Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Yamato

Who are Palestinians?

452 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Yamato

Jewish prostitutes, drug dealers, butchers, bakers and postmen get on with there lives many who are not political at all and quiet a few who oppose the government's actions, then you have the fanatics who steal land want to suppress palestinians, this becomes very tedious having to explain every post, why don't you do some research and come back when you au fait with the subject.

Because as I've made repeatedly clear, I'm not interesting in chopping people up. What purpose would my doing research serve? If you can't even identify who you're talking about, I will leave this here as not important enough to pay any further attention to.

The problem is the policy, and by extension those who support that policy. How many of these people are "Jews" is absolutely meaningless to me and should be to you too. I don't need to address or research anyone, any group, or any sub-group based on their religion or their ethnicity in order to know the difference between right and wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Yes i would and be just as condemning if they used 14 year old suicide bombers.

Again, unfortunately for your disturbing defense of a yet-baseless and still racist comment, there were no suicide bombers for Golda Meir to speak of so please find something else to justify her nasty remark that you like so much.

You've got over 800,000 children in a total population of 1.5 million in Gaza, making Israel's international crimes even more appalling than I've already established. How old does someone have to be before they're endowed with the right to fight back against their oppressors? I'm not condoning the tactic, I'm only asking because you keep bringing up the age of 14, as if that makes the difference. As if, a 28-year old suicide bomber acceptable to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

name='Knight Of Shadows' timestamp='1324343049' post='4149885']

hetrodoxly hey there

You really don't know about this? search the net, Palastinian childrens tv is full of it.

You need to see what the rest of the world is being shown.

Did you not see my link showing the 14 year old suicide bomber, it's incredibly sad the poor lad didn't want to die.

To deny the fascist ideology in Palestine is stupid, when The Grand mufti of Jerusalem (Yasser Arafat's uncle) Haj Amin Husseini deserted his Muslim waffen SS troops to avoid being hung in Nuremberg he fled to Palestine taking Nazi officials with him, he held a council of the Muslim brotherhood not on how to make peace with the Jews not on how to make war with the Jews but would it be possible to carry on the extermination of the Jews this ideology lives on in hamas, mien kampf is still a best seller in Palestine.

So now it's Haj Amin Husseini that justifies Israeli policy? You discredit yourself sir. Menachem Begin, like any other Israeli monster, is no excuse to deprive Israelis of their human rights today. What nerve to present such a pathetic double standard of behavior here. The only consistency in your participation here has been in dredging up more anti-Arab sludge in attempt after attempt to whitewash Zionist crimes. Someone else with your mindset may come along and trade internet poo with you ad nauseum and like you they'll be completely missing the point. Your Zionist bait and switch was already preempted in my original post because I've seen it all before. Nobody else's sins from the past excuse the sins of today in Palestine that we must work together to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory

I don't believe he's trying to 'whitewash Zionist crimes'. He's simply providing the other side of the story to ensure that the full context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is told in this thread. Simply put, the situation is incredibly complex and you present a rather one sided account of it.

There's no denying the Israelis have done horrible things, but to deny the broader context in which these things have occurred is dishonest.

*edit*

just to expand with my views of the conflict. The PA and HAMAS need to basically give up the violent resistance movement. It has gotten them nowhere and cost a lot of Palestinian lives in the process. All the talk and support from the Arab world has little to do with improving the lot of the Palestinians and everything about sticking it to the Jews. We've all seen how the Arabs treat the Palestinians and the sooner the Palestinians realize they are the useful idiots for the regional despots, the better for them and Israel. Israel will never make concessions while the threat of violence persists.

Edited by bathory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly

Again, unfortunately for your disturbing defense of a yet-baseless and still racist comment, there were no suicide bombers for Golda Meir to speak of so please find something else to justify her nasty remark that you like so much.

You've got over 800,000 children in a total population of 1.5 million in Gaza, making Israel's international crimes even more appalling than I've already established. How old does someone have to be before they're endowed with the right to fight back against their oppressors? I'm not condoning the tactic, I'm only asking because you keep bringing up the age of 14, as if that makes the difference. As if, a 28-year old suicide bomber acceptable to you?

What type of parent lets or even encourages their 14 year old child kill themselves, what parent could stop their 28 year old doing the same? you need to be capable of seeing the bigger picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly

So now it's Haj Amin Husseini that justifies Israeli policy? You discredit yourself sir. Menachem Begin, like any other Israeli monster, is no excuse to deprive Israelis of their human rights today. What nerve to present such a pathetic double standard of behavior here. The only consistency in your participation here has been in dredging up more anti-Arab sludge in attempt after attempt to whitewash Zionist crimes. Someone else with your mindset may come along and trade internet poo with you ad nauseum and like you they'll be completely missing the point. Your Zionist bait and switch was already preempted in my original post because I've seen it all before. Nobody else's sins from the past excuse the sins of today in Palestine that we must work together to stop.

You're doing exactly what you accuse me of, your so blinded you can't see both sides of the problem and to think sitting behind a computer theorising without taking history into account is worth anything makes you incredibly naive.

What's happened to your normal spiel, "leave them alone if they want to chop off heads that's their business, have sex with children, that's their culture, bury people alive their laws nothing to do with us" you need to add a caveat to your future posts "unless they're Jewish"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly

I don't believe he's trying to 'whitewash Zionist crimes'. He's simply providing the other side of the story to ensure that the full context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is told in this thread. Simply put, the situation is incredibly complex and you present a rather one sided account of it.

There's no denying the Israelis have done horrible things, but to deny the broader context in which these things have occurred is dishonest.

*edit*

just to expand with my views of the conflict. The PA and HAMAS need to basically give up the violent resistance movement. It has gotten them nowhere and cost a lot of Palestinian lives in the process. All the talk and support from the Arab world has little to do with improving the lot of the Palestinians and everything about sticking it to the Jews. We've all seen how the Arabs treat the Palestinians and the sooner the Palestinians realize they are the useful idiots for the regional despots, the better for them and Israel. Israel will never make concessions while the threat of violence persists.

