Attention Israel: Enough is Enough.

[McDuff]

Army kills two Israeli security guards after mistaking them for Palestinian gunmen (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=386890)

Palestinian Fireman killed while tackling blaze (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,909088,00.html) and it's on TV (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=384610).

And the fruits of all this? Why, obviously, terrorism in Israel is now eradicated!

Oh, wait! No (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,910149,00.html) it (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=385257) isn't (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,908448,00.html).

The tactic of getting rid of terrorism by killing the terrorists - successful much? Nooo... no I don't think it is. But that's not my major point here. My major point is one I've made time and time again, although not here. But you dopers are a bright lot - maybe you can answer it.

WHY is the Israeli army not held accountable for its actions? Why is it not held to the same standards of accountability that other armies are held to. It doesn't matter that Israel is under attack by terrorist factions, it doesn't matter that people were throwing rocks at tanks (yes, yes, I know that rocks can be a terrible and nasty and violent weapons, and I'm sure firehoses can too), what matters is that the Israeli army is now so trigger-happy that they shoot anyone.

I say again, if, during the IRA bombing campaigns, our army had behaved anything like this, the Prime Minister would have lost his job. The Bloody Sunday atrocity was just one episode, and it haunted the British Army for years after the event. Why does nobody ask questions? Why are there no reviews and inquiries into the situation? Why are people just accepting the actions of the soliders as unavoidable, when we *know* that they aren't. The British Army managed to counter the IRA without tearing down houses, bulding million dollar a mile walls, or killing Irish children. We never once fired a tank shell directly at an Irish fireman. The IRA killed over 3,000 people during the Troubles, but everyone knew that this would not excuse barbarism on our side. We managed to get through it without inflaming the situation still further. Why is Israel being allowed to let its army run apparently unchecked?

[Governor Quinn]

Remember, Israel, unlike the UK, is under the impression that it could be eradicated at any time. There is opposition to this in Israel, mainly in the form of the Meretz (left of Labor) party.

Beyond that, I can't really explain it.

[sleestak]

Well,

I am not an expert on the issue but my guess would be that the Israeli Armed forces generally don't make many mistakes like this. In fact I cannot remember any other incidents where the Israelis killed innocent people by mistake. I could be wrong.

But wait, I read the article. Two armed men were ordered to stop. They didn't. Instead they fled. (That is if the first link you provided is unbiased)

Also, I have a question for you.

The tactic of getting rid of terrorism by killing the terrorists - successful much? Nooo... no I don't think it is.

What exactly do you think is the best way to get rid of terrorists? Invite them over for tea? Bow to their demands?

Another question for you:

Why are people just accepting the actions of the soliders as unavoidable, when we *know* that they aren't.

What exactly do *you* know about this incident that the rest of us don't. The article that *you* linked to said two armed men got into a car and refused the order to stop. They ran, they got shot. Was it the best way to handle the situation? I don't know because I wasn't there. Yet, had the men complied they wouldn't be dead.

I'm sorry but your assertion that Why is the Israeli army not held accountable for its actions? just doesn't hold water with the cites that *you* provided. Armed men ran when they were ordered to stop. Guess what? If you do that out here in the good old US of A you stand a damned good chance of being shot.

Man, get a clue.

Slee







At the same time the terrorists who have attacked Israel make it a point to kill non-combatants. Israel does not.



Also, comparing the Israeli situation to the IRA situtation just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

[IEatFood!]

WHY is the Israeli army not held accountable for its actions? Why is it not held to the same standards of accountability that other armies are held to. It doesn't matter that Israel is under attack by terrorist factions, it doesn't matter that people were throwing rocks at tanks (yes, yes, I know that rocks can be a terrible and nasty and violent weapons, and I'm sure firehoses can too), what matters is that the Israeli army is now so trigger-happy that they shoot anyone.

Gotta put yourself in their shoes there 'hoss. If you were an Isreali Jew, with a few million neighbors to your immediate East who's only goal in life was to kill you & your family, would you really want your army to be nice to those savages?
It's not like the Troubles the UK had. It is a real war, with a real enemy, bent on killing children & civilians while conscientiously avoid real military targets.

