Party, party, party! - Politics superthread 2014

[slothpomba]

Week 1 - Thursday July 31, 2014.

Hey guys, News often pops up but i feel like it isn't big enough or interesting enough to get an entire thread on its own.

I thought i'd see how we go with one large political thread instead, it might gain a bit more traction. I'll try chuck everything in here, Australian and international. I don't know if it'll take off but everything can be included; articles, comics, songs, banter, debates, etc.

In the news lately:

• Job seekers to be forced to search for 40 jobs a month as Abbott government toughens obligations for unemployed (FEDERAL)
• Anger over school prayer group ban (VIC)
• Victorian Labor admits staff destroyed journalist's recording device after listening to its contents (VIC)
• Ban Ki-moon condemns shelling of UN-run school in Gaza (INT)
• Syrian civil war continues (INT)

Weekly special topic(s):
(1) Israel, Palestine, Zionism.

Video

Quote

"There they are, a conga line of suckholes on the conservative side of politics."
- Mark Latham on Coalition support for the war in Iraq.

[Reus]

This is great in keeping up to date for glopol 

[slothpomba]

Some of my reflections on the news... got some more to stretch over the hours/days (inc. more on Israel and the upcoming Vic state election)

Job-seeker reform: Plain ridiculous. It's based on the image that the majority of welfare recipients are lazy, undeserving and simply need to "get out of bed" (real quote). I agree somewhat that it isn't a huge ask of someone drawing welfare but at the same time, it just seems useless. Those who really want to work will find it anyhow. Those who don't will simply spam poor quality applications and try stay on centrelink (these people are in the minority according to statistics). Not to mention work for the dole has been proven not to work in economics studies and it's basically slave labour. This is all aside from the consideration about whether all these jobs actually exist in the first place...


(Source: Australians for a progressive society - Facebook)


Prayer group ban: Bit of a non-issue. Students are still allowed to form their own lunchtime clubs (etc) if they wish. The change is that outside organisations/adults cannot come in and run lunchtime programmes like that now. I don't feel strongly either way on the issue, particularly if its in secondary schools (probably should be kept out of primary schools though, that's where i do have a stance). I think the curriculum needs to include a focus on comparative and world religions considering how it affects society and the lives of the majority of the globe to a degree (but i am a little biased).


(A religious troll)
Vic Labor destroys journalists recording device: Again, i think it is a bit of a non-issue. A few rogue guys did some pretty stupid shit, it was definitely an ill-advised decision. It's not like it was by accident either. However, they have been disciplined and they were recorded without their knowledge. If you piss off journalists, i guess its no surprise it will be splashed all over the news.
Gaza school shelling: War is hell for sure. It's really sad how many innocents are getting harmed in this conflict. Sometimes its silly to assume there always has to be a false balance (i.e. there's always two sides to each story or each side is equally to blame) but i think here definitely both combatant sides share a degree of blame. What do Hamas expect if they fire rockets into Israel? At the same time, what do Israel really expect acting like they are acting?
Syria: It's taken a bit of a side-line with the two other major conflicts in the news (Israel, Ukraine) but the carnage is far worse here. The horrible thing is no side is really preferable to the majority of uninvolved people. I see a lot of people around campus and other political discussion groups taking side around the Israel/Palestine issue but not often Syria. I'd put this down to both sides being horrible. The only people i've known to really take a side are those who are somehow connected. I know a few Syrian Christians who support Assad because they are more afraid of what the rebels will do to Christians (somewhat justifiably). Assad is a fairly brutal dictator though which comes with its own massive problems.

[chasej]

Gaza school shelling: War is hell for sure. It's really sad how many innocents are getting harmed in this conflict. Sometimes its silly to assume there always has to be a false balance (i.e. there's always two sides to each story or each side is equally to blame) but i think here definitely both combatant sides share a degree of blame. What do Hamas expect if they fire rockets into Israel? At the same time, what do Israel really expect acting like they are acting?

Hamas knows exactly what they expect, they are a terrorist organisation, with little regard for the sanctity of human life or the rules of war they so pragmatically flaunt against Israel. Hamas actively targets civilian areas in Israel. Their leaders are milllionares living in Qatar. They receive their arms from countries such as North Korea and Iran, their support comes from countries such as Cuba and Syria (who coincidentally is responsible for more deaths of Palestinians during this war than Israel). They alledgedly use human shields. They tunnel into civilian areas, a tunnel was recently found leading from Gaza to a kibbutz dining hall (kibbutz are essentially socialist communes). Intelligence has been found by Israel that Hamas was planning a mass attack against Israeli civilians through the tunnels.

