More than 50 Israeli reservists refuse to fight

[Morch]

 

 

My point is that people often pick these boycotts as they see fit and, as far as I can tell, when the personal price paid

is not too dear. Boycotting Israel is not a major hardship for most people, so why not? Boycotting the PRC quite a

different undertaking.

 

Desmond Tutu is far from being objective when it comes to the conflict or when it comes to Israel. While his work in

South Africa can be admired, one may question how does his opinions and take of the situation and reality in the area

carry that much weight - as far as I am aware his first hand experience of such is quite limited.

 

Not really sure which normal forms of oppositions to Israel's actions are ignored and by whom. Indeed, it seems most

countries are not overly impressed with demonstrations, protests and international condemnations - how is Israel that

different from others on this front?

 

 

You might see your way clear to dismiss Desmond Tutu. I admire the man, and if he has not spent a lot of time in Palestine or Israel, this does not prevent him having a detailed understanding of the issues. If we use the criteria of "time spent", then we can count out John Kerry and Ban Ki Moon and Obama and Cameron and Hollande and ...  AndI still trust Tutu's integrity more than trust that of any of the others I have mentioned.

The forms of opposition ignored include not only people on the streets, but various UN resolutions, statements from many politicians (from countries supportive of Israel, such as the UK, France, Australia); condemnation of Israel's actions by non-aligned INGOs and  NGOs (WHO, UNICEF, Amnesty International, ICRC). Most countries with any sensitivity amongst its government members would question why they are almost universally questioned, if not condemned. Israel certainly is different. Unless there is some backroom angst that we never hear of?

 

 

 

I do not dismiss Desmond Tutu at all. He is an admired person in relation to human rights and other issues pertaining

to a certain part of the world - this does not automatically make him an expert on all related issues worldwide. Being a

great man does not make one omniscient nor free of bias.

 

While I wouldn't say each of the names mentioned shows a clear and precise grasp of the situation, I think that most

get a more comprehensive and divergent information on things. What they do with it is another issue - granted. My point

being that they are not that obviously arriving at a situation with a forgone conclusion as to what's going on. Basically, due

to their own country's interests, they take a more objective, if cynical, point of view.

 

That said, I am well aware that various government information channels and agencies may be biased as well, but with

so many of them around one may hope that somewhere along the way things at least average out.

 

Still at a loss as to how opposition to Israel is ignored, or rather, what would acknowledging mean? Complying with the

demands raised by demonstrators?  Don't think many countries do that. Complying with all resolutions made by the UN

and various UN bodies? Many of these are, indeed, ignored. Not the best situation, but would take some real effort not

to notice that there is a certain inherent bias to many of these resolutions.

 

As for how Israelis perceive this international condemnation - I think there is some bitterness about that, and with a certain

amount of justification as well (not always). The point is that when condemnation is so common and at times so one-sided

people tend to get into the "whatever..." state of mind. It is often connected with feelings related to perceived antisemitism,

but not always. There is definitely a bit of We vs. The World among Israelis. Whether its an egg or chicken - hard to say.
 

[Ulysses G.]

However Israel supporters are ever ready to trot it out as some sort of defence to the disproportionate discrimination they have inflicted on Palestinians over half a century and especially since 1967.

I have not seen supporters of Israel using this as a defense or an "excuse" for the Palestinian situation. However, I see the haters of Israel trotting out this canard on a regular basis. It is a Straw Man, which is used to misrepresent an opponent's argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Ulysses G.]

Your source doesn't come across as holding an unbiased POV.

"Biased", or not, facts are facts. Israel handed over Gaza with no blockade and "50%" of the functioning green houses for free is heck of a lot better than the ZERO number of green houses that were left after the Palestinians destroyed them. 

Edited August 2, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Asiantravel]

Why I am no longer a Zionist

 

 

 

Since the idea of the right of national self-determination was at the core of my support for Zionism, I found it hard to understand how any Zionist could be against the two state solution. If the Jews should have self-determination in Israel, I argued, surely it is only logical that the Palestinians should also have self-determination in Palestine. I simply could not understand how those Zionists to my right – which was basically all of them – could not see this.

 

 

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-i-am-no-longer-a-zionist-8364214.html

Edited August 2, 2014 by Asiantravel

[Ulysses G.]

