Don't Be Fooled By The Israeli Regime...

[vbnautilus 48]

im done with you. once again you side step what we are talking about, ignore the issue, ignore context, and make some stupid comment. the key you are missing is the initiation of force. retaliation against a group attacking you is not genocide, its self defense. i cant believe i have to explain this.

You are suggesting that since Palestinian terrorists have attacked Israel that Israel is justified in murdering all the palestinians -- every man, woman, child, baker, blacksmith and barber wiped from the earth. You must at least recognize that this is a radical proposition, and and that there are likely to be disastrous repercussions for such an act. Why don't you just post on your main account though instead of hurling insults from behind the mask of this one?

[owise1 0]

I don't think his attitude warranted any more of a response that that, and I'm not convinced he is a real account. But seriously, are you asking me to explain why Israel should not commit genocide? Did you two go to the Ahmadinejad School of International Relations? Just wipe them off the map is your honest suggestion?

JOhnWaters

why shouldnt israel be allowed to destroy everyone around them who threatens them? why not? tell me why not.

First, lets be fair and not put words in my mouth, OK. I never said anything about Israel committing genocide (you implied that with the above quote) or perhaps you are refering to John Waters' posts only. I just want to be clear about that. It might just be a problem of semantics, who does the "them" in the above quote refer to? For me, it is legitimate targets, for example: 1. those that have attacked Israel, 3. Terrorist organizations who have vowed to drive Israel and all Jews into the sea or 2. those that are planning attacking Israel. The 'wipe them off the map' or 'drive them into the sea' has long been the motto of many of the Terrorist organizations, they speak this proudly as their goal. But since you brought the subject up, it has not too long ago on on the Michael Coren (TV) Show that Canadian Islamic Congress President Mohamed Elmasry made his infamous http://www.montrealmuslimnews.net/transcript.htm statements legitimizing terror attacks against all adult Israeli civilians. Also, to be fair, all nations should be judged in comparison with other nations facing comparable threats. Context is essential to any fair evaluation of a nation's behavior. No, other nation faced with comparable threats, both external and internal, has ever been more protective of enemy civilians, more willing to take risks for peace, and more committed to the rule of law.

[dapokerbum 0]

You are suggesting that since Palestinian terrorists have attacked Israel that Israel is justified in murdering all the palestinians -- every man, woman, child, baker, blacksmith and barber wiped from the earth. You must at least recognize that this is a radical proposition, and and that there are likely to be disastrous repercussions for such an act.

Or we could just do the same thing to the Jews.- signed, Adolf Hitler

[vbnautilus 48]

First, lets be fair and not put words in my mouth, OK. I never said anything about Israel committing genocide (you implied that with the above quote) or perhaps you are refering to John Waters' posts only. I just want to be clear about that.

I agree you didn't advocate that -- "JohnWaters" did, and you encouraged me to respond to his trolling.

It might just be a problem of semantics, who does the "them" in the above quote refer to? For me, it is legitimate targets, for example: 1. those that have attacked Israel, 3. Terrorist organizations who have vowed to drive Israel and all Jews into the sea or 2. those that are planning attacking Israel.

We agree here that it would be legitimate to attack those groups (but not that it is the optimal solution to the current situation).

The 'wipe them off the map' or 'drive them into the sea' has long been the motto of many of the Terrorist organizations, they speak this proudly as their goal.

Which is why I find "JOhnWaters" position to be rather hypocritical.

But since you brought the subject up, it has not too long ago on on the Michael Coren (TV) Show that Canadian Islamic Congress President Mohamed Elmasry made his infamous http://www.montrealmuslimnews.net/transcript.htm statements legitimizing terror attacks against all adult Israeli civilians. Also, to be fair, all nations should be judged in comparison with other nations facing comparable threats. Context is essential to any fair evaluation of a nation's behavior. No, other nation faced with comparable threats, both external and internal, has ever been more protective of enemy civilians, more willing to take risks for peace, and more committed to the rule of law.