I agree, also hypocrisy at it's worse, the racist word fired with abandon but think Jews have no right to this luxury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I don't believe he's trying to 'whitewash Zionist crimes'. He's simply providing the other side of the story to ensure that the full context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is told in this thread. Simply put, the situation is incredibly complex and you present a rather one sided account of it.

There's no denying the Israelis have done horrible things, but to deny the broader context in which these things have occurred is dishonest.

*edit*

just to expand with my views of the conflict. The PA and HAMAS need to basically give up the violent resistance movement. It has gotten them nowhere and cost a lot of Palestinian lives in the process. All the talk and support from the Arab world has little to do with improving the lot of the Palestinians and everything about sticking it to the Jews. We've all seen how the Arabs treat the Palestinians and the sooner the Palestinians realize they are the useful idiots for the regional despots, the better for them and Israel. Israel will never make concessions while the threat of violence persists.

No, I'm biased against liberty being violated to perpetuity. If Israelis were suffering with the same, my account wouldn't be one sided. The last thing I'm going to do is agree that some 50/50 split in the rhetoric between "sides" is what's fair minded. I'm not picking a side, I'm picking freedom. Since "the Arabs" aren't encroaching on Palestinian territory and denying Palestinians their human rights, "the Arabs" have nothing to do with this topic. The need to talk about "the Arabs" in the interest of fairness is fascinating nevertheless. All states will have border salience and security concerns. All states have sovereignty. But not over someone else's territory. That is war once you step over that line. So people who focus on the behavior of Palestinians in this issue are dealing up a bad case of double standard and I hope I've made that clear by now once you read through the thread.

It's a misplaced Utopia and a deliberate progress killer to ask for the impossible that "the threat of violence" not exist. The threat of violence always exists. If I demanded the same of my neighbors or leaders and denied their human rights in response to threats, what kind of extremist would I be? Americans are being killed on the Mexican border. The threat of violence exists. What kind of beast would agree to such policies in response to that? You'd have severe resistance if you tried pulling that crime off on Mexico's borders and it'd start with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

What type of parent lets or even encourages their 14 year old child kill themselves, what parent could stop their 28 year old doing the same? you need to be capable of seeing the bigger picture.

Desperate. Hopeless. Depressed. Mentally ill. PTSD. Shell-shocked. Dehumanized.

The difference between me and you is, I answer your questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

You're doing exactly what you accuse me of, your so blinded you can't see both sides of the problem and to think sitting behind a computer theorising without taking history into account is worth anything makes you incredibly naive.

What's happened to your normal spiel, "leave them alone if they want to chop off heads that's their business, have sex with children, that's their culture, bury people alive their laws nothing to do with us" you need to add a caveat to your future posts "unless they're Jewish"

Here you go again trying to hijack the discussion into "sides". "Sides" are for children. When you understand the issues better, you'll know that Israelis are on my side. and Arabs are not. Some Arabs want war, those are not on my side. Some Israelis want Palestinians released from their bondage at the hands of their Israeli oppressors. So you're not drawing the "sides" correctly at all. So no, I'm not going to agree with your errors which now include your assessment of me. Your "sides" are meaningless to focus on. All they do is stall the discussion so no progress is made; they have no useful purpose. I've asked why you do this, and like all my other questions, you couldn't answer.

And you're still trying this baseless Zionist tactic of assigning "Jewish" to my arguments. If you were honest enough to handle my arguments and were capable of reading what I've said for several pages now, you'd notice there's nothing "Jewish" about them. That's your job. That's your nasty need you feel compelled to introduce. Talking about what's "Jewish" is the Israeli government's job. And apparently people who've come here and stepped in it trying to defend their policies.

I see "the problem" and I don't see Israelis being forcibly denied their civil liberties and human rights by "the Arabs" or any other ethnicity you'll want to talk about. This topic is "Who are the Palestinians?" If that wasn't already loud and clear what this topic of discussion was going to be, then I don't know how you're ever going to learn that fact or even let yourself accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly

Desperate. Hopeless. Depressed. Mentally ill. PTSD. Shell-shocked. Dehumanized.

The difference between me and you is, I answer your questions.

No, and no again there's no excuse, consider the blitzkrieg in Germany and England during ww2, worse than anything seen in Palestine, people become closer and look after each other more in these dire situations did you know that some terminally ill patents in England offered to sacrifice their lives in Nazi Germany but the government wouldn't let them do it.

I answer ones that aren't repeating myself or ones you should know the answer to if your taking part in this debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

No, and no again there's no excuse, consider the blitzkrieg in Germany and England during ww2, worse than anything seen in Palestine, people become closer and look after each other more in these dire situations did you know that some terminally ill patents in England offered to sacrifice their lives in Nazi Germany but the government wouldn't let them do it.

I answer ones that aren't repeating myself or ones you should know the answer to if your taking part in this debate.

There you go again. Look at this sin over here! It's worse than that sin over there you were talking about! Read my original post. I could smell you coming from miles away.

If I'm taking part? This is my thread. Obviously I'm taking part. And your questions get answered, mine do not. You've barely answered one yet.

No, what? No they're not dehumanized? No, a suicidal person isn't depressed? You asked a question. Your question gets answered. You don't like the answer so you deny it, and yet still provide no answer to your own question yourself? The answer is, the kind of parent whose rights are being denied with no hope of getting them back.

Your emotional need to slander an entire ethnicity of people to defend their collective punishment is the reason why this discussion got posted in the first place.

I ask you to go back to the point you entered into this discussion and answer all of my questions from that point onward. Then you'll be meeting the minimum requirement of having a debate here.

