The Islamophobia split on the left.

I've certainly said more out-of-the-mainstream things like why monarchies are better than democracies, so I don't understand at all why people should make a fuss about it. I'm not going to change my opinions because it is cool (or isn't cool) yet, if I feel the opposite about it.
 
Not being cool was not the source of my amazement. Your idea not being mainstream neither. The idea being completely bonkers and spectacularly inhumane was. It was so daft I thought you were joking.

You rebel, you.
 
No one cares if it's cool, it's the fact that it's absurd and offensive is what people take issue with.
 
If Hamas were to divert food from the populace to themselves, it could cause a revolt, since a significant part of the security force isn't directly affiliated to Hamas or the Izzadrin Brigades. If Israel had the guts to actually siege the place (and not just blockade entry of weapons/weaponisable goods), it may suffer a reputation hit in the short run, though overall will put Hamas in a certain death situation.
Click to expand...
The Israeli government had a very similar situation early in the year. Remember when Hamas created a Unity Government with the PA, and with all governmental positions filled by the PA?
Hamas political leadership at that point had all but accepted the need to "moderate" to maintain power (in other words, keep the salaries flowing to the civil servants which is the core of the Gazan economy).
How did the Israeli government respond to this? The Israeli government did what can only be described as a horrible spasm and once again set Hamas up as the most visible 'defender of Palestinians and best hope for an independent Palestine'.

Forgive me for not having much faith in the ability of the Israeli government to not muck things up with regards to 'defeating' Hamas.
 
Flying Pig said:
It would be more along the lines of the fortified villages in Malaya or camps in South Africa, I think - the problems with those were more of implementation than the concept itself. Physically separating the guerillas from the civilian population will work, it's just that it usually ends up hurting said civilians as well.
Click to expand...

Why? Anyone can leave, they just have to be inspected. Egypt will ensure that no form of militarization can happen within the refugee camp, and Hamas will be screwed from all directions.

On the other hand, I'm asking this of a person who thinks that the fact that Gaza is ethnically Palestinian makes what Israel is doing racially motivated.
 
Mouthwash said:
Why? Anyone can leave, they just have to be inspected. Egypt will ensure that no form of militarization can happen within the refugee camp, and Hamas will be screwed from all directions.
Click to expand...

but wouldn't they find people living in their homes when they went back, you know settlers...

never mind I see why this might be a good idea for some
 
Mouthwash said:
Why? Anyone can leave, they just have to be inspected. Egypt will ensure that no form of militarization can happen within the refugee camp, and Hamas will be screwed from all directions.

On the other hand, I'm asking this of a person who thinks that the fact that Gaza is ethnically Palestinian makes what Israel is doing racially motivated.
Click to expand...

The level of polarization her is unhealthy. FP believes that this is genocidal, which is silly. The casualties are far too low. The fact that Gaza is one large human shield seems to escape the bulk of the commentors, making rational discussion impossible.

That said, you are not any better. Yes, the Arab world intend genocide against Israel. No, this is not a thing of the last generation. That does not mean that Israel has a blank check to treat Gaza as a live grenade. While the kids with rocks allusion is over the top, the security concerns are on the annoyance scale, not a military threat.

J
 
onejayhawk said:
The level of polarization her is unhealthy. FP believes that this is genocidal, which is silly. The casualties are far too low. The fact that Gaza is one large human shield seems to escape the bulk of the commentors, making rational discussion impossible.

That said, you are not any better. Yes, the Arab world intend genocide against Israel. No, this is not a thing of the last generation. That does not mean that Israel has a blank check to treat Gaza as a live grenade. While the kids with rocks allusion is over the top, the security concerns are on the annoyance scale, not a military threat.

J
Click to expand...

In Egypt there are imams, not even extremists, but main stream religious scholars publishing articles on why the killing of Palestinian children is justified. Most Arab states have stopped supporting Hamas. There has been a slow but inevitable shift from this concept of Arab to this concept of nation, and the Arab states, if they can even be called that anymore, no longer see protecting Israel as something they are obligated to do because they are both Arabs. Nationalism has effectively trumped Pan-Arabism as an ideological concept in the Middle east.
That said, you aren't completely wrong about the genocidal intent, but I would argue that the "Arab" states wouldn't precisely commit genocide, but put into effect apartheid like segregation policies if there was no Israel. It is simply between Israel and Hamas, the "Arab" states would rather back the winning horse.
I think I am going to call them the gulf states, or the middle eastern nations. Calling them Arab would imply a homogeneity that doesn't exist.
 
Traitorfish said:
Isn't Gaza pretty much a glorified internment camp as it is?
Click to expand...

It is not like the Gazans reacted well to to their freedom. The first thing done when Hamas took total control of the Gaza Strip was to fire rockets and mortars at Israel. So any nation in that situation would make sure that the situation changed, so they made sure weapons couldn't get to Hamas. Even Egypt are blockading the region because of the danger it poses to them. They have done their very best to antagonise those around and yo really think they deserve better than what they are getting? There was a chance for them to get better but they choose to be aggressive instead.

