The General Terrorist Rampage Thread

[gourimoko]

QTip, they either lie or add spin(you can pick) to whatever they want to convey, which is almost always Israel is the victim and they have the right to defend themselves. The mainstream media speaks "in the now", instead of looking at the conflict as a whole.
They call people in Gaza and Palestine terrorists and people who cant live peacefully with others, but its the Israelis that continue to build illegal settlements. Its the Israelis who discriminate Palestinians when it comes to criminal vs military law. Its the Israelis who continue to bomb Gaza disproportionately, despite having one of the better military capabilities in the world, but has the US on speed dial when they need it, along with the aid they receive. That is my problem with mainstream media and its why I continue to look for social media, because I can choose to look at both sides.

So I would say social media is better, because I dont like watching something and be told what to believe. Id rather just get the news. Like @gourimoko mentioned, all I did was challenge their coverage, and lack of it. And when they do cover it, they put some spin on it. The only times it seems where they try to be fair, is when they get called out for it, which is wrong.

Agreed 100%.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

So I would say social media is better, because I dont like watching something and be told what to believe. Id rather just get the news.

I'd much rather get the facts as well. I just disagree with you that social media is any more reliable, particularly in something like this. I do not dispute that many in the media are biased, though I do not agree with your characterization of that bias. But, there are so many professional media organizations that you can usually ferret out the truth, or something close to it, by looking at a variety of sources.

"Hands up, don't shoot" -- social media's version of the truth.

The funny thing is that you actually aren't just looking for "the facts". Here's what you said:

The mainstream media speaks "in the now", instead of looking at the conflict as a whole.

In other words, you don't want the news media to just report the facts of what actually happened. You want them to add the spin of their historical view of the entire conflict.

 

[LennoxLewis]

I'd much rather get the facts as well. I just disagree with you that social media is any more reliable, particularly in something like this. I do not dispute that many in the media are biased, though I do not agree with your characterization of that bias. But, there are so many professional media organizations that you can usually ferret out the truth, or something close to it, by looking at a variety of sources.

"Hands up, don't shoot" -- social media's version of the truth.

The funny thing is that you actually aren't just looking for "the facts". Here's what you said:



In other words, you don't want the news media to just report the facts of what actually happened. You want them to add the spin of their historical view of the entire conflict.

No Qtip, don't start spinning shit like you do in other threads in this thread lol. I want them to report the facts, but this conflict has been going on since 1948. Often times the media likes to pretend that things just escalated for no reason, don't be so naive and again snarky.

Like how I mentioned the media often portrays Israel the victim, and Palestine as the aggressor despite the actions that Israel has taken since the conflict. That's what I mean by looking at it as a whole. They don't have to add anything, but yet they still do.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Like how I mentioned the media often portrays Israel the victim, and Palestine as the aggressor despite the actions that Israel has taken since the conflict. That's what I mean by looking at it as a whole.

You do realize that's your spin, right?

 

[Soda]

Can someone point me in the direction of a place to read the best, unbiased rundown of Israel? I keep hearing a lot about how Israel shouldn't exist, but then say that they're bullying those around them. Wouldn't Israel have to be vigilant about maintaining a territory when everyone around them thinks that they should not have a place at all? Hasn't territory changed hands a lot in the history of humans/religion? If yes, why is this one so hostly debated? Is it just a matter of which religion feels entitled to the area? I just hear a ton from one side or the other, but I'd prefer to hear a "debate" or statement of facts on the matter... Maybe a reliable history lesson?

 

[gourimoko]

I'd much rather get the facts as well. I just disagree with you that social media is any more reliable, particularly in something like this.

Wait, what?

Social media was on the forefront of the Nice attack; in fact, all of the recent French terror attacks.

Social media was ahead of reporting during the Orlando attack.

The bombing of Gaza is not even in my Google News feed.. I'm logged in as myself. Google has my news preferences, and targets news and ads towards me.

The imagery and up-to-the-minute account of raids in the West Bank, and bombings in Gaza is factual information -- I'm not sure why anyone would argue that this information is somehow less reliable than what you admittedly call biased journalism?

...or maybe you don't know what social media is?