You've now placed yourself in the unenviable position of defending one of the worst cases of human rights deprivation in the world today. And based on your need to continue talking about "the Arabs" and "the Jews" which is just what I warned about not doing since the very beginning, it appears clearer to me that your motivation is bigotry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory
I'm not picking a side, I'm picking freedom.

well no, you aren't. You are picking a side.

You aren't looking at why things are the way they are, and consequently coming to a solution. There is a broader context to the conflict regardless of whether or not you wish to acknowledge it.

Since "the Arabs" aren't encroaching on Palestinian territory and denying Palestinians their human rights, "the Arabs" have nothing to do with this topic.

I disagree, "the Arabs" are a big influence driver for the conflict and the role "the Arabs" have on the direction of the conflict is a big one.

All states will have border salience and security concerns. All states have sovereignty. But not over someone else's territory. That is war once you step over that line. So people who focus on the behavior of Palestinians in this issue are dealing up a bad case of double standard and I hope I've made that clear by now once you read through the thread.

I don't think anyone is wanting to focus on the behaviour of the Palestinians, its more that the thread started off with a very "Palestinians good, Israel bad" dichotomy which isn't particularly helpful

It's a misplaced Utopia and a deliberate progress killer to ask for the impossible that "the threat of violence" not exist. The threat of violence always exists. If I demanded the same of my neighbors or leaders and denied their human rights in response to threats, what kind of extremist would I be? Americans are being killed on the Mexican border. The threat of violence exists. What kind of beast would agree to such policies in response to that? You'd have severe resistance if you tried pulling that crime off on Mexico's borders and it'd start with me.

your reference to the Mexican border situation has little relevance to what is being discussed. The threat of violence from Palestine is state sanctioned, this changes things completely. Unless Federalis (is that what they are called?) or state-sponsored militias are taking shots at Americans over the border? I'm not Ami so my understanding of the border situation isn't the best, but I was under the impression that it was basically a Narco-Insurgency on the border that the Mexican government is actively trying to combat. Obviously with regards to the Palestinian conflict we can then go back a good 70 years to try and work out who cast the first stone but again we come back to the general theme of this being completely unhelpful to the peace process.

I see "the problem" and I don't see Israelis being forcibly denied their civil liberties and human rights by "the Arabs" or any other ethnicity you'll want to talk about.

I guess ironically, many (now) Israelis suffered the same fate as the Palestinians did

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

well no, you aren't. You are picking a side.

You aren't looking at why things are the way they are, and consequently coming to a solution. There is a broader context to the conflict regardless of whether or not you wish to acknowledge it.

I disagree, "the Arabs" are a big influence driver for the conflict and the role "the Arabs" have on the direction of the conflict is a big one.

I don't think anyone is wanting to focus on the behaviour of the Palestinians, its more that the thread started off with a very "Palestinians good, Israel bad" dichotomy which isn't particularly helpful

your reference to the Mexican border situation has little relevance to what is being discussed. The threat of violence from Palestine is state sanctioned, this changes things completely. Unless Federalis (is that what they are called?) or state-sponsored militias are taking shots at Americans over the border? I'm not Ami so my understanding of the border situation isn't the best, but I was under the impression that it was basically a Narco-Insurgency on the border that the Mexican government is actively trying to combat. Obviously with regards to the Palestinian conflict we can then go back a good 70 years to try and work out who cast the first stone but again we come back to the general theme of this being completely unhelpful to the peace process.

I guess ironically, many (now) Israelis suffered the same fate as the Palestinians did

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

You aren't looking at why things are the way they are, and consequently coming to a solution. There is a broader context to the conflict regardless of whether or not you wish to acknowledge it.

Wrong, I'm willing to entertain the reasons why, and I keep asking for the reason that you think justifies the policy? And I don't get any answers. Throwing crap on the wall and seeing what sticks doesn't cut it. Crap won't stick here. So what is the broader context that justifies the illegal immoral collective punishment of a people for the actions of the few or the rhetoric of a bureaucrat?

I disagree, "the Arabs" are a big influence driver for the conflict and the role "the Arabs" have on the direction of the conflict is a big one.

You haven't even begun to make the case how an ethnicity is responsible for Israeli policy or why an ethnicity's actions, however bad in your mind, is justification for that policy.

I don't think anyone is wanting to focus on the behaviour of the Palestinians, its more that the thread started off with a very "Palestinians good, Israel bad" dichotomy which isn't particularly helpful

No, the thread started off with a very - Palestinians are human beings, and need no greater sense of good than anyone else; Israeli policy is inhuman, evil, immoral, illegal, and intolerable. How can anyone support the brutal denial of ANYONE'S liberty, EVEN the horrible Arabs and Palestinians.

your reference to the Mexican border situation has little relevance to what is being discussed. The threat of violence from Palestine is state sanctioned, this changes things completely. Unless Federalis (is that what they are called?) or state-sponsored militias are taking shots at Americans over the border? I'm not Ami so my understanding of the border situation isn't the best, but I was under the impression that it was basically a Narco-Insurgency on the border that the Mexican government is actively trying to combat. Obviously with regards to the Palestinian conflict we can then go back a good 70 years to try and work out who cast the first stone but again we come back to the general theme of this being completely unhelpful to the peace process.

The examples I can derive to form a single standard of how human beings deal with "the threat of violence" are infinite. And you are insisting on rife hypocrisy to try to dictate to me that Palestinians aren't allowed to use violence. Where does that double standard come from? If you want everyone to swear off the use of violence on each other in this region, stop denying human rights in perpetuity. It's ridiculous to expect that to continue, let alone defend it, and at the same time having this idealistic world without the threat of violence in it to have any chance at all. Asking for the ridiculous/impossible is always a sure way of stalling progress though, so in that you've made a contribution.

Seeing who cast the first stone is an exercise of blame. Blaming is useless and does not have a part in justifying the denial of human rights. Palestinians are human beings. They are endowed with their human rights. That's the standard. If you can't apply that single standard for all human beings, and keep trying to argue around it, or argue in spite of it, then there will be no chance for agreement here.