Surely the Palestinians would have strengthened their cause had they expressed it nonviolently. The terrorist tactics have been entirely counter-productive; had they staged nonviolent protests to call attention to the truthful aspects of their situation they would probably already have what they want. However, I do think they have as much of a right to live in that god-forsaken piece of desert as the Jews do, and that ultimately this will have to be recognized with a real political structure (i.e. statehood). Retaliation is not going to change the basic fact that co-existence is the inevitable outcome here.

[owise1 0]

(JOhnWaters @ Thursday, June 18th, 2009, 2:27 PM) ok so you have established that pure innocence doesnt exist on either side, IN A WAR. congrats. thanks for wasting our time and arguing a minor point instead of focusing on the major general issue. israel having or not having pure innocence is completely irrelevant and obvious. stop diverting the issue. should we support terrorist states initiating attacks or should we support sophisticated stable republics?why shouldnt israel be allowed to destroy everyone around them who threatens them? why not? tell me why not.

Easy there, cowboy.

VB, I was sincerely looking forward to your response from the above John Waters post when i said

QUOTE (owise1 @ Thursday, June 18th, 2009, 4:46 PM) Hoping for a better response than this.

How about one now? Please

[vbnautilus 48]

VB, I was sincerely looking forward to your response from the above John Waters post when i said How about one now? Please

Sorry I am kind of confused as to what you want me to respond to. He is advocating "wiping them off them map". You want me to articulate why that's a bad idea? I can do that but it seems like a lot of work for something we both probably agree on. Is it this: "should we support terrorist states initiating attacks or should we support sophisticated stable republics?" If so, this is clearly a false choice which sounds good rhetorically but has little do with actually choosing a way forward. For one, there is no terrorist state since there is no state. The whole point in forming a palestinian state is as a solution to the problems which cause the terrorism. In the same way that we can support the Iranian people protesting against their government without supporting the Iranian regime, we can support the creation of a peaceful Palestinian state without supporting suicide bombers.

[owise1 0]

I had a huge long post to address many of the comments made by VB and others and of course I go to post it and it gets all F___ed up! I will try to reformat it and post it later, in the meantime check out these recent articles in the Washington Post and the NY Times:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9060403811.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9050703054.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9052803614.htmlhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/ti...?inline=nyt-perhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/world/mi...eshal.html?_r=2 Some highlights from the NY Times article:

He (Khaled Meshaal) repeated that he would not recognize Israel, saying to fellow Arab leaders, "There is only one enemy in the region, and that is Israel

[owise1 0]

All_In, you titled this thread, "Don't Be Fooled By The Israeli Regime..., not a Pal state but a bantustan." Now, I didn't know what a bantustan was, never heard that term before, so I checked it out at Wikipedia After reading what that it was a term created during the South Africa apartheid era, I just want to be clear. Are you saying that Israel is a colonial, imperialist, settler state comparable to apartheid South Africa?

[owise1 0]

vbnautilus, you said:

For one, there is no terrorist state since there is no state. The whole point in forming a palestinian state is as a solution to the problems which cause the terrorism.

From one of the articles above:

The Palestinians already have a state, an independent territory with not an Israeli settler or soldier living on it. It's called Gaza. And what is it? A terror base, Islamist in nature, Iranian-allied, militant and aggressive, that has fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortar rounds at Israeli civilians.

vb, you said,

Surely the Palestinians would have strengthened their cause had they expressed it non violently. The terrorist tactics have been entirely counter-productive; had they staged nonviolent protests to call attention to the truthful aspects of their situation they would probably already have what they want.

Of course, but that is not what they have done for the past 60 years. They have just started one war after another and an endless number of terrorist attacks.

However, I do think they have as much of a right to live in that god-forsaken piece of desert as the Jews do, and that ultimately this will have to be recognized with a real political structure (i.e. statehood). Retaliation is not going to change the basic fact that co-existence is the inevitable outcome here.