The regions have one of the highest obesity rates in the world, so it is clear they do not lack any food. http://www.biomedcentral.com/2052-9538/1/7
 
classical_hero said:
It is not like the Gazans reacted well to to their freedom.
Click to expand...

While that's true, isn't this essentially the same argument as "poor Israel, the Holocaust really made them defensive and stuff", just on the other foot?
 
classical_hero said:
It is not like the Gazans reacted well to to their freedom. The first thing done when Hamas took total control of the Gaza Strip was to fire rockets and mortars at Israel. So any nation in that situation would make sure that the situation changed, so they made sure weapons couldn't get to Hamas. Even Egypt are blockading the region because of the danger it poses to them. They have done their very best to antagonise those around and yo really think they deserve better than what they are getting? There was a chance for them to get better but they choose to be aggressive instead.

The regions have one of the highest obesity rates in the world, so it is clear they do not lack any food. http://www.biomedcentral.com/2052-9538/1/7
Click to expand...

Two comments on this one

  1. Equating 'Hamas' with 'the Palestinians' is still making me uncomfortable. Even if we take the line that people voted for them, it's pretty universally understood that people vote for political parties even if they're greatly opposed to some of their policies. You can hardly expect Palestinians to refuse to vote for a group that they think is giving them the best government out of affection and concern for Israel, of all people. Even then, civilians should not be punished for the actions of their government - whatever Hamas does cannot justify the use of violence against civilian targets or the lack of safeguards to avoid accidentally hitting those. But certainly, a limited blockade may be entirely justified.
  2. That study only looked at women; women have a remarkably high obesity rate across the Arab world for various reasons. Even then, does a country need to be literally starving people to death before its actions become reprehensible?
 
Ajidica said:
Forgive me for not having much faith in the ability of the Israeli government to not muck things up with regards to 'defeating' Hamas.
Click to expand...

If you're a right-wing/hawkish Israeli politician, 'defeating' Hamas would be monumentally stupid. Without the threat of Hamas, people would start looking at your domestic policies, and you'd be out of the window immediately.
 
dutchfire said:
If you're a right-wing/hawkish Israeli politician, 'defeating' Hamas would be monumentally stupid. Without the threat of Hamas, people would start looking at your domestic policies, and you'd be out of the window immediately.
Click to expand...

I doubt they are truly that easy to defeat. Besides, you assume those that are hawkish also are poor/unpopular policy makers.

Anyway, you have highlighted a very important flaw of non-monarchical systems: People are thrown out as soon as the reason for election seems to be non-existent. Thus giving an incentive to prolong problems - though I do not necessarily assume politicians act in bad faith in the way you do.
 
People are thrown out as soon as the reason for election seems to be non-existent. Thus giving an incentive to prolong problems
Click to expand...

I don't see why this should be so.

If a politician proves him, or her, self capable of solving one problem, why wouldn't they be likely to be able to solve another? (And there'll surely be no shortage of problems.)

It seems much more likely that people are thrown out as soon as they've proved themselves incapable of solving the problem.

I can see your logic works nicely with a police force, though. Without crime there's no point in having any police, so they've got an interest in encouraging crime. Many of the police force take this quite literally and become criminals themselves. Though many don't, of course.

Hey! And medical professionals, too. Remind me never to have anything to do with any of them.
 
Borachio said:
I don't see why this should be so.

If a politician proves him, or her, self capable of solving one problem, why wouldn't they be likely to be able to solve another? (And there'll surely be no shortage of problems.)

It seems much more likely that people are thrown out as soon as they've proved themselves incapable of solving the problem.
Click to expand...

Say fighting terrorism is a pressing issue. Assuming a politician can solve this (good luck, democracy will make it you as hard possible), he will be affected by the stigma of his previous reputation as a hawk. People are not so much thrown out because they are incapable to solve problems as they receive a reputation of one. There may be overlap of course, but that is not strong enough.
 
Equating a people to the ruling grup/party/dynasty is misleading at best. It's as if I said that England was the Windsors or the US were Barack Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Zardnaar
The Death of the Left/FPtP
Replies
1
Views
614
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
J
  • Locked
(US) Left vs. Right is Dead, Immigrants vs. Nationalists is the new Ideological Battle. Discuss
7 8 9
Replies
173
Views
9K
Arakhor
Arakhor
brennan
  • Locked
Issues with defining Antisemitism and the 'problem' on The Left
5 6 7
Replies
123
Views
10K
Lemon Merchant
Lemon Merchant
r16
inevitably r16 comments on the Turkish Elections
3 4 5
Replies
93
Views
15K
r16
r16
M
  • Locked
The Classical Freedom loving Left vs the Regressive Leftists
15 16 17
Replies
327
Views
24K
dutchfire
dutchfire
Back
Top Bottom