I guess ironically, many (now) Israelis suffered the same fate as the Palestinians did

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

Israelis? LOL Israeli does NOT equal "Jewish"! The old Zionist bait and switch rears its nasty head again. Ancient history is wonderfully interesting but is that what justifies Israeli policy? Palestinians' human rights are being forcibly denied right now. If you can accept that, for whatever reason you're going to slap on the wall next, then our differences are irreconcilable and I'll save you some time by letting you know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Anti-semitism in the world, which in its worst practices denied Jews their human rights, is no excuse for doing the exact same thing to Palestinians today. That is the most self-damning hypocritical excuse I've seen yet to attempt to draw me into accepting such denials against Palestinians or any other ethnic group, religion, creed, color, gender, nationality, or any other demographic of humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory
Wrong, I'm willing to entertain the reasons why, and I keep asking for the reason that you think justifies the policy?

the policy is a rather broad term, when I think it would be better discussed as a variety of different policies...

eg why does Israel restrict the movement of goods into the Gaza Strip? To impose what amounts to basically economic sanctions upon the Palestinian government and attempt to limit the number of rockets being produced/smuggled into Palestinian territory and fired into Israel. Why are the rockets fired? Because etc etc

It all boils back to Israel's existence as a state (just as legitimate as pretty much any of the surrounding states with their recently defined boundaries).

So what is the broader context that justifies the illegal immoral collective punishment of a people for the actions of the few or the rhetoric of a bureaucrat?

This is the stark reality of any conflict ever. Any reaction by Israel upon the Palestinian 'establishment' would result in illegal immoral collective punishment. I think you do need to be a bit more specific though, for example the blockade of Gaza has been found to be perfectly legal by the UN.

You haven't even begun to make the case how an ethnicity is responsible for Israeli policy or why an ethnicity's actions, however bad in your mind, is justification for that policy.

I'm using Arab as a generic term for the surrounding Arab nation states (hell I'll admit I'm being lazy, add the Persians, Egyptians and Turks to the list too), I thought that was quite clear...are you suggesting the policies and rhetoric flowing out of Syria for example are not an influence driver on the conflict shaping how not just the Palestinians act but the Israelis too?

The examples I can derive to form a single standard of how human beings deal with "the threat of violence" are infinite

well perhaps you should have used a relevant example instead of mexico...

And you are insisting on rife hypocrisy to try to dictate to me that Palestinians aren't allowed to use violence.

at no point did I ever say the Palestinians aren't allowed to use violence. I believe I've made it clear that violence is a dumb response and the Palestinians need to be smarter about how they go about dealing with Israel. Its as simple as that. In fact there is another thread discussing an article suggesting that HAMAS and the PA have come to this same conclusion.

which leads into your next portion

It's ridiculous to expect that to continue, let alone defend it, and at the same time having this idealistic world without the threat of violence in it to have any chance at all. Asking for the ridiculous/impossible is always a sure way of stalling progress though, so in that you've made a contribution.

except that its not ridiculous. It just takes a little more effort on the part of the Palestinians. There is never going to be a solution to the conflict through arms. It just won't happen (short of provoking a massive over reaction from Israel and drawing the entire region into war). I think I also made it clear that I don't expect there to be no violence, I'm talking about state sanctioned violence. There is a big difference between some random Palestinian taking shots accross the border to HAMAS affiliates lobbing rockets built in Iran over into Israel with HAMAS either openly supporting them or ignoring them.

Seeing who cast the first stone is an exercise of blame. Blaming is useless and does not have a part in justifying the denial of human rights. Palestinians are human beings. They are endowed with their human rights. That's the standard. If you can't apply that single standard for all human beings, and keep trying to argue around it, or argue in spite of it, then there will be no chance for agreement here.

the implication being that there aren't legal means to deny someone their human rights, protip there are.

Israelis? LOL Israeli does NOT equal "Jewish"! The old Zionist bait and switch rears its nasty head again. Ancient history is wonderfully interesting but is that what justifies Israeli policy? Palestinians' human rights are being forcibly denied right now. If you can accept that, for whatever reason you're going to slap on the wall next, then our differences are irreconcilable and I'll save you some time by letting you know that.

Jews expelled from their homes

possessions confiscated by the state

forced to move to Israel

not allowed to return or in the event that they could actual return they face persecution

The only difference is that the Israeli government looked after its refugees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
eg why does Israel restrict the movement of goods into the Gaza Strip? To impose what amounts to basically economic sanctions upon the Palestinian government and attempt to limit the number of rockets being produced/smuggled into Palestinian territory and fired into Israel. Why are the rockets fired? Because etc etc

This is nonsense. The siege of Gaza has very little to nothing to do with rocket fire. Israel do not care about rocket fire, a fact evident from their breaking of the ceasefire on Nov 4th 2008. Israel's govt (high level officials) and their own internal documents have clarified that (and I have posted the details of his on here before) the reason for the blockade is simply to undermine and weaken Hamas, split Palestine effectively in two (severing unity and weakening the movement), both politically and economically, so as to ensure that there ends up in Palestine no unified people, making their bid for statehood as difficult as possible.

This obviously failed.

for example the blockade of Gaza has been found to be perfectly legal by the UN.

This is untrue and a blinding example of the nonsensical propaganda that surrounds this situation. First (and I'm quite surprised by how many times I need to clarify this on here), the blockade was not deemed legal in that ONE UN report: the naval blockade was deemed so. And the report was worded to make it explicitly clear that he naval blockade was the centre of the investigation and not the actual blockade.

