![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
underlankers.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsYet another flagrant and unprovoked act of aggression has occurred against free, secular Israeli troops in the West Bank. These religious fanatics show yet another instance of willful disregard for rule of law and for the authority of democracy. They show no indication of understanding any law except naked, merciless force.
These religious fanatics are Jewish extremistswho feel that their religious land-grabs are entirely justifiable, no matter what the Israeli government has to say about it.
I personally wish the Israeli government full speed ahead in defeating this group of lawless fanatics whose only comprehension of rule of law is insofar as it favors their own interests. I think that there's no guarantee that Israel accepting one brand of violent religious fanaticism that thinks the land is inherently its own and mollycoddling it is a good idea at all. Hopefully they'll have better luck than Fatah has been having with Hamas. The last thing this situation needs is two ongoing civil wars between both factions.
Your thoughts? I might also ask in a more general question how anyone can justify Israeli settlements in the West Bank, given that Israel withdrew its settlements from the Gaza Strip, let alone building more of them? How is that anything but land-grabs sanctioned by superior military force? How is that principle having already been established not going to lead to incidents like this?
These religious fanatics are Jewish extremistswho feel that their religious land-grabs are entirely justifiable, no matter what the Israeli government has to say about it.
I personally wish the Israeli government full speed ahead in defeating this group of lawless fanatics whose only comprehension of rule of law is insofar as it favors their own interests. I think that there's no guarantee that Israel accepting one brand of violent religious fanaticism that thinks the land is inherently its own and mollycoddling it is a good idea at all. Hopefully they'll have better luck than Fatah has been having with Hamas. The last thing this situation needs is two ongoing civil wars between both factions.
Your thoughts? I might also ask in a more general question how anyone can justify Israeli settlements in the West Bank, given that Israel withdrew its settlements from the Gaza Strip, let alone building more of them? How is that anything but land-grabs sanctioned by superior military force? How is that principle having already been established not going to lead to incidents like this?
(no subject)
Date: 13/12/11 19:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/12/11 21:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/12/11 02:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/12/11 02:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/12/11 02:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/12/11 03:08 (UTC)Israel, being a democracy with one of the most badass armies in military history I hold to a higher standard than a bunch of murderous, treacherous, vile barbarians. Israel at least says it's a democracy and if anything its flaw is from too much democracy. There's no reason to me to hold Israel to the same standard as to Hamas, that's an insult to the Israelis.
Ah...
Date: 14/12/11 03:16 (UTC)That little phrase has given a great deal of insight into your rants.
(does not, in my mind, necessarily justify some of them, but does explain, thank you)
Re: Ah...
Date: 14/12/11 03:51 (UTC)Does this make sense?
Re: Ah...
Date: 14/12/11 04:05 (UTC)Re: Ah...
Date: 14/12/11 04:13 (UTC)Re: Ah...
Date: 14/12/11 04:22 (UTC)Sheesh, my point, in a sense, was a compliment, because now there is understanding.
I mean really, "hate" with a reason makes you less of an a**hat....
I am so done with you tonight!
(no subject)
Date: 13/12/11 20:07 (UTC)It isn't and has never been anything else than just that.
The problem with Israeli extremists isn't that they exist, basically every country has them, but rather that they are passively and sometimes actively supported in political mainstream. Note that I didn't write "by the people" because Israel has a wide peace supporting base too, but in politics they are in minority.
(no subject)
Date: 13/12/11 23:49 (UTC)What Israel needs is a "coalition of the sane" made up of mainstream politicians from Likud, Labour and Kadima that will tell the minor parties to go fuck themselves. PM goes to the party with the absolute most votes. President and major cabinet positions get divied up to the other parties in the coalition and the extremist religious and nationalist parties get shut out period.
(no subject)
Date: 14/12/11 00:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/12/11 21:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/12/11 21:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/12/11 22:11 (UTC)If you want a time in which everyone is bad, I recommend reading about the Second Imperialism-1931. There are no good guys then, only lighter and darker shades of black.
(no subject)
Date: 13/12/11 22:46 (UTC)MLK was in the 1960s, in a USA that was seeing the final disintegration of segregation. US settler-colonialism was the period from colonial times-1890s. This is a very different era from what you're talking about.
And as to the point about Buddhism being pacific, I'd note that using Buddhism as an example of pacifism indicates you know next to nothing about East Asian military history. The Buddhists were plenty warlike, and they provided plenty of legitimization for warfare. In fact the ideal of the Cakravartin is a Buddhist equivalent to a Christian theocratic-king akin to the old Moscow Tsars and to the Roman Emperors of the late united Empire and East-Rome.
(frozen) (no subject)
Date: 14/12/11 00:40 (UTC)Your use of contemporary examples of Buddhist pacifism is not relevant at all to the point I make, which is about settler-colonialism, a pattern of people in a siege mentality stealing the land of people who already live on that land and use it by superior military force.
Two, your use of MLK is easily countered by the French in Algeria, which was also in the 1960s and an example of why settler-colonialism can be a very dangerous failure.
The history of colonialism is not where you intended to steer this, but it is what I am talking about, as Israel is one of the present-day examples of colonialism of the South African/Rhodesian variety. You can talk all you want about Orientalistic misconceptions of what you think Buddhism was but I'm talking about Israel as the latest example of colonialism.
I'm interested in picking out why you used these examples, which betray both ignorance of what Buddhism and pacifism are as examples against settler-colonialism, but until you're ready and willing to discuss the settler variety of colonialism, which is what I'm discussing, kindly go troll someone else's post.
(frozen) (no subject)
Date: 14/12/11 08:47 (UTC)(frozen) (no subject)
Date: 14/12/11 13:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/12/11 01:27 (UTC)They are truly a shoot-first crowd, and that's when they aren't be real douches, like the story showed. A couple of them tried to blow up a Muslim girls school with a rigged propane trailer. Why? Because they wanted to kill a lot of Muslims, the younger the better. The perps said this very calmly on-camera.
(no subject)
Date: 14/12/11 01:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/12/11 02:00 (UTC)