Are you suggesting that Israel should not retaliate (even though they have a legal right to) They tried that, and still the bombs, missiles and suicide bombers keep coming.And when they do retaliate (justly so) the media plays it up as them being the big bad guy. Tell me, what other country in the world that has lived through decades of missiles, bombs, suicide bombers that would not retaliate? You show one or two incidents, where the army is admittedly at fault (those at fault do get charged in court by the way). But look at the big picture, for every one incident that you could cite, I could probably cite 100 where a civilian in Israel is killed. No argument about co-existence from me, Israel has agreed to a two state solution since the day it became a nation in 1948 actually even before that (check up on the 1937 Peel Commission Report, published by the British or even the Balfour Declaration in 1917). The U.N. Partition Plan of 1947 was accepted by Israel and the palestinians and others rejected it and war ensued. To have peace, each country would have to recognize the others right to exist, but the Palestinians, through their elected leaders in Hamas, do not. In fact, the Hamas charter calls for the obliteration of Israel through jihad. So it is kind of tough to make peace with a group like that, and remember, they were elected by the Palestinian people.From the first link above:

In his much-heralded "Muslim world" address in Cairo yesterday, Obama declared that the Palestinian people's "situation" is "intolerable." Indeed it is, the result of 60 years of Palestinian leadership that gave its people corruption, tyranny, religious intolerance and forced militarization; leadership that for three generations rejected every offer of independence and dignity, choosing destitution and despair rather than accept any settlement not accompanied by the extinction of Israel. That's why Haj Amin al-Husseini chose war rather than a two-state solution in 1947. Why Yasser Arafat turned down a Palestinian state in 2000. And why Abbas rejected Olmert's even more generous December 2008 offer.In the 16 years since the Oslo accords turned the West Bank and Gaza over to the Palestinians, their leaders built no roads, no courthouses, no hospitals, none of the fundamental state institutions that would relieve their people's suffering. Instead they poured everything into an infrastructure of war and terror, all the while depositing billions (from gullible Western donors) into their Swiss bank accounts.

[checkymcfold 0]

i don't recall the palestinians having much of a say when the west created israel out of relative thin air.granted, the two groups have basically been fighting for thousands of years over the same general area, but the creation of israel in the 20th century was the first time that outside groups just came in, took a bunch of land, and gave it to one side. if i was a palestinian, i'd be pretty pissed off, too. i mean, land is a big part of what pretty much every war in history has been about in some manner or another, so it's not like their "instigation" lacks precedent.it's going to be pretty much impossible to fix that quagmire with any sort of even semi-permanence unless both sides are willing to cede a bit of jerusalem to the other, and i just don't see either side willing to do that for the foreseeable future.but israelis look more like white people than palestinians, so it's more likely that palestinians are at fault.

[Avaron 0]

i don't recall the palestinians having much of a say when the west created israel out of relative thin air.granted, the two groups have basically been fighting for thousands of years over the same general area, but the creation of israel in the 20th century was the first time that outside groups just came in, took a bunch of land, and gave it to one side. if i was a palestinian, i'd be pretty pissed off, too. i mean, land is a big part of what pretty much every war in history has been about in some manner or another, so it's not like their "instigation" lacks precedent.it's going to be pretty much impossible to fix that quagmire with any sort of even semi-permanence unless both sides are willing to cede a bit of jerusalem to the other, and i just don't see either side willing to do that for the foreseeable future.but israelis look more like white people than palestinians, so it's more likely that palestinians are at fault.

qft. most intelligent post in this thread so far.and they already built a wall, they bombed civilians with phosphor(sp?), they marked palestinians and muslims in israel as 2nd class citizens. and somewhere i read that the more extremist politicians in israel even want to built detention centers to put them in. i don't want to be harsh, but doesn't ring a bell here somewhere?now i'm not going to question israels right to exist (to be exact, there were jewish settlements in that era in the early 20th sentury long before an official state was founded). i'm just thinking about a way to solve the situation peacefully. and since a couple years ago almost every muslim state (except iran, of course), even egypt, agreed to accept a two state solution, it's up to israel to make a few concessions to stop all the terror and killing in that region.@john waters: i get the feeling that your whole argument is based on the asumption hat one people is better than the other (see: "dark age muslim states" <--> "sophisticated state"). you're dead wrong. and i hear a bell ringing there, too.