Not only this, but there have been countless (dozens or so) of reports which deem the blockade ILLEGAL. Not least of which the one released almost immediately after the one that you seem to think was more than just a judgement on the naval blockade. Oh how that report was latched onto by pro Israel numpties (no offence) and propagated almost perpetually.

lobbing rockets built in Iran

Are you honestly claiming that the home made bottle rockets were built in Iran? If they had been, I think he 0.001 ratio (if it is even as high as that) of rockets to deaths would be a little higher.

forced to move to Israel

They were not forced to move to Israel. In fact they were discouraged (by a least he British) and offered land in at least two other (more arable) countries.

Edited by expandmymind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

It's also more than a passing curiosity how suicide bombings which didn't start until 1989 is what's used to defend Golda Meir's comments about "Arab love for their children" made in 1957. Obviously something else that's pre-1957 will be necessary to even attempt to verify the accuracy of her disgusting racist comment.

This single statement completely and utterly destroys the credibility of any of those who have latched on to the Golda Meir quote.

I would love to see how this could be justified pre-'57, or even post-'89. Even after those dates, it really doesn't hold up. A couple of child suicide bombing attempts (that it is highly unlikely were even sanctioned in an official capacity) simply does not even come close to backing up the horrendously racist comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

the policy is a rather broad term, when I think it would be better discussed as a variety of different policies...

eg why does Israel restrict the movement of goods into the Gaza Strip? To impose what amounts to basically economic sanctions upon the Palestinian government and attempt to limit the number of rockets being produced/smuggled into Palestinian territory and fired into Israel. Why are the rockets fired? Because etc etc

It all boils back to Israel's existence as a state (just as legitimate as pretty much any of the surrounding states with their recently defined boundaries).

This is the stark reality of any conflict ever. Any reaction by Israel upon the Palestinian 'establishment' would result in illegal immoral collective punishment. I think you do need to be a bit more specific though, for example the blockade of Gaza has been found to be perfectly legal by the UN.

I'm using Arab as a generic term for the surrounding Arab nation states (hell I'll admit I'm being lazy, add the Persians, Egyptians and Turks to the list too), I thought that was quite clear...are you suggesting the policies and rhetoric flowing out of Syria for example are not an influence driver on the conflict shaping how not just the Palestinians act but the Israelis too?

well perhaps you should have used a relevant example instead of mexico...

at no point did I ever say the Palestinians aren't allowed to use violence. I believe I've made it clear that violence is a dumb response and the Palestinians need to be smarter about how they go about dealing with Israel. Its as simple as that. In fact there is another thread discussing an article suggesting that HAMAS and the PA have come to this same conclusion.

which leads into your next portion

except that its not ridiculous. It just takes a little more effort on the part of the Palestinians. There is never going to be a solution to the conflict through arms. It just won't happen (short of provoking a massive over reaction from Israel and drawing the entire region into war). I think I also made it clear that I don't expect there to be no violence, I'm talking about state sanctioned violence. There is a big difference between some random Palestinian taking shots accross the border to HAMAS affiliates lobbing rockets built in Iran over into Israel with HAMAS either openly supporting them or ignoring them.

the implication being that there aren't legal means to deny someone their human rights, protip there are.

Jews expelled from their homes

possessions confiscated by the state

forced to move to Israel

not allowed to return or in the event that they could actual return they face persecution

The only difference is that the Israeli government looked after its refugees.

the policy is a rather broad term, when I think it would be better discussed as a variety of different policies...

The policy is human rights deprivation. You're going to break that evil down into components in another attempt to justify it? So that's what justifies it now? The individual reasons for its component parts? You're all over the road. The rationality of rationalizing the denial of human rights of any people, is the rationalization of Adolf Hitler. If someone asked me what I would expect the Devil to do if the Devil came to Earth, that would be it.

eg why does Israel restrict the movement of goods into the Gaza Strip? To impose what amounts to basically economic sanctions upon the Palestinian government and attempt to limit the number of rockets being produced/smuggled into Palestinian territory and fired into Israel. Why are the rockets fired? Because etc etc

Was Israeli policy acceptable before the rockets were fired? Is Israeli policy acceptable while the rockets are fired? Is Israeli policy only acceptable after the rockets are fired, hence the reason why you're bringing "rockets" up as the next excuse to justify the policy? Is Israeli policy acceptable if no rockets are fired for a certain length of time? What length of time are you going to be the judge on and arbitrarily decide?

The discussion here is about Palestinians but now you're talking about Gaza so we'll now have a protracted discussion about Gaza. Your command of the facts is very poor when you consider the goods that are banned from import into Gaza. Israel has very good reasons to deny the Palestinians in Gaza the ridiculous list of goods that it does, unfortunately those reasons have precious little to do with Israel's "security". If "rockets" were the excuse to impose the policy Israel is imposing on Gaza, then the other places from which rockets have been fired into Israel would be just as important as Gaza to impose those same policies. But as you well know brutal sieges cutting off an economy as we have in Gaza isn't being practiced elsewhere. So there's no consistency there for you to get away with justifying a brutal siege is only necessary in Gaza because of rockets.

Incidentally, rifles are far more deadly than these rockets will ever hope to be. And I have no problem with Palestinians having rifles as I don't have any problem with Israelis having rifles as I don't have any problem with human beings having rifles. Again there's a single standard for all of humanity, not yet another double standard you seek to impose to belittle the humanity of your less favorite group.

It all boils back to Israel's existence as a state (just as legitimate as pretty much any of the surrounding states with their recently defined boundaries).

I'm not calling into question Israel's existence as a state. What I've discussed and shown you here isn't happening within the state of Israel. I'm telling you that Israel has no right to deprive the human rights of anyone in the course of their existence. Nobody has the right to do that.

This is the stark reality of any conflict ever. Any reaction by Israel upon the Palestinian 'establishment' would result in illegal immoral collective punishment. I think you do need to be a bit more specific though, for example the blockade of Gaza has been found to be perfectly legal by the UN

Source, please. You either have a poor command of the facts or a weak need for dishonesty in this pretension that human rights can be violated under circumstances you or Israeli bureaucrats can cherry pick. Lowering myself to this discussion with you about how depriving a land of mostly children of their human rights is unacceptable is nothing short of sickening. You must have no concept of liberty to be this incapable of acknowledging my standard.