International law clearly states that when civilian buildings/areas are used for military purposes, that area becomes a valid military target. Storing weapons, such as rockets which are intended to be used against Israeli civiliands, constitutes use of the buildings for military purposes and those buildings become valid targets. Evidencing Hamas's blatant disregard for where its rockets and mortars go is the fact that several of its rockets have actually accidently landed in Gaza destroying powerplants and other key infrastructure.

Yet somehow people say Hamas is the underdog and sympathise with a terrorist organisation. Hamas stands for everything we in a free, democratic society should stand against, they assassinated leaders of opposition political parties and were voted in yet dismantled the democratic process after gaining power.

There is no way in hell, Israel could or should make a peace deal with Hamas. Israel wanted Gaza to succeed, Israel uprooted the homes, businesses and livelihood of tens of thousands of Israelis to grant Gaza its own land, leaving greenhouses and other infrastructure in an attempt to help Gaza succeed, yet Hamas destroyed it all.

I almost cried when I heard of the deaths of four young children playing on Gaza beach because I do not understand the inhumanity of this all. I don't understand how the world let such as beautiful land with some of the most spiritually meaningful monuments in the world because a place of such bloodsheed. But nothing detracts from my hate and vermin against Hamas, I will always hate an organisation which received aid to build hospitals and schools yet used it up to build tunnels in the aim of killing Israeli civilians. Thousands of rockets have come into Israel and the Israeli death toll would have been much higher if it was not for the Iron Dome and Israel's extensive shelters. Israel, despite what the media says, does try to avoid civilian casualties and in fact the ratio of civilians to militants killed in Gaza compared with the demographics of the Gaza strip prove Israel is probably not intentionally targetting civilians. Israel has the military capability to completly anihilate Gaza in hours, if not minutes, the fact Israel is not willing to do this is testament to Israel's restraint.

Hamas is a terrorist organisation which seeks to destroy Israel and its civilians and Israel is excercising extreme restraint now and over history in dealing with these unprecedented threats which no other sovereign western nation has faced continually since its creation. I don't believe their is any "right" side in a war, but I will always stand with Israel because it is the only country in the middle east that I feel safe in.

I spend a lot of time and thinking, reading and writing about this and would be happy to discuss with anyone, please reply to my post or PM me to discuss. I really like hearing/discussing all points of view about this issue, because it is a matter of great personal importance to me.

TL;DR: I want peace in the area, and given the right circumstance support a two-state solution, however this is impossible until Hamas is destroyed.

Edit: Just read this, case in point, http://www.jerusalemonline.com/news/middle-east/israel-and-the-middle-east/hundreds-of-metal-balls-discovered-in-turkish-humanitarian-shipment-to-gaza-6851 Suicide bombers used to pack their belts with these coated in rat poison for maximum damage. Gaza has no milling so no other apparent reason for these metal balls other than terror.

[pi]

For anyone who doesn't pay any attention to international events (...like me...) I thought this was a good unbiased summation of the conflict https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMv7_eOb0B4 (it's a little tacky but meh)

Personally I think Hamas is kinda crazy (just look at their charter) but I am much more sympathetic for the Palestinian cause (read: not the Hamas cause) than the Israeli one. Hamas and Israel are equally to blame for the suffering of the Palestinian people.

A lot of people go on about "the right to self-defend against Hamas" (ie. more than the Iron Dome) but I think there is less right to self-defense if the self-defense involves killing a greater proportion of innocent people than of those who were the aggressors (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/22/world/meast/mideast-crisis/ "Palestinian health officials said at least 649 Palestinians had been killed and 4,120 wounded, Gaza's health ministry said. Some 70% to 80% of them civilians, according to the United Nations").

I'm not sure what Israel should be doing, but it's pretty clear as day what they shouldn't be doing.

[slothpomba]

I'll get around to responding to everyone a little later, great discussion so far guys!

Just want to make a few notes.

(1) Moderation: It's my intent for this thread to be more "lightly" moderated than some other threads. Obviously, since its intent is to get political, there is a higher tolerance for long winded debates and that kind of thing. Also, since its an enduring thread, it'd be a little counterproductive to ever lock it. Things that are obviously attacking another member or are outrageously offensive for the sake of it are not on, it seems until we get an example otherwise, everything else is OK.

It seems it might boil down to a few issues (the Israel one is popular), which is fine now that it's in the news but im not sure how i'd feel if it became the enduring focus of the thread after weeks, especially if it is no longer in the news. I guess we'll cross that bridge once we come to it.