[checkymcfold 0]

now i'm not going to question israels right to exist (to be exact, there were jewish settlements in that era in the early 20th sentury long before an official state was founded). i'm just thinking about a way to solve the situation peacefully. and since a couple years ago almost every muslim state (except iran, of course), even egypt, agreed to accept a two state solution, it's up to israel to make a few concessions to stop all the terror and killing in that region.

the ironic thing is that it's not really in israel's economic or (to some extent) military interest to make any concessions toward a two-state solution, since the US basically has an open-ended aid policy with them as it stands right now, they're annihilating the media war in the west, and the US will continue to look the other way about their nuclear program so long as they fight the good fight vs. muslim extremists.i know that sounds a bit overly cynical, but it's pretty much the case. while the israeli population might be for concessions leading to peace (they are, as per recent polling), it's really not in the interest of the israeli government to go that direction, odd as it might sound, if they're willing to take the occasional restaurant bombing in the meantime.

[vbnautilus 48]

Are you suggesting that Israel should not retaliate (even though they have a legal right to) They tried that, and still the bombs, missiles and suicide bombers keep coming.

They also tried retaliation -- and the bombs, missiles, and suicide bombers keep coming. I'm suggesting that no progress will be made through a cycle of retaliation.

No argument about co-existence from me, Israel has agreed to a two state solution since the day it became a nation in 1948 actually even before that (check up on the 1937 Peel Commission Report, published by the British or even the Balfour Declaration in 1917). The U.N. Partition Plan of 1947 was accepted by Israel and the palestinians and others rejected it and war ensued.

You don't think the palestinians should have some say as to the conditions under which they live? They should just be forced to accept whatever political structure the U.N. ( a body to which they had no representation ) and Israel decide upon? By the way, that same plan decided that Jerusalem should not belong to Israel, that it should remain a neutral area governed by the UN.

To have peace, each country would have to recognize the others right to exist, but the Palestinians, through their elected leaders in Hamas, do not. In fact, the Hamas charter calls for the obliteration of Israel through jihad. So it is kind of tough to make peace with a group like that, and remember, they were elected by the Palestinian people.

No doubt its tough. But the only chance of success is through negotiation and compromise. Retaliation and obliteration does not have a chance to succeed.

[owise1 0]

You don't think the palestinians should have some say as to the conditions under which they live? They should just be forced to accept whatever political structure the U.N. ( a body to which they had no representation ) and Israel decide upon? By the way, that same plan decided that Jerusalem should not belong to Israel, that it should remain a neutral area governed by the UN.

Of course they should have some say as to the conditions under which they live, I never said anything to the contrary. But what did their leaders say and do... See underlined part below

No doubt its tough. But the only chance of success is through negotiation and compromise. Retaliation and obliteration does not have a chance to succeed.

Like I said earlier: There was a practical solution made during the Barak-Clinton Peace Proposal in 2000-2001. This solution gave the Palestinian state about 97% of the occupied territories, the old city of Jerusalem other that the Jewish and Armenian Quarters and $30 billion in compensation for the refugees. (an offer that many Israelis now regard as a naive and overgenerous offer) Arafat said no. Made no conter offer and did what he always did, start up terrorist bombings in Israel and about 3000 died. Both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush placed all of the blame on Arafat and so did many of Arafat's closest advisers at that time.Good article in todays paper: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=1722605

[owise1 0]

i don't recall the palestinians having much of a say when the west created israel out of relative thin air.

False. Take the word Israel out of your sentence and replace it with Jordan, then it becomes true.

granted, the two groups have basically been fighting for thousands of years over the same general area, but the creation of israel in the 20th century was the first time that outside groups just came in, took a bunch of land, and gave it to one side. if i was a palestinian, i'd be pretty pissed off, too. i mean, land is a big part of what pretty much every war in history has been about in some manner or another, so it's not like their "instigation" lacks precedent.

do you mean only in the 20th century? If so, why?

it's going to be pretty much impossible to fix that quagmire with any sort of even semi-permanence unless both sides are willing to cede a bit of jerusalem to the other, and i just don't see either side willing to do that for the foreseeable future.