 

[LennoxLewis]

I'd argue spin and opinion are different, but I won't get into these types of back and forth with you Qtip, I don't have the patience like others do.

Soda, there's some books on it but don't remember the titles lol. I'm not sure what's posted online about it though.

And yeah Gouri, I have it set up the same way on flipboard, but it wasn't finding anything. And usually the one account I go to was removed a few weeks ago. I didn't learn about it until I logged onto Twitter for sports.

 

[Cratylus]

Can someone point me in the direction of a place to read the best, unbiased rundown of Israel? I keep hearing a lot about how Israel shouldn't exist, but then say that they're bullying those around them. Wouldn't Israel have to be vigilant about maintaining a territory when everyone around them thinks that they should not have a place at all? Hasn't territory changed hands a lot in the history of humans/religion? If yes, why is this one so hostly debated? Is it just a matter of which religion feels entitled to the area? I just hear a ton from one side or the other, but I'd prefer to hear a "debate" or statement of facts on the matter... Maybe a reliable history lesson?

Anything by William R. Polk.

 

[gourimoko]

Can someone point me in the direction of a place to read the best, unbiased rundown of Israel?

You're looking for something brief or more academic?

I keep hearing a lot about how Israel shouldn't exist, but then say that they're bullying those around them.

Israel shouldn't exist?

Well, you might find that Hamas would argue that Israel shouldn't exist because they view the original partitioning of land as unjust. There are people who might still hold that Israel's founding is illegitimate for this reason, along with other reasons related to how the nation came to be.

Nonetheless, Israel certainly has a right to exist now; it's a prosperous nation of 8 million people. And even in an historical context, one could argue it had a right to exist in 1948. I don't think those are fruitful arguments, to be perfectly honest, and if someone were to tell me Israel should not exist in the present tense, well, I'd likely be wary of the rest of their positions...

With that said, there is a question as to whether or not Israel has a right to exist...as a Jewish state. And that is where you will find most international scholars taking the position that no nation or people have a right to displace and essentially ethnically cleanse another population in order to maintain an artificially created religious/ideological majority in a given geographical region under it's control.

That is where we run into issues of human rights violations, for obvious reasons.

Wouldn't Israel have to be vigilant about maintaining a territory when everyone around them thinks that they should not have a place at all?

That's not really the issue these days.

The issue here is Israeli territorial expansion. Israeli practices of discrimination towards non-Jews, particularly Muslims. Israeli practices of institutional racism, on a multitude of levels.

And with all of that, this still doesn't address the continued occupation of the Palestinian territories and the Israeli practice of doing everything possible to maintain the status quo (i.e., not fulfilling either a two-state or single-state solution; thereby, deliberately and artificially maintaining the occupation).

Hasn't territory changed hands a lot in the history of humans/religion?

The Israeli claim that the land belongs to them due to some religious belief; or other such nonsense should be ignored. Just as any religious claim to land should be ignored.

The Palestinians who live in Israel/Palestine today (regardless of religion, Jewish or Muslim or Christian) are, for the practical purposes of this conversation the indigenous people of the land. Yes - it's far more complex than this, but again, within the scope of this post, this is a fairly decent way of summarizating the situation.

Now, with that said, do those historic claims justify some kind of undo button being pressed and wiping Israel off the map? No, absolutely not. Israel is here, and it should be here to stay.

The only question that must be answered is whether or not Israel can enforce a Jewish majority by any means necessary, including institutional racism, occupation, and ethnic cleansing.

If yes, why is this one so hostly debated?

Because there aren't many instances that are comparable.

One has to wonder why it is the Palestinians are allowed to suffer for generations at the hands of a first-world country, an American ally, and American proxy state?

The parallels between Israel and South Africa are remarkable...

Moreover, the issue of Palestinian liberation is used throughout the Middle East by Arabs (dictatorial or otherwise) as a platform of both solidarity as well as anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist, and sadly anti-Jewish demagoguery (the term anti-Semitic is a bit of a quandary here)...

Pan-Arab and Pan-Muslim terrorism often cites this long-lasting issue as evidence of American hegemony and racial/ethnic/religious prejudice towards Muslims, Arabs and Blacks.

Is it just a matter of which religion feels entitled to the area?