(2) Topic of the week. Strictly optional of course. I thought it'd be a good experiment to have a (roughly) weekly topic, something thats beyond the current news cycle. Be it an idea, historical event, country, issue, etc. I edited into the main post but i guess a good special topic for this week is "Israel, Palestine, Zionism". The intent here is to discuss those ideas rather than just the current news going on. Even just the word or idea of "Israel" is probably worthy of discussion let alone the politics or its current ramifications. Ill always try do a little research myself and post what i find (with the bonus for me of learning a little bit each week if this continues on). I cant promise it will be a weekly thing but my schedule permitting and if interest is ongoing, it'll be semi regular. Everyone is free to propose ideas and post whatever they want, whenever they want (as long as its somehow related to politics, even a teeny bit).

[Vermilliona]

Re : Israel/Hamas conflict, I’m not an expert, but I did want to offer some initial thoughts

First, I think we can accept that Israel’s military and intelligence capability is of quite a high level. Of course war can’t always involve surgical precision, but if Israel wants peace with the people of Gaza (note, not with Hamas), then it cannot continue making obvious blunders like firing on the same place it had fired upon a few days earlier (destroying any military capability) and killing those 4 children. Surely they have surveillance equipment that could have prevented that, as well as the firing on the populated UN school. Even in 2009, they were using Palestinian civilians as human shields, and it times of non-war, they have made getting basic provisions (note, not military equipment for Hamas) into Gaza very difficult, e.g. water, through their economic blockade of the region. Greenhouses are all well and good, but people in Gaza get a quarter of the water Israeli citizens do a day.

Mostly, I don’t believe that the kind of collective punishment Israel is currently dealing out to Gaza (through both economic and military means) is going to go a long way towards achieving peace with Hamas and with the Gaza population as a whole. I don’t really see what Israel’s end-game is – the US has proven time and time again, that one of the surest ways to increase a population’s support for a radical group is to attack that population (even if it is in the name of a just cause). Hamas might be destroyed militarily, its leadership might be weeded out, but who will be left in Gaza? It’ll be relatives, friends etc of those killed, and they are unlikely to view Israel as anything but the enemy (even if Israel did/does claim to take precautions against civilian deaths). This is why I question the concept of a military attack as being the best way to get rid of radicalism in Gaza. Surely there was some potential for an intelligence/anti-terrorism operation carried out with minimal disturbance to civilians.

Personally, I think a two-state solution is the most desirable outcome to be found in this conflict. But Israel doesn’t. The best way to secure any stable relationship between Gaza + West Bank and Israel is to encourage a moderate government in these areas (gaza and WB), for which there is potential. But with both its political and military actions, Israel has lowered the chances of such a government coming to power, basically laying the foundations for continued conflict. I understand that Israel’s viewpoint on the legitimacy of their control over the areas of gaza and WB will likely always hamper any steps towards a two-state solution, but the only alternative I can see is the weakening of Gaza and the West Bank to the point that they are no longer able to resist and Israel can roll in and take control. This is what it honestly looks like they are doing at the moment, despite claims to be protecting civilian lives. Israel is not stupid enough to think that a strategy of war will win them a more moderate stance from the Gaza population, so I would suggest that they are aiming more for destruction than eventual appeasement. Whether or not that’s a justified policy is a whole other debate!

Looking forward to any corrections/alternative viewpoints you guys can offer, these are just my initial thoughts.

[chasej]

Re : Israel/Hamas conflict, I’m not an expert, but I did want to offer some initial thoughts

1. First, I think we can accept that Israel’s military and intelligence capability is of quite a high level. Of course war can’t always involve surgical precision, but if Israel wants peace with the people of Gaza (note, not with Hamas), then it cannot continue making obvious blunders like firing on the same place it had fired upon a few days earlier (destroying any military capability) and killing those 4 children. Surely they have surveillance equipment that could have prevented that, as well as the firing on the populated UN school.

2.  Even in 2009, they were using Palestinian civilians as human shields, and it times of non-war, they have made getting basic provisions (note, not military equipment for Hamas) into Gaza very difficult, e.g. water, through their economic blockade of the region. Greenhouses are all well and good, but people in Gaza get a quarter of the water Israeli citizens do a day.

3. Mostly, I don’t believe that the kind of collective punishment Israel is currently dealing out to Gaza (through both economic and military means) is going to go a long way towards achieving peace with Hamas and with the Gaza population as a whole. I don’t really see what Israel’s end-game is – the US has proven time and time again, that one of the surest ways to increase a population’s support for a radical group is to attack that population (even if it is in the name of a just cause). Hamas might be destroyed militarily, its leadership might be weeded out, but who will be left in Gaza? It’ll be relatives, friends etc of those killed, and they are unlikely to view Israel as anything but the enemy (even if Israel did/does claim to take precautions against civilian deaths). This is why I question the concept of a military attack as being the best way to get rid of radicalism in Gaza. Surely there was some potential for an intelligence/anti-terrorism operation carried out with minimal disturbance to civilians.