I'm using Arab as a generic term for the surrounding Arab nation states (hell I'll admit I'm being lazy, add the Persians, Egyptians and Turks to the list too), I thought that was quite clear...are you suggesting the policies and rhetoric flowing out of Syria for example are not an influence driver on the conflict shaping how not just the Palestinians act but the Israelis too?

No that wasn't clear at all when you return with a new excuse to explain away the deprivation of human rights every single reply or paragraph you write! So now Syria justifies Israeli policy now? Does anything not justify Israeli policy?

well perhaps you should have used a relevant example instead of mexico...

Nonsense. It's not irrelevant because when you learn how to have a single standard for all of humanity, then every conceivable human example is relevant.

at no point did I ever say the Palestinians aren't allowed to use violence.

Of course you did, at the point that you attempted to start defending Israeli policy. Otherwise show me where Israel allowed Palestinians to use violence against the deprivation of their rights? But let's pretend for a moment that you're not defending Israeli policy, how should Palestinians be allowed to use violence?

I believe I've made it clear that violence is a dumb response and the Palestinians need to be smarter about how they go about dealing with Israel. Its as simple as that. In fact there is another thread discussing an article suggesting that HAMAS and the PA have come to this same conclusion.

You haven't made that clear at all and if it's as simple as that, it's yet another double standard. Violence is "dumb" for the Palestinians so now it's time to chop even violence up into groups to support your group-think. Now there's two different kinds of violence playing on each other. That's the problem with hypocrisy. It exposes another double standard every time it tries to justify itself. Let's presume that Hamas and Fatah have indeed come to that conclusion, will that no longer justify Israel's policies?

except that its not ridiculous. It just takes a little more effort on the part of the Palestinians.

It's so ridiculous, it's fantasy. A little more? What's a little more? What's "effort"? A little more submission and a little less resistance? Some changes in a sentence or a piece of rhetoric? Tell me about the effort that needs to be applied here so millions of people are finally given their rights by their masters from a foreign government, as if we have no clue where rights come from.

It just won't happen (short of provoking a massive over reaction from Israel and drawing the entire region into war). I think I also made it clear that I don't expect there to be no violence, I'm talking about state sanctioned violence. There is a big difference between some random Palestinian taking shots accross the border to HAMAS affiliates lobbing rockets built in Iran over into Israel with HAMAS either openly supporting them or ignoring them.

The solution also isn't perpetual violation of international law, ethnic cleansing, and collective punishment, whether in the face of cherry-picked concerns over violence, dumb vs. smart violence, and/or no violence at all. While you're so busy indicating to me what the solution isn't, and refusing to agree with me that the long list of un-solutions includes forcibly denying liberty of people with violent military action, you need to understand what really matters here. It is policy that matters. It is policy that counts. And when I use the word policy, I am obviously referring to actions that are, by definition, state-sanctioned.

the implication being that there aren't legal means to deny someone their human rights, protip there are.

So you think it's the law now that excuses Israeli policy? Excuse me, but what Israel is doing is not legal sir. If the Nazis took over the world, denying millions their human rights would be legal, I'm quite sure. Fortunately, my brave nation of freedom-loving liberty defenders went across the ocean once again and saved the world from such a wretched legality. But yet it still rears its ugly head in Israeli policy today.

Jews expelled from their homes

possessions confiscated by the state

forced to move to Israel

not allowed to return or in the event that they could actual return they face persecution

The only difference is that the Israeli government looked after its refugees.

So it's the Holocaust now that justifies Israeli policy? Is there anything that does not justify it? I don't even accept your description here but giving it the benefit of the doubt, using that as a justification for doing it again to someone else is repeating the same evil. There is no greater disrespect to the memory of all who lost their lives in the Holocaust than for people like you to defend Israel's brutality towards Palestinians. It's a shameful hypocrisy of the worst kind.

Edited by Yamato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

actually that comment wasn't about israel .. we don't have embassy for them here

it was about iran ... they're sending men and weapons and by doing that they share responsability with the current goverment

in killing civilians in the recent events here so there's no hatred in the subject you've got it wrong that comment was about different

issue as part of the question erix asked about iran

perhaps you should read the bible that said " thou shall not kill " :P

what would you say about them killing us in our own country eh ? am no holy man but i know right from wrong .. do you ?

beside you've picked the last comment from my whole post that refer to an entirely different matter perhaps you should at least

comment on the main issue so i could stay on track of topic and not post like this a whole post on whole different issue

and yes .. we still gonna bring down the embassy on their head when it's done :P

it's the least of justice for what they have done i'll remind you here on this forum when this happens ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Sorry maybe I missed your main point. I realize english is a second language for you but I had trouble following all you said. You believe Israel and Iran are allied to divide control of the mid east and when it fails, Syrians will destroy the Iranian embassy.

Never intended to argue with you. I was just saying that Isaiah 17 predicts that Damascus will be COMPLETELY destroyed overnight. That has never happened before so it WILL happen in the future. If I lived in a city that was going to be made a heap of ruins I'd be careful about being happy about destroying someone else's embassy even Iran's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory

This is nonsense. The siege of Gaza has very little to nothing to do with rocket fire. Israel do not care about rocket fire, a fact evident from their breaking of the ceasefire on Nov 4th 2008. Israel's govt (high level officials) and their own internal documents have clarified that (and I have posted the details of his on here before) the reason for the blockade is simply to undermine and weaken Hamas, split Palestine effectively in two (severing unity and weakening the movement), both politically and economically, so as to ensure that there ends up in Palestine no unified people, making their bid for statehood as difficult as possible.

This obviously failed.

I thought I made that aspect clear via sanctions against the Palestinian government...thats what sanctions do, though I'd like to see the documents that claim its to hinder a bid for statehood.