Israel withdrew in 2005. They imposed the blockade a year later in 2006 as collective punishment for Palestinians voting for Hamas.

Not quite. The blockade was a response to the rain of Qassam rocket fire and mortars, from Gaza into southern Israel. Hamas also announced they would refuse to honor past international agreements between the Palestinian government and Israel. That caused a number of countries to halt their aid and things went downhill after that. 

Remember, honesty is the best policy, although I do enjoy pointing out all the dishonest historical "mistakes" in your posts. 

Edited August 2, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[simple1]

 

Your source doesn't come across as holding an unbiased POV.

"Biased", or not, facts are facts. Israel handed over Gaza with no blockade and "50%" of the functioning green houses for free is heck of a lot better than the ZERO number of green houses that were left after the Palestinians destroyed them. 

 

 

True, but different to the inference by you and others that all existing facilities were handed over to the Palestinians upon Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005

[dexterm]

 

Israel withdrew in 2005. They imposed the blockade a year later in 2006 as collective punishment for Palestinians voting for Hamas.

Not quite. The blockade was a response to the rain of Qassam rocket fire and mortars, from Gaza into southern Israel. Hamas also announced they would refuse to honor past international agreements between the Palestinian government and Israel. That caused a number of countries to halt their aid and things went downhill after that. 

Remember, honesty is the best policy, although I do enjoy pointing out all the dishonest historical "mistakes" in your posts. 

 

 

As always UG, you try to muddy the waters dishonestly. It's the Israeli propaganda way.

 

When Israel withdrew from Gaza in September 2005 they maintained their occupation by blockading air, sea and land access. So not quite the “land for peace deal we tried once” that Israeli apologists often proffer as a red herring.

 

 It is estimated that between 7,000 and 9,000 Israeli artillery shells were fired into Gaza between September 2005 and June 2006, killing 80 Palestinians in 6 months, culminating in the June 9^th 2006 shelling of 9 civilians on a Gaza beach.

 

Try to stick to the facts more in your postings UG.

[Morch]

 

 

Israel withdrew in 2005. They imposed the blockade a year later in 2006 as collective punishment for Palestinians voting for Hamas.

Not quite. The blockade was a response to the rain of Qassam rocket fire and mortars, from Gaza into southern Israel. Hamas also announced they would refuse to honor past international agreements between the Palestinian government and Israel. That caused a number of countries to halt their aid and things went downhill after that. 

Remember, honesty is the best policy, although I do enjoy pointing out all the dishonest historical "mistakes" in your posts. 

 

 

As always UG, you try to muddy the waters dishonestly. It's the Israeli propaganda way.

 

When Israel withdrew from Gaza in September 2005 they maintained their occupation by blockading air, sea and land access. So not quite the “land for peace deal we tried once” that Israeli apologists often proffer as a red herring.

 

 It is estimated that between 7,000 and 9,000 Israeli artillery shells were fired into Gaza between September 2005 and June 2006, killing 80 Palestinians in 6 months, culminating in the June 9^th 2006 shelling of 9 civilians on a Gaza beach.

 

Try to stick to the facts more in your postings UG.

 

 

I actually think that most references were to Israel unilaterally withdrawing from the Gaza Strip.

Unilaterally, as in not through agreement, and hence no deal.

Talk about red herrings.
 

[dexterm]

 

 

 

Israel withdrew in 2005. They imposed the blockade a year later in 2006 as collective punishment for Palestinians voting for Hamas.

Not quite. The blockade was a response to the rain of Qassam rocket fire and mortars, from Gaza into southern Israel. Hamas also announced they would refuse to honor past international agreements between the Palestinian government and Israel. That caused a number of countries to halt their aid and things went downhill after that. 

Remember, honesty is the best policy, although I do enjoy pointing out all the dishonest historical "mistakes" in your posts. 

 

 

As always UG, you try to muddy the waters dishonestly. It's the Israeli propaganda way.

 

When Israel withdrew from Gaza in September 2005 they maintained their occupation by blockading air, sea and land access. So not quite the “land for peace deal we tried once” that Israeli apologists often proffer as a red herring.

 

 It is estimated that between 7,000 and 9,000 Israeli artillery shells were fired into Gaza between September 2005 and June 2006, killing 80 Palestinians in 6 months, culminating in the June 9^th 2006 shelling of 9 civilians on a Gaza beach.

 

Try to stick to the facts more in your postings UG.