No.

It really would be inaccurate to look at this conflict through a religious lens. The Palestinians are not making a religious case at all.

I just hear a ton from one side or the other, but I'd prefer to hear a "debate" or statement of facts on the matter... Maybe a reliable history lesson?

I'd love to debate anyone on the topic. I've researched it extensively.

Another person who can offer some insight on the topic would be @jking948 ..

 

[LennoxLewis]

You're looking for something brief or more academic?



Israel shouldn't exist?

Well, you might find that Hamas would argue that Israel shouldn't exist because they view the original partitioning of land as unjust. There are people who might still hold that Israel's founding is illegitimate for this reason, along with other reasons related to how the nation came to be.

Nonetheless, Israel certainly has a right to exist now; it's a prosperous nation of 8 million people. And even in an historical context, one could argue it had a right to exist in 1948. I don't think those are fruitful arguments, to be perfectly honest, and if someone were to tell me Israel should not exist in the present tense, well, I'd likely be wary of the rest of their positions...

Yeah, I honestly think people let their frustration get way too one sided. Many of the things I've read seems to show that the majority of both Palestinians and Israelis want to live together peacefully, but each side has that minority that wants all the land.

With that said, there is a question as to whether or not Israel has a right to exist...as a Jewish state. And that is where you will find most international scholars taking the position that no nation or people have a right to displace and essentially ethnically cleanse another population in order to maintain an artificially created religious/ideological majority in a given geographical region under it's control.

This is something that rarely gets mentioned, really glad you did.

That is where we run into issues of human rights violations, for obvious reasons.



That's not really the issue these days.

The issue here is Israeli territorial expansion. Israeli practices of discrimination towards non-Jews, particularly Muslims. Israeli practices of institutional racism, on a multitude of levels.

And with all of that, this still doesn't address the continued occupation of the Palestinian territories and the Israeli practice of doing everything possible to maintain the status quo (i.e., not fulfilling either a two-state or single-state solution; thereby, deliberately and artificially maintaining the occupation).

I've touched on it earlier, but it definitely is a problem when it comes to discussing the conflict. A lot of times, the Palestinian side gets blamed for a lack of a two state solution, when both sides are not helping the cause.

The Israeli claim that the land belongs to them due to some religious belief; or other such nonsense should be ignored. Just as any religious claim to land should be ignored.
Agreed

The Palestinians who live in Israel/Palestine today (regardless of religion, Jewish or Muslim or Christian) are, for the practical purposes of this conversation the indigenous people of the land. Yes - it's far more complex than this, but again, within the scope of this post, this is a fairly decent way of summarizating the situation.
They did live peacefully at one point too, hate that it can't be like that now.

Now, with that said, do those historic claims justify some kind of undo button being pressed and wiping Israel off the map? No, absolutely not. Israel is here, and it should be here to stay.

The only question that must be answered is whether or not Israel can enforce a Jewish majority by any means necessary, including institutional racism, occupation, and ethnic cleansing.
Right now it seems that way for sure, don't get how it is allowed to continue for so long.


Because there aren't many instances that are comparable.

One has to wonder why it is the Palestinians are allowed to suffer for generations at the hands of a first-world country, an American ally, and American proxy state?

I will never understand why this is the situation honestly, other than Israel being an ally. But being an ally shouldn't justify their actions.
The parallels between Israel and South Africa are remarkable...

Moreover, the issue of Palestinian liberation is used throughout the Middle East by Arabs (dictatorial or otherwise) as a platform of both solidarity as well as anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist, and sadly anti-Jewish demagoguery (the term anti-Semitic is a bit of a quandary here)...

Pan-Arab and Pan-Muslim terrorism often cites this long-lasting issue as evidence of American hegemony and racial/ethnic/religious prejudice towards Muslims, Arabs and Blacks.

I'd like to bring up as well that it seems like the surrounding Arab countries governments don't do much to help the situation and yet use Palestine as a reason to have a problem with Israel. I hear this a lot when I talk to my family overseas.

No.

It really would be inaccurate to look at this conflict through a religious lens. The Palestinians are not making a religious case at all.
Agreed 100% and it's something the media continues to overlook.