There was a practical solution made during the Barak-Clinton Peace Proposal in 2000-2001. This solution gave the Palestinian state about 97% of the occupied territories, the old city of Jerusalem other that the Jewish and Armenian Quarters and $30 billion in compensation for the refugees.

[vbnautilus 48]

Of course they should have some say as to the conditions under which they live, I never said anything to the contrary. But what did their leaders say and do... See underlined part belowLike I said earlier: There was a practical solution made during the Barak-Clinton Peace Proposal in 2000-2001. This solution gave the Palestinian state about 97% of the occupied territories, the old city of Jerusalem other that the Jewish and Armenian Quarters and $30 billion in compensation for the refugees. (an offer that many Israelis now regard as a naive and overgenerous offer) Arafat said no. Made no conter offer and did what he always did, start up terrorist bombings in Israel and about 3000 died. Both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush placed all of the blame on Arafat and so did many of Arafat's closest advisers at that time.Good article in todays paper: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=1722605

I've already agreed with you that this was a mistake by Arafat. Arafat is dead. The question as I see it is what to do going forward.

[owise1 0]

name='Avaron' date='Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009, 1:24 PM' post='3147664']qft. most intelligent post in this thread so far.and they already built a wall, they bombed civilians with phosphor(sp?), they marked palestinians and muslims in israel as 2nd class citizens. and somewhere i read that the more extremist politicians in israel even want to built detention centers to put them in. i don't want to be harsh, but doesn't ring a bell here somewhere?

"somewhere i read..."That's quite convienient for you, how about quoting some creditable sources and facts (which others in this thread are also sorely lacking). Here's one for you. The Israeli cabinet has Raleb Majadele, an Arab Muslim, as a member. Read the facts here. So you see your claim of second class citizens is false. All citizens there, Jew, Muslim, Christian, Druze, etc.. have the right to vote. Can the same be said in muslim countries? I think not.

now i'm not going to question israels right to exist (to be exact, there were jewish settlements in that era in the early 20th sentury long before an official state was founded). i'm just thinking about a way to solve the situation peacefully. and since a couple years ago almost every muslim state (except iran, of course), even egypt, agreed to accept a two state solution, it's up to israel to make a few concessions to stop all the terror and killing in that region.

Why is it not up to to the Palestinians equally as well?

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Why is it not up to to the Palestinians equally as well?

It is, that's the point.Both sides point to the other and demonize them and say look how bad they are and dehumanize them and that means there can never be a solution.You're obviously a supporter of Israel as am I. In general they are the good guys in this situation but they aren't perfect and there are a lot of really out there Israelis who the average person needs to control for there to be any hope of a long lasting solution.

[checkymcfold 0]

False. Take the word Israel out of your sentence and replace it with Jordan, then it becomes true.

what?you are aware that that the formation of the formal jewish state under the name israel in the late 40s was a move conducted by the UN (primarily the UK and US), and marked the first time in anything we might call the contemporary era that people not directly involved in the area's conflicts imposed political boundaries on the area, yes? this is documented, like, everywhere. unless you're playing some rhetorical game here, i really have no clue what you're talking about.

do you mean only in the 20th century? If so, why?

see above, basically.just to be clear, before the UN partition plan of 1947-48, there were arab states in the region, not jewish states. after the plan was passed by the UN, the civil war began and the arms embargo on both sides was broken by czechoslovakia, who backed the jewish army in the conflict.hence, before the west intervened, there was no israel. after, there was an israel. one could concoct an argument that it would have happened anyway at some point (which, for the record, would be speculative at best, but still one with which i would agree fundamentally), but at this point in history, it wasn't some purely natural internal evolution, and it's only logical that the people who got the short end of the deal would be angry about that.

There was a practical solution made during the Barak-Clinton Peace Proposal in 2000-2001. This solution gave the Palestinian state about 97% of the occupied territories, the old city of Jerusalem other that the Jewish and Armenian Quarters and $30 billion in compensation for the refugees.

fwiw, i think that arafat should have taken this deal, but to suggest that i would know better than the PLO leader what would be best for the palestinians would be fairly absurd.