 

 

I actually think that most references were to Israel unilaterally withdrawing from the Gaza Strip.

Unilaterally, as in not through agreement, and hence no deal.

Talk about red herrings.
 

 

 

Nitpicking deflection.

 

I was pointing out the usual red herring cliche that Israeli apologists such as yourself often trot out when rationalizing your way out of trading land for peace in the West Bank by returning to the 67 borders.

 

"Look we tried this once in Gaza."

 

Israel only left Gaza because it was too costly for them in lives and $$ protecting 8,000 nutjob squatters.

[Morch]

 

 

 

 

Not quite. The blockade was a response to the rain of Qassam rocket fire and mortars, from Gaza into southern Israel. Hamas also announced they would refuse to honor past international agreements between the Palestinian government and Israel. That caused a number of countries to halt their aid and things went downhill after that. 

Remember, honesty is the best policy, although I do enjoy pointing out all the dishonest historical "mistakes" in your posts. 

 

 

As always UG, you try to muddy the waters dishonestly. It's the Israeli propaganda way.

 

When Israel withdrew from Gaza in September 2005 they maintained their occupation by blockading air, sea and land access. So not quite the “land for peace deal we tried once” that Israeli apologists often proffer as a red herring.

 

 It is estimated that between 7,000 and 9,000 Israeli artillery shells were fired into Gaza between September 2005 and June 2006, killing 80 Palestinians in 6 months, culminating in the June 9^th 2006 shelling of 9 civilians on a Gaza beach.

 

Try to stick to the facts more in your postings UG.

 

 

I actually think that most references were to Israel unilaterally withdrawing from the Gaza Strip.

Unilaterally, as in not through agreement, and hence no deal.

Talk about red herrings.
 

 

 

Nitpicking deflection.

 

I was pointing out the usual red herring cliche that Israeli apologists such as yourself often trot out when rationalizing your way out of trading land for peace in the West Bank by returning to the 67 borders.

 

"Look we tried this once in Gaza."

 

Israel only left Gaza because it was too costly for them in lives and $$ protecting 8,000 nutjob squatters.

 

 

Not nitpicking, getting facts accurately.

 

Israel traded land for peace with Egypt and so far it works out alright. This included taking off settlements and settlers.

 

I do not think that many claimed that the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was tied with any peace deal, although

there might have been some hope for things to settle down.

 

Sort of the same thing in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah first claimed it wanted Israel to get out of Lebanon, but kept the

good fight going after that end was achieved.
 

[Maggusoil]

We all know the answer is the guilt propaganda built up from WW2.

The holocaust claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Serbs,gypsies,Roma,gay people and the disabled along with Jews.

However Israel supporters are ever ready to trot it out as some sort of defence to the disproportionate discrimination they have inflicted on Palestinians over half a century and especially since 1967.

 

Add "millions" of Christians and whatever. . . It is lame.

I speak as a jew that has never been to Israel. I have jewish friends that tell me I am wrong. I am told if I go to Israel I will see. No doubt I will meet and get to know all sorts of people, and no doubt I will meet a lot of people like we have in Australia where I have spent most of my life.

People who do not support war. People who vote and demonstrate and indicate to their government that they want no part of their taxpayers money being spent on military intervention in Iraq, or Afghanistan or Palestine or anywhere else. 

However like governments do everywhere, but not ALL governments everywhere, we are ignored.

Government do not always follow their people's wishes.

Governments and their actions frequently go directly against their people's wishes. 

We should concert out efforts to make these governments and politicians and the military businesses they are supporting, more accountable, for the fantastic waste and the profound heartache they have their bloody, greedy fingers dipped in.

[Maggusoil]

This avaaz petition may be of interest to some. .. 

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/israel_palestine_this_is_how_it_ends_3b/?bWIATbb&v=43398

[Scott]

Numerous off-topic posts have been deleted along with a large number of replies.   Please remember when you reply to an off-topic post, your post will get deleted as well.  

[Ulysses G.]

Nitpicking deflection.

Pointing out your litany of distortions and inaccuracies is deflection? It is almost a full time job and Morch has been very patient and accurate about doing so. I don't always a agree with his conclusions, but having him around has been a real bonus to the forum. He is one of the few posters with in-depth knowledge of this crisis and his posts have made it clear that he is not firmly on one side or the other. He has been nothing but fair. Edited August 3, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

 

We all know the answer is the guilt propaganda built up from WW2.