4. Personally, I think a two-state solution is the most desirable outcome to be found in this conflict. But Israel doesn’t. The best way to secure any stable relationship between Gaza + West Bank and Israel is to encourage a moderate government in these areas (gaza and WB), for which there is potential. But with both its political and military actions, Israel has lowered the chances of such a government coming to power, basically laying the foundations for continued conflict. I understand that Israel’s viewpoint on the legitimacy of their control over the areas of gaza and WB will likely always hamper any steps towards a two-state solution, but the only alternative I can see is the weakening of Gaza and the West Bank to the point that they are no longer able to resist and Israel can roll in and take control. This is what it honestly looks like they are doing at the moment, despite claims to be protecting civilian lives. Israel is not stupid enough to think that a strategy of war will win them a more moderate stance from the Gaza population, so I would suggest that they are aiming more for destruction than eventual appeasement. Whether or not that’s a justified policy is a whole other debate!

Interesting viewpoint although there's a few aspects I disagree with. I definitly agree with the general sentiment of a more moderate political climate setting the stage for a two state solution (as that seems the only rational way forward-I would prefer if it would just be possible for all people in the area to be absorbed as full citizens of Israel with perhaps the two areas being divided into seperate areas with a government system like we do have in Australia, with state governments to represent the colonies and a federal government with proportional representation-pretty much the way the current Knesset works. That is however impossible as the world's political leaders are dead set on a two state solution.

1. Definitly agree that Israel has made some huge fuck ups. As all militaries do/have done, it is an unavoidable truth that civilians will die in modern war and I couldn't imagine living in such a situation. Overall however Israel has done a good job at minimising civilian casualties and the Israeli military is investigating each and every mistake as other militaries, like the US military does when issues emerge in their procedure. This still doesn't excuse what happened, and if it turns out their was a group/individual in the army that intentionally targetted the civilians I would certainly like them to be prosecuted for it because it undermines the whole purpose of the operation. Overall however Israel's ratio of civilians to militants killed is very good relative to other military operations. It is estimated 77% of those killed by US forces in the Iraq war were civilians (https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/ten-years/) while Israel's track record of airstrikes on the Gaza stripe and Gaza wars tend to be much better than this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#Israeli_airstrikes_on_the_Gaza_Strip), of course all civilian deaths are tragic, but in wars they will happen, have happened and will continue to happen, it is the onus of the militaries to minimise civilian deaths at all available oppurunities, and these directions should come from the top of the militaries and ground forces should strive to follow them wherever possible.

2. Personally I'm not sure of the IDF using human shields allegations as 1) amnesty international can be biased and 2) information coming out of Gaza tends to be distorted due to various reasons (such as this journalist saying "Hamas people there launching rockets, they were close to our hotel, but if ever we dared pointing our camera on them they would simply shoot at us and kill us"-http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/31/spanish-journalist-on-why-hamas-never-photographed-in-action-if-ever-we-dared-point-our-camera-on-them-they-would-simply-shoot-at-us-and-kill-us/). Israel also provides a lot to the Gaza strip such as electricity, water, food and other aid, as does a lot of the world. I am dubious of the way Hamas uses this aid as Hamas used concrete which was supposed to build important infrastructure to build tunnels into Israel which are used to kidnap/attack Israelis and Egypt, used to smuggle in weapons. According to the Israel ministry of foreign affairs "
There is no shortage of food or fuel in Gaza and there are no signs of a humanitarian crisis. Medicines and medical equipment have passed continuously as well through the two crossings", if Israel really wanted to cripple the civilians of Gaza and make life hard for them, wouldn't they stop allowing anything through border crossings? Most of the blockade also started after Hamas began arming themselves as Israel attempted to stop weapons getting to Gaza. The deal that established Gaza's independence also intentionally left a border with Egypt so Gaza would have a border not with Israel, yet Egypt does not want to open its border also.