I'd love to debate anyone on the topic. I've researched it extensively.

Another person who can offer some insight on the topic would be @jking948 ..

Loved this post, responded in italics .

 

[Jordan]

Can someone point me in the direction of a place to read the best, unbiased rundown of Israel? I keep hearing a lot about how Israel shouldn't exist, but then say that they're bullying those around them. Wouldn't Israel have to be vigilant about maintaining a territory when everyone around them thinks that they should not have a place at all? Hasn't territory changed hands a lot in the history of humans/religion? If yes, why is this one so hostly debated? Is it just a matter of which religion feels entitled to the area? I just hear a ton from one side or the other, but I'd prefer to hear a "debate" or statement of facts on the matter... Maybe a reliable history lesson?

Rather than one unbiased account, which is nearly impossible due to the nature of discussing Israel/Palestine in both academia and the foreign policy community, I'd recommend reading two different ones, each with their own biases.

Efraim Karsh's Palestine Betrayed - This takes a more pro-Israel stance but is still a great academic work.

Rashid Khalidi's The Iron Cage - It's a similar academic analysis using different sources and is equally excellent.

If you want things that are less academic - and mind you, I think pretty weak, but maybe that's because I teach this stuff for a living - here are two I'd recommend:

Walt and Mearsheimer's The Israel Lobby - obviously anti-Israel... But still some decent facts in there.

Alan Dershowitz's The Case For Israel - obviously pro-Israel, but also some decent facts.

The issue you are going to find with one single "unbiased" account comes from access to sources. Israel will not let Arabs into their archives. Period. Whereas, on the other hand, countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria either don't have archives that one can access and/or never let Jews into those archives. Additionally, in academia, when you "take a side" there is backlash from the other 50% of academics who disagree. This makes it nearly impossible to move up the ranks, so to speak, so many don't try.

I hope this feedback helps out. If you want to know more just respond to this message or PM me. I do this more or less for a living, so I love to help out.

 

[Jordan]

You're looking for something brief or more academic?



Israel shouldn't exist?

Well, you might find that Hamas would argue that Israel shouldn't exist because they view the original partitioning of land as unjust. There are people who might still hold that Israel's founding is illegitimate for this reason, along with other reasons related to how the nation came to be.

Nonetheless, Israel certainly has a right to exist now; it's a prosperous nation of 8 million people. And even in an historical context, one could argue it had a right to exist in 1948. I don't think those are fruitful arguments, to be perfectly honest, and if someone were to tell me Israel should not exist in the present tense, well, I'd likely be wary of the rest of their positions...

With that said, there is a question as to whether or not Israel has a right to exist...as a Jewish state. And that is where you will find most international scholars taking the position that no nation or people have a right to displace and essentially ethnically cleanse another population in order to maintain an artificially created religious/ideological majority in a given geographical region under it's control.

That is where we run into issues of human rights violations, for obvious reasons.



That's not really the issue these days.

The issue here is Israeli territorial expansion. Israeli practices of discrimination towards non-Jews, particularly Muslims. Israeli practices of institutional racism, on a multitude of levels.

And with all of that, this still doesn't address the continued occupation of the Palestinian territories and the Israeli practice of doing everything possible to maintain the status quo (i.e., not fulfilling either a two-state or single-state solution; thereby, deliberately and artificially maintaining the occupation).



The Israeli claim that the land belongs to them due to some religious belief; or other such nonsense should be ignored. Just as any religious claim to land should be ignored.

The Palestinians who live in Israel/Palestine today (regardless of religion, Jewish or Muslim or Christian) are, for the practical purposes of this conversation the indigenous people of the land. Yes - it's far more complex than this, but again, within the scope of this post, this is a fairly decent way of summarizating the situation.

Now, with that said, do those historic claims justify some kind of undo button being pressed and wiping Israel off the map? No, absolutely not. Israel is here, and it should be here to stay.

The only question that must be answered is whether or not Israel can enforce a Jewish majority by any means necessary, including institutional racism, occupation, and ethnic cleansing.



Because there aren't many instances that are comparable.

One has to wonder why it is the Palestinians are allowed to suffer for generations at the hands of a first-world country, an American ally, and American proxy state?