[All_In 0]

All_In, you titled this thread, "Don't Be Fooled By The Israeli Regime..., not a Pal state but a bantustan." Now, I didn't know what a bantustan was, never heard that term before, so I checked it out at Wikipedia After reading what that it was a term created during the South Africa apartheid era, I just want to be clear. Are you saying that Israel is a colonial, imperialist, settler state comparable to apartheid South Africa?

"The word 'bantustan', today, is often used in a pejorative sense when describing a country or region that lacks any real legitimacy or power..."Conditions set by Israel for the creation of a palestinian 'state':http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleea...1856215293.htmlother stuff:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_th...artheid_analogyhttp://english.aljazeera.net/archive/2003/...2433765841.htmlhttp://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/06...1323361453.html

[All_In 0]

Both sides point to the other and demonize them and say look how bad they are and dehumanize them and that means there can never be a solution.You're obviously a supporter of Israel as am I. In general they are the good guys in this situation...

Really? please explain.

[owise1 0]

(owise1 @ Monday, June 22nd, 2009, 9:37 PM) All_In, you titled this thread, "Don't Be Fooled By The Israeli Regime..., not a Pal state but a bantustan." Now, I didn't know what a bantustan was, never heard that term before, so I checked it out at Wikipedia After reading what that it was a term created during the South Africa apartheid era, I just want to be clear. Are you saying that Israel is a colonial, imperialist, settler state comparable to apartheid South Africa?

name='All_In' date='Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009, 7:41 PM' post='3148099'"The word 'bantustan', today, is often used in a pejorative sense when describing a country or region that lacks any real legitimacy or power..."

First, you avoided giving a full answer, kindly answer the above bolded part.There are many countries or regions all over the world that lack any real legitimacy or power. Does that make them all comparable to aparthied Soth Africa? And why point out only this one?

[All_In 0]

First, you avoided giving a full answer, kindly answer the above bolded part.There are many countries or regions all over the world that lack any real legitimacy or power. Does that make them all comparable to aparthied Soth Africa? And why point out only this one?

avoided giving a full answer?! try reading what i posted, all your 'answers' are there..why did i only point out this one? uhhh, that was the main point of my post. just because there are other examples it does not diminish the horrors of this one.your bolded part:I just want to be clear. Are you saying that Israel is a colonial, imperialist, settler state comparable to apartheid South Africa?1. Colonial:"Colonialism is a practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another. One of the difficulties in defining colonialism is that it is difficult to distinguish it from imperialism. Frequently the two concepts are treated as synonyms. Like colonialism, imperialism also involves political and economic control over a dependent territory."- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy2. Imperialist:"Colonialism is a practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another. One of the difficulties in defining colonialism is that it is difficult to distinguish it from imperialism. Frequently the two concepts are treated as synonyms. Like colonialism, imperialism also involves political and economic control over a dependent territory."- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"Commonly associated with the policy of direct extension of sovereignty and dominion over non-contiguous and often distant overseas territories, it also denotes indirect political or economic control of powerful states over weaker peoples. Regarded also as a doctrine based on the use of deliberate force, imperialism has been subject to moral censure by its critics, and thus the term is frequently used in international propaganda as a pejorative for expansionist and aggressive foreign policy."- International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (second edition)3. Settler State:"Settler colonialism is a policy of conquering a land to send settlers in order to shape its demographic similarly as in the metropole."- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settler_colonialismI assume you are intelligent enough to connect the dots. Any other questions?

[All_In 0]

israel can't hide forever from the war crimes it committed:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090715/ap_on_...el_palestinians

[Jeepster80125 0]

israel can't hide forever from the war crimes it committed:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090715/ap_on_...el_palestinians

Oh, this looks fun. Let me try. OMG Palestine committed war crimes too! ZOMG!1!!!!1Obviously, any idiot can go find a link to reflect the viewpoint that you appreciate.Have you ever considered hanging around long enough to actually participate in a discussion here? It seems like your MO is to just post articles or links, or excerpts from articles and blogs you like, then leave without defending your point of view. Are you scared you won't be able to keep up? Are you intimidated by smart regular posters like Henry? I'm just curious why you seem so scared to discuss your views with everyone.