for the Jewish community.

Ray Jay wrote:Yes, but had the Gazans behaved reasonably they would have gained control over their borders and airspace in time.

"the Gazans" were screwed over by the minorities leading them.

It's all very well to take to a moralistic high ground and tut at the Gazans, but they've been shafted from all corners for decades. And they are (understandably, if not justifiably) angry.

I don't dispute that Israel has a right to protect itself. I am opposed to the methods used and the outcome, because I see them as counter-productive.

I'm not an expert on resource quality but Hong Kong and Singapore do come to mind as very successful small dense countries (or whatever in HK's case) which have low resources and are modern success stories.

Both are able to tap into major sea trade routes. Both were already established cities before they had any autonomy (and Hong Kong didn't really have that much going from British to Chinese ownership).

Sassenach wrote:I don't agree (about either point). What they did was subject a Jewish group to a standard that they wouldn't expect any other group to have to adhere to. It wasn't the 'Israeli Film Festival' after all.

How many other groups are funded by the Israeli government that they have dealt with? That is the standard that was applied.

When I read Cohen's evasion of the comparison with a boycott of Russian or Iranian state entities, I realised he was himself applying different standards to his outrage.

As for the Spurs chants, I think you have that backwards. Spurs are a club that originates in a traditionally Jewish area of London with a large Jewish fanbase and who have traditionally been subject to anti-semitic chants from opposition fans. Their adoption of the 'yid army' chants was intended as a show of ironic solidarity with their jewish fans, akin to the adoption of the word 'queer' by elements of the gay community. I realise that most of those singing it aren't actually Jewish, but the intent is obvious nevertheless and it's never been a problem for the Jewish community.

I didn't say "by Spurs fans", I said "at Spurs games". That does that include the antisemitic chants from opposition supporters. Of course, there are people who find the Spurs fans' chant very uncomfortable, and claim that it furthers antisemitism. It has been a problem for some in the Jewish community, actually:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... itism.html

Also, The Board of Deputies of British Jews supported moves to sanction Spurs fans using the chant. To claim that Jews don't see it as a problem is false.

It is not like homosexuals reclaiming 'queer' or black people reclaiming 'n-----r'. Why? Because in reality very few Spurs supporters are Jewish. So very few of the chanters are actually 'reclaiming' anything, any more than a white rapper would be for using the N word.

How many other groups are funded by the Israeli government that they have dealt with? That is the standard that was applied.

Oh come on, this is ridiculous. Even if I were to accept that this really is the standard, it then begs the question why is this the standard. Why only the Israeli government and not any other with potentially dubious human rights records ? It seems pretty clear that they were looking for a pretext to dissassociate themselves with the Jewish film festival by any means necessary. They initially tried to demand that all of the films had to be pre-vetted and only when this attempt at censorship was refused did they come up with the concept that the Jewish film festival organisers had to in effect publicly distance themselves from Israel.

I didn't say "by Spurs fans", I said "at Spurs games". That does that include the antisemitic chants from opposition supporters.

Ok, point taken. It's a largely irrelevant point though because I never claimed that there aren't many more serious examples of anti-semitism in this country.

It is not like homosexuals reclaiming 'queer' or black people reclaiming 'n-----r'. Why? Because in reality very few Spurs supporters are Jewish. So very few of the chanters are actually 'reclaiming' anything, any more than a white rapper would be for using the N word.

Sure. I already acknowledged this in my original point of course. Fact is that the intent is nevertheless clear.