The holocaust claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Serbs,gypsies,Roma,gay people and the disabled along with Jews.

However Israel supporters are ever ready to trot it out as some sort of defence to the disproportionate discrimination they have inflicted on Palestinians over half a century and especially since 1967.

 

Add "millions" of Christians and whatever. . . It is lame.

I speak as a jew that has never been to Israel. I have jewish friends that tell me I am wrong. I am told if I go to Israel I will see. No doubt I will meet and get to know all sorts of people, and no doubt I will meet a lot of people like we have in Australia where I have spent most of my life.

People who do not support war. People who vote and demonstrate and indicate to their government that they want no part of their taxpayers money being spent on military intervention in Iraq, or Afghanistan or Palestine or anywhere else. 

However like governments do everywhere, but not ALL governments everywhere, we are ignored.

Government do not always follow their people's wishes.

Governments and their actions frequently go directly against their people's wishes. 

We should concert out efforts to make these governments and politicians and the military businesses they are supporting, more accountable, for the fantastic waste and the profound heartache they have their bloody, greedy fingers dipped in.

 

 

While there are Israelis who do not support the current IDF operations in the Gaza Strip, I would say that they are stil

a minority. The sentiment you allude to does exist, but right now it is mostly limited to Arab Israelis and some (not all)

left wing organizations/parties and their supporters. If this was anything resembling a majority, Israel would have had

a different prime minister. Sadly or not, depending on one's views, this is not the case.

 

Public opinion may shift as hostilities either end and inquiries commence or if hostilities go on with nothing resembling

a decisive change comes about.

 

The point I am trying to make is that it is not so much that the Israeli government is acting against the wishes of the

people, more that it lacks the courage and vision to act in the people's best interests, even against public wishes.

 

The same thing, only magnified manifold, happens on the other side of the fence.

[Jay Sata]

Try telling that to the grieving Jewish mothers who have lost sons in a pointless slaughter carried out by the mad warmonger Netanyahu.

[Morch]

Try telling that to the grieving Jewish mothers who have lost sons in a pointless slaughter carried out by the mad warmonger Netanyahu.

 

One day you will learn to quote the post you are responding to, I am sure.

Then again, I also have high hopes you will master the art of linking sources, but that may take a while.

[Bwanatickey]

What restrictions / punishments, if any, are there for Israeli citizens who refuse call up?

The silent ones leave, move to new countries.

[spidermike007]

If a person is a reservist, then I would guess that they are not a pacifist.   

Incorrect. It is mandatory in Israel or serve on the army, or the army reserves, for a period of time.


Spidermike
Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Bwanatickey]

There are those new Israel Settlers who are so religious that they abscond military service, getting the others to fight for them.

Their devote prayers have been answered.

[Jingthing]

There are those new Israel Settlers who are so religious that they abscond military service, getting the others to fight for them.

Their devote prayers have been answered.

The Haredi military service exemption has been reformed:

 

http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Thousands-of-haredi-exempted-from-military-service-granted-access-to-work-force-347194

 

 

Edited August 6, 2014 by Jingthing

[joepublic]

Don't buy from the Jews. Sound familiar?

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Errr..no.

 

It's don't buy Israeli products - not stop buying non Israeli products from a shop owned by a Jew. 

[Morch]

There are those new Israel Settlers who are so religious that they abscond military service, getting the others to fight for them.

Their devote prayers have been answered.

 

And there are those who are mixing two separate issues.

The compulsory service issue in Israel is more of a problem with the Orthodox Jews.

When it comes to the settlers - while some are Orthodox, more are not, and do serve in the IDF.

But again, this has little do to with the topic at hand.
 

[Ulysses G.]

Do you really think that these guys care about compulsory service in Israel?  It is just one more talking point to demonize Israel. 

Edited August 7, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[dexterm]

 

Nitpicking deflection.

Pointing out your litany of distortions and inaccuracies is deflection? It is almost a full time job and Morch has been very patient and accurate about doing so. I don't always a agree with his conclusions, but having him around has been a real bonus to the forum. He is one of the few posters with in-depth knowledge of this crisis and his posts have made it clear that he is not firmly on one side or the other. He has been nothing but fair.