This is untrue and a blinding example of the nonsensical propaganda that surrounds this situation. First (and I'm quite surprised by how many times I need to clarify this on here), the blockade was not deemed legal in that ONE UN report: the naval blockade was deemed so. And the report was worded to make it explicitly clear that he naval blockade was the centre of the investigation and not the actual blockade.

Not only this, but there have been countless (dozens or so) of reports which deem the blockade ILLEGAL. Not least of which the one released almost immediately after the one that you seem to think was more than just a judgement on the naval blockade. Oh how that report was latched onto by pro Israel numpties (no offence) and propagated almost perpetually.

My bad, I was refering to the naval blockade. I think siege is a better term for the broader policy and would have used it (in much the way you refer to the Siege of Gaza) to describe the entire thing. But it is of course interesting how fluid legal and illegal are when it comes to international law...

Are you honestly claiming that the home made bottle rockets were built in Iran? If they had been, I think he 0.001 ratio (if it is even as high as that) of rockets to deaths would be a little higher.

Bottle rockets? Really? At least be honest in your characterization of the Palestinian rockets.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-qassam.htm

HAMAS make use of Iranian made rockets that are smuggled into the strip and produce their own domestically.

They were not forced to move to Israel. In fact they were discouraged (by a least he British) and offered land in at least two other (more arable) countries.

really? So Libyan Jews that were 'encouraged' to leave in the 1960s were offered land in at least two other countries? I think you are confused about what I'm talking about. I wasn't discussing the holocaust. I was talking about the persecution and expulsion of Jews throughout the Muslim lands in the middle east. Strange that local jewish populations who aren't Israeli would suffer throughout the region, I though people just didn't like the Israelis...

Now I assume you are talking about the formation of Israel. How is the solution of other countries any different to the current one? How would such a state be any more legitimate than the current one, especially when we consider that pretty much all the borders in the middle east as they exist today are a recent post colonial invention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory

The policy is human rights deprivation. You're going to break that evil down into components in another attempt to justify it? So that's what justifies it now? The individual reasons for its component parts? You're all over the road. The rationality of rationalizing the denial of human rights of any people, is the rationalization of Adolf Hitler. If someone asked me what I would expect the Devil to do if the Devil came to Earth, that would be it.

The policy isn't human rights deprivation, its a series of policies that in effect may or may not have the impact of depriving Palestinians of their human rights amongst achieving other things, of which can be legally done under certain circumstances.

Was Israeli policy acceptable before the rockets were fired? Is Israeli policy acceptable while the rockets are fired? Is Israeli policy only acceptable after the rockets are fired, hence the reason why you're bringing "rockets" up as the next excuse to justify the policy? Is Israeli policy acceptable if no rockets are fired for a certain length of time? What length of time are you going to be the judge on and arbitrarily decide?

Rockets is obviously a blanket term, I'm talking about acts with the intention of perpetrating violence against Israels civilian population. Be it rockets, suicide bombers, gunmen etc

The discussion here is about Palestinians but now you're talking about Gaza so we'll now have a protracted discussion about Gaza. Your command of the facts is very poor when you consider the goods that are banned from import into Gaza. Israel has very good reasons to deny the Palestinians in Gaza the ridiculous list of goods that it does, unfortunately those reasons have precious little to do with Israel's "security".

except that it does...the blockade is an attempt to do at least two things, enforce sanctions against the government in GAZA and limit the supply of weaponry into the region. Note, TWO THINGS (there are probably more reasons why too). The West did the same thing to Iraq and there are a bunch of countries today that face sanctions to varying degrees. For examples, see link

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/Programs.aspx

If "rockets" were the excuse to impose the policy Israel is imposing on Gaza, then the other places from which rockets have been fired into Israel would be just as important as Gaza to impose those same policies. But as you well know brutal sieges cutting off an economy as we have in Gaza isn't being practiced elsewhere. So there's no consistency there for you to get away with justifying a brutal siege is only necessary in Gaza because of rockets.

well no. This is an absurd statement. Israel (and Egypt) are able to conduct the 'siege' and blockade upon Gaza due to geography and military power. There would be no way for Israel to enforce meaningful economic sanctions against Lebanon for example (due to rockets fired from southern lebanon), so why would they bother? Why would consistency come into it at all?

Incidentally, rifles are far more deadly than these rockets will ever hope to be. And I have no problem with Palestinians having rifles as I don't have any problem with Israelis having rifles as I don't have any problem with human beings having rifles. Again there's a single standard for all of humanity, not yet another double standard you seek to impose to belittle the humanity of your less favorite group.

I don't quite get your point...are you saying its ok for Israel and the Palestinians to have rifles and shoot at each other? That's a single standard?

What an odd statement. The purpose of said sanctions isn't to deny the Palestinians access to rockets for the sake of them not having access to rockets...its about denying them access to rockets so they stop lobbing them into Israel (and so you don't get confused, we are talking specifically about the rockets here, and I'm not saying thats the sole purpose of the blockade/siege)

I'm not calling into question Israel's existence as a state. What I've discussed and shown you here isn't happening within the state of Israel. I'm telling you that Israel has no right to deprive the human rights of anyone in the course of their existence. Nobody has the right to do that.

actually they do under certain circumstances

Source, please. You either have a poor command of the facts or a weak need for dishonesty in this pretension that human rights can be violated under circumstances you or Israeli bureaucrats can cherry pick. Lowering myself to this discussion with you about how depriving a land of mostly children of their human rights is unacceptable is nothing short of sickening. You must have no concept of liberty to be this incapable of acknowledging my standard.

http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdf

anyways when you have a war or conflict, human rights are deprived to a degree and it is quite acceptable to a degree within a certain context.

No that wasn't clear at all when you return with a new excuse to explain away the deprivation of human rights every single reply or paragraph you write! So now Syria justifies Israeli policy now? Does anything not justify Israeli policy?