The parallels between Israel and South Africa are remarkable...

Moreover, the issue of Palestinian liberation is used throughout the Middle East by Arabs (dictatorial or otherwise) as a platform of both solidarity as well as anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist, and sadly anti-Jewish demagoguery (the term anti-Semitic is a bit of a quandary here)...

Pan-Arab and Pan-Muslim terrorism often cites this long-lasting issue as evidence of American hegemony and racial/ethnic/religious prejudice towards Muslims, Arabs and Blacks.



No.

It really would be inaccurate to look at this conflict through a religious lens. The Palestinians are not making a religious case at all.



I'd love to debate anyone on the topic. I've researched it extensively.

Another person who can offer some insight on the topic would be @jking948 ..

Gour, one thing I'd like to add is a lot of Palestinians I've talked to are concerned about the idea of a one-state solution because they see how non-Jews - and more specifically non-Ashkenazis - are treated in Israel. And moreover, for them the only conceivable solution is a fair two-state solution whereby Palestinians can either get land equal to the pre-1967 borders or simply enough land to accommodate their populations. Furthermore, the other solution would be a one-state democracy whereby Israel exists, but not as a Jewish state, and that any other one-state solution is a flawed half-measure that would result in Palestinians being worse off.

Unfortunately I'm at a point where I see no possible peace agreement until Netanyahu and his supporters are no long in power, the U.S. has a president would truly wants a peace agreement, and the Arab surrounding states (Jordan and Lebanon) have the capacity to make citizens out of some Palestinian and Syrian-Palestinian refugees. Until those three factors collide, unfortunately, I don't see peace being at all likely.

 

[Soda]

Appreciate the jump-off point. I think I'd agree that no territory should be restricted to only those of one particular belief. I just wonder about this topic because of how tenuous it seems to be and the more I look into the politics of American involvement in other areas, the more murky the lines of right/wrong become. I am seriously just looking for a thorough look at the perspectives from both sides and, perhaps, from a completely unbiased observer, if that person exists. Going to also look at some William Polk along the way.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Rather than one unbiased account, which is nearly impossible due to the nature of discussing Israel/Palestine in both academia and the foreign policy community, I'd recommend reading two different ones, each with their own biases.

Efraim Karsh's Palestine Betrayed - This takes a more pro-Israel stance but is still a great academic work.

Rashid Khalidi's The Iron Cage - It's a similar academic analysis using different sources and is equally excellent.

If you want things that are less academic - and mind you, I think pretty weak, but maybe that's because I teach this stuff for a living - here are two I'd recommend:

Walt and Mearsheimer's The Israel Lobby - obviously anti-Israel... But still some decent facts in there.

Alan Dershowitz's The Case For Israel - obviously pro-Israel, but also some decent facts.

The issue you are going to find with one single "unbiased" account comes from access to sources. Israel will not let Arabs into their archives. Period. Whereas, on the other hand, countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria either don't have archives that one can access and/or never let Jews into those archives. Additionally, in academia, when you "take a side" there is backlash from the other 50% of academics who disagree. This makes it nearly impossible to move up the ranks, so to speak, so many don't try.

I hope this feedback helps out. If you want to know more just respond to this message or PM me. I do this more or less for a living, so I love to help out.

Honest question here - how would you compare how well Israel treats its own citizens -- Jews and non-Jews alike - with how well it's neighbors treat their own citizens, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. In terms of human rights, democracy, religious freedom, etc.?

And in terms of a one-state solution, or even the existence of a "Jewish" state, does opposition to that mean just restriction of future immigration by non-Jews into Israel, or something else? Because at least for now, it is a Jewish-majority state. So how do opponents of that envision that status changing?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Wait, what?

Social media was on the forefront of the Nice attack; in fact, all of the recent French terror attacks.

Social media can be useful -- more so when the matter at issue is not a matter of controversy. But when it is a matter of controversy, the nature of what is being reported on has a lot to do with reliability. For example, someone tweeting a picture of some dead bodies and saying "this is what the Israelis/terrorists/Americans/Hamas did" is not reliable because we don't actually know the background of the picture.

So in the context of "did the Israelis deliberately target water supplies" I cannot fathom how, realistically, social media could prove that.