 

 

It's hard work for me too wading through his turgid, weasel worded unformatted prose that actually says nothing. He must have gone to the Mark Regev school of disingenuousness.

 

Examples Israel is not expansionist because it has allowed Palestinians to hold onto part of West Bank...big deal allowing limited autonomy in land stolen in the first place. It's like a mugger giving you back your wallet after taking the money for himself.

 

Israel is so wonderful... they gave back land in Egypt, Gaza, and Lebanon.. Yes, because they had to, because it wasn't theirs in the first place. Give back the West Bank too (with acceptable land swaps so that israel can hold onto its large illegal colonies such as Ariel), stolen in 1967 and you will have peace there too.

[Ulysses G.]

They did not "have" to do anything. They have the most powerful army in the area and no one can 'make" them do anything. They traded land for peace and - other than the Palestinian zealots, it has worked out pretty well. 

 

By the way, in comparison to you, Morch is a Shakespeare of the written word and - on top of that - his posts are amazingly historically accurate, not filled with distortions and outright lies, like some people posting here. 

[boychick]

I hated my I.D.F service all we did was terrorise innocent people and were blessed by  doddering old rabbis . Out  now and  here so  no reserve duty either.

[Morch]

 

 

Nitpicking deflection.

Pointing out your litany of distortions and inaccuracies is deflection? It is almost a full time job and Morch has been very patient and accurate about doing so. I don't always a agree with his conclusions, but having him around has been a real bonus to the forum. He is one of the few posters with in-depth knowledge of this crisis and his posts have made it clear that he is not firmly on one side or the other. He has been nothing but fair.

 

 

It's hard work for me too wading through his turgid, weasel worded unformatted prose that actually says nothing. He must have gone to the Mark Regev school of disingenuousness.

 

Examples Israel is not expansionist because it has allowed Palestinians to hold onto part of West Bank...big deal allowing limited autonomy in land stolen in the first place. It's like a mugger giving you back your wallet after taking the money for himself.

 

Israel is so wonderful... they gave back land in Egypt, Gaza, and Lebanon.. Yes, because they had to, because it wasn't theirs in the first place. Give back the West Bank too (with acceptable land swaps so that israel can hold onto its large illegal colonies such as Ariel), stolen in 1967 and you will have peace there too.

 

 

Back to the "they had to" nonsense?

Israel held the Sinai peninsula for years, and gave it back not because it "had to", but because a peace treaty was signed.

Israel did not "have to" withdraw from either Gaza or southern Lebanon - it was present in both for years without paying

much attention to "have to". The reason for both withdrawals was that the cost got too high. Simple as that.

 

The "had to" doesn't come into this at all. That is, unless you wish to claim Israel is a country which cares about legal "had

to"s - which you constantly seem to reject. Can't have it both ways.

 

The Sinai peninsula is, I believe, larger than Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip combined (or pretty much the same

size). Might be that expansionist does not translate that well into Hebrew?

 

And again - the Palestinian did not have any form of independence in the West Bank, ever. Not as if in the 1967 war Israel

won the land from the Palestinians, but rather from Jordan. Pretty much the same goes goes for the Gaza Strip. As for your

assertion that Israel would get peace if it only handed back the West Bank, well - that doesn't quite fit with the Hamas views

on the subject, although you'll probably link that bit of nonsense with the inevitable "olive branch" to boot.

[Bwanatickey]

I hated my I.D.F service all we did was terrorise innocent people and were blessed by  doddering old rabbis . Out  now and  here so  no reserve duty either.

I also have a similar past, I remain silent about it , but I understand a lot.

I flew out and made a new life somewhere else.

Happily sitting on a sofa far away watching the madness on world News channels.

[hawker9000]

We all know the answer is the guilt propaganda built up from WW2.

The holocaust claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Serbs,gypsies,Roma,gay people and the disabled along with Jews.

However Israel supporters are ever ready to trot it out as some sort of defence to the disproportionate discrimination they have inflicted on Palestinians over half a century and especially since 1967.

 

The holocaust claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Serbs, gypsies, Roma, gay people and the disabled along with >>SIX MILLION<< Jews.

 

And that six million was 37-40% of the entire world Jewish population!

 

The "final solution" was about the annihilation of the Jews.  That means destruction or genocide (so you won't have to google it...).  You actually think this is/was "guilt propaganda"?   That's very sad.