The Beatles and the White album do not justify Israeli policy.

Yes the actions of non-Palestinian actors that have an influence within the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis in part justify Israeli policy. Why? Because by being involved in the conflict their actions shape how both the Palestinians and Israelis act.

Nonsense. It's not irrelevant because when you learn how to have a single standard for all of humanity, then every conceivable human example is relevant.

meaningless statement, try again.

A narco-insurgency creating violence on the border between the US and Mexico with both the US and Mexicans attempting to solve the problem is different to attacks being perpetrated by the state against another state across borders.

Of course you did, at the point that you attempted to start defending Israeli policy. Otherwise show me where Israel allowed Palestinians to use violence against the deprivation of their rights? But let's pretend for a moment that you're not defending Israeli policy, how should Palestinians be allowed to use violence?

Obviously Israel isn't going to allow violence by the Palestinians to be perpetrated against it. But at the same time there is little it can do about (other than to respond) to violence against its troops when they were in Gaza for example.

The Palestinians (in my opinion) are more than welcome to engage in operations against Israeli military targets that are in current Palestinian territory or on occupied Palestinian land (per border of choice, 67 or 47 I don't really care, thats up to the Israelis and Palestinians to work out). Actively targetting Israeli civilians through terror attacks, gunmen and rocket fire is not ok. I would want the Israelis to act with similar care.

You haven't made that clear at all and if it's as simple as that, it's yet another double standard. Violence is "dumb" for the Palestinians so now it's time to chop even violence up into groups to support your group-think. Now there's two different kinds of violence playing on each other. That's the problem with hypocrisy. It exposes another double standard every time it tries to justify itself. Let's presume that Hamas and Fatah have indeed come to that conclusion, will that no longer justify Israel's policies?

nope I made it pretty clear. Violence is dumb for the Palestinians as it has gotten them absolutely nowhere. Unless you are really going to make the claim that the violent resistance movement in Palestinian has managed to achieve anything over the last what? 70 years?

If HAMAS and Fatah come to the conclusion, and actually act upon, of course Israel would have no justification for its current policies...I also think the Israelis often engage in 'dumb' violence too

It's so ridiculous, it's fantasy. A little more? What's a little more? What's "effort"? A little more submission and a little less resistance? Some changes in a sentence or a piece of rhetoric? Tell me about the effort that needs to be applied here so millions of people are finally given their rights by their masters from a foreign government, as if we have no clue where rights come from.

give up attacks upon Israeli settlements/civilians

drop the existential threat bull (river to the sea)

engage with Israel

engage with the broader world community

achieve some kind of internal political stability

obviously Israel also needs to make concessions etc but much of Israels policy is hinged on the security threat posed by the Palestinians, remove that threat and suddenly the dynamic changes a great deal.

The solution also isn't perpetual violation of international law, ethnic cleansing, and collective punishment, whether in the face of cherry-picked concerns over violence, dumb vs. smart violence, and/or no violence at all. While you're so busy indicating to me what the solution isn't, and refusing to agree with me that the long list of un-solutions includes forcibly denying liberty of people with violent military action, you need to understand what really matters here. It is policy that matters. It is policy that counts. And when I use the word policy, I am obviously referring to actions that are, by definition, state-sanctioned.

I disagree with your claim that there is ethnic cleansing. I don't deny the other two though I suppose we'd probably disagree n the extent or degree to which it has occured.

So you think it's the law now that excuses Israeli policy? Excuse me, but what Israel is doing is not legal sir. If the Nazis took over the world, denying millions their human rights would be legal, I'm quite sure. Fortunately, my brave nation of freedom-loving liberty defenders went across the ocean once again and saved the world from such a wretched legality. But yet it still rears its ugly head in Israeli policy today.

your brave nation that firebombed Tokyo, nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima, imposed crippling sanctions upon Iraq etc right?

I was simply making the point that 'human rights' aren't applicable all the time even when we like to claim they are. eg Its perfectly acceptable to violate an individuals liberty under certain circumstances (if they break the law and the legal punishment is to lock them up), context is everything.

So it's the Holocaust now that justifies Israeli policy? Is there anything that does not justify it? I don't even accept your description here but giving it the benefit of the doubt, using that as a justification for doing it again to someone else is repeating the same evil. There is no greater disrespect to the memory of all who lost their lives in the Holocaust than for people like you to defend Israel's brutality towards Palestinians. It's a shameful hypocrisy of the worst kind.

I wasn't referring to the Holocaust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

It all boils back to Israel's existence as a state (just as legitimate as pretty much any of the surrounding states with their recently defined boundaries).

Yes, the root of the problem… there never was any moral legitimacy in declaring the land a Jewish state against the will of the majority population. Nor was such a state necessary. The Jewish people were already immigrating to Palestine and the United States in peace by their thousands and could have continued to do so without a racist comandeering of the land.

The policy isn't human rights deprivation…

Stated Israeli policy on Gaza: “no development, no prosperity, no humanitarian crisis.”

This means Israel will allow the citizens of Gaza the bare minimum whilst avoiding a humanitarian crisis that would bring all out condemnation. To prevent self-determined development and prosperity certainly could be viewed as human rights deprivation and can only fuel the conflict.

This perpetuation of the conflict, I have concluded for a number of reasons, is what leading politicians in Israel want. After all, Israel has been winning out under those conditions (with no small assistance from others) for the past sixty-plus years… why change the strategy.

I fear it can only end badly for the Jewish people, as history has shown time and again that it will. Israel needs to acknowledge those they have wronged and make reparations now, whilst in a strong position to do so. One day it will be too late and the cycle will repeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
President-Elect Acidhead

I agree Q24...

Golda Meir's quote was taken out of context. Things won't end well for the Israelis living on arab land. If the Israeli people loved their children they would save them before it's too late.

Said this a hundred times. The israelis could come to Canada or the majority could go back to Russia where most originated from.... they don't call it mother-russia for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.