3. I don't believe what is happening in Gaza is intentional collective punishment. Of course as I have repeated many times civilians will be harmed when a government denounces and disagrees with their government, due to the government's influence over the people. And yeh I agree, war in Gaza does inflame divisions and make the issue worse, however Israel really had no choice, after three Israeli boys were murdered by Palestinians it seems to have appeared through Israel's investigation that Hamas was planning a huge attack against Israeli civilians on Rosh Hashanah (pretty much Judaism's holiest days where most of the military would be off guard) through the tunnels it has into Israel. Israel has constantly made it clear that it seeks to destroy the tunnels into Israel. I do not think the rockets are the problem Israel has, they don't do much to Israel and Israel does have means to protect itself for the most part against them. What Israel could not deal with was this huge threat to its civilians in the south, Israel could ward off this attack if it was to occur no doubt, but probably not until Israel suffered huge damage to its civilians. Of course the situation would never be resolved through war, but if a credible threat which Israel did not have the means to fully defend itself against emerged, any military would feel the need to deal with the core of the issue immediatly. I don't think it is possible to have an attack against Hamas without causing "minimal disturbance" to civilians, Gaza is very densly populated in civilian centres and Hamas has itself and its weapons firmly rooted in civilian areas, it is impossible to get the these militarily armed Hamas areas without effecting civilians. The fact the civilian casualties in Gaza have been as low as they are is testament to Israel's intelligence in effectively avoiding civilian casualties in the conflict.

4. The two state solution with moderate government's is definitly the way forward. I don't however think WB settlements are the issue, it's pretty much accepted among the mainstream Israeli population and most people I know at school that the settlements are temporary and will be abondened at some point when a two state solution comes in. No doubt a two state solution would be set up within 1 or 2 generations max. Israel doesn't at all think war would achieve a more moderate stance and resolve the issue, some dumb politicians may say that, but that is obsurd to think. If Israel thought war would resolve the issue they would be doing much more than they are now, Israel has always wanted to make peace and demonstrated time and time again they are willing to give land to achieve peace in the right circumstance, such as, giving Egypt back the Sinai in exchange for peace, the Sinai was many times bigger than Israel is today. The political situation in Gaza is fucked because of Hamas and no peace deal is possible without Hamas, peace would never be achieved unless Hamas is destroyed ideologically and militarily, and that is what Israel is trying to do.

Most Palestinians I've met in person and spoken to online are really nice people who just want to live their lives so I hope we find a resolution to this as soon as possible. I just read an hour or two ago that there is a 72 hour ceasefire on so I hope that paves the way to more discussion and the resolution of this conflict, although I know we have to break out of this cycle of war, 2-3 years of peace with Israel shooting down rockets with the Iron Dome, and more war so a long term overhaul of the political situation is needed.

[MJRomeo81]

[Ballerina]

[Sense]

I think that anyone who is completely against Israel and what they're doing should listen to this: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel

[chasej]

I think that anyone who is completely against Israel and what they're doing should listen to this: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel

What a great piece. Unfortunately there are some however which are so rabidly anti-Israel they won't listen.

I firmly believe every major military action Israel has ever made is defensive in nature. You can't blame Israelis for their mistrust of Palestinians because until a wall was put up suicide bombings were rife. The attacks on Israel have never been political in nature based upon a desire to end "occupation" but rather done on a religious basis. I wish more people would realize this because the two major "political" parties of the Palestinians are either corrupt or terrorists and corrupt.

Hamas also vastly misrepresents information they give to the media, such as overstating Israeli casualties and trying to pretend they represent a political ideology and not religious theocracy.

Criticism of Israel is good but if it's unjustified it just contributes to the problem. The Palestinins must sort out their own political scene before they want to deal with Israel's.

[chasej]

Further debunking Hamas' claims http://blog.joeol.com/2014/08/04/math-vs-anti-semitic-propaganda/

[chasej]

I was just reading this: http://twothirdsdone.com/2014/05/11/israelpalestine-my-prediction-for-the-future-a-palestinian-state-but-no-peace-agreement/

Sounds so perfect, perhaps overly optimistic but this is probably where the situation is headed.

[slothpomba]

In an attempt to get their budget measures passed, the Libs have split up their budget into multiple chunks in the hope the chunks have more success.

A few days ago, in tandem with the ALP, these following cuts and changes were passed:

-  Family Tax Benefit (part B) threshold lowering the upper income limit of the primary earner to $100,000 rather the current $150,000 cutoff.
-  Students who move from one city to another to attend university will no longer receive relocation scholarships [The move means students who move from cities such as Newcastle, Wollongong, Geelong or the Gold Coast to study at a state capital will be about $6000 worse off over a three-year degree. The scholarships – worth $4145 in the first year of study and $1036 for each subsequent year – will now only be available to those moving to or from rural and regional areas.]
-  Limiting the FTB-A large family supplement to families with four or more children
-  Reviewing disability support pension recipients under 35 to see whether they have some capacity to work.