As far as killing terrorists being a non-viable solution, keep in mind the only reason it's not working is that the rest of the world is trying very hard to make military action against these freaks seem like a bad thing. In so doing,, Isreal & her only ally, the US, are behaving to restraintedly to enact a real solution.
Left to their own devices, with no outward pressure, the Isrealis would no doubt annihilate this scourge in rather short order.
Also, what would you propose to do with a group that will not listen to reason & takes great joy in murdering children? Just curious.

[McDuff]

sleestak
At the same time the terrorists who have attacked Israel make it a point to kill non-combatants. Israel does not.

Israeli soldiers killed eight people, including a pregnant woman, yesterday in the latest in a series of raids in Gaza. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,907002,00.html)
They may not have a policy of deliberately targeting them, but they don't go out of their way to avoid it, shall we say.

But that isn't the point by any stretch of the imagination. The Palestinian groups are terrorists and murderers. Fact. The Israeli army is the military wing of a democratically elected government which receives Aid from the USA. Therefore, it should *act* like it. "Waa, but they started it" is NOT an excuse.

Also, comparing the Israeli situation to the IRA situtation just doesn't seem to make sense to me.
Seccesionist terrorist violence inspired by religious rivalries older than any of the combatants involved. Yup, I can't find a single similarity between them either.

IEatFood
Gotta put yourself in their shoes there 'hoss. If you were an Isreali Jew, with a few million neighbors to your immediate East who's only goal in life was to kill you & your family, would you really want your army to be nice to those savages?
Yes, I sure would. Because, you see, I happen to not break down the world into Black and White. I didn't see every person in Northern Ireland as a "savage." Dehumanising the enemy is a great way to let yourself off the hook and not accept responsibility for your actions, but sending a tank down the shankhill road and blasting the fuck out of a bunch of kids throwing rocks wouldn't exactly do much to convince the people of Ireland that we *weren't* the evil monsters that they'd been taught, would it? In fact, wouldn't it instead prove it and give them more reason to fight back?

It's not like the Troubles the UK had. It is a real war, with a real enemy, bent on killing children & civilians while conscientiously avoid real military targets.
I'm SORRY? Did you MISS the IRA's bombing campaigns in London? Did it pass you by? Did you conveniently overlook the fact that London had a bomb scare nearly every week during the 70s and 80s? Did you never have any friends who heard about a bombing and thought "Oh my god, my dad/sister/brother was in that building?"

The IRA claimed it was a war. They fought it like a war. They blew up buses and hotels too, remember? I had FAMILY in Belfast, dammit! It's was *exactly* like the situation in Palestine. "Those Savages" wanted the British off "their land", and they were prepared to kill me to get it if I happened to get in their way.
Left to their own devices, with no outward pressure, the Isrealis would no doubt annihilate this scourge in rather short order.
Let me get this straight...

In order to create peace in the Middle East, you recommend that the rest of the world get out of the way and let Israel and the USA ride in and kill all the Palestinians.

Right.

Because that's what it would take. You kill one terrorist or suspected terrorist, and four more are there to take his or her place. You kill a 13 year old a week, regardless of whether or not he was "throwing rocks", and you get a lot of angry parents, justified in their anger, because you killed their baby boy. Ain't nothing taking that hurt away from them.

And, of course, once Israel went in and did that, and the USA was in Baghdad, the world would be completely safe from the rest of the Arabic-speaking world, wouldn't it?

Jesus H Christ....

Also, what would you propose to do with a group that will not listen to reason & takes great joy in murdering children? Just curious.
Which side are you talking about?

[Radon]

From time to time the Israeli Army does discipline it's soldiers when it needs to. It is entirely possible that the tank commander that shot at the firefighter is guilty of a crime. It is also possibly an accident, an artillery round the fell short due to defect, or a physical accident.

Given the military capability of the Israeli armed forces, the group of tanks in Gaza could have killed 1100 people, instead of 11, had they desired. So I'd say an investigation is called for. If there was a recorded radio order to shoot the firefighter, then evidence is on tape. But if not, it probably comes down to interviewing the men in the tank. You only get a case for a criminal trial if two or more of the tankers agree who is responsible for ordering the round, or for firing the round without orders, if that's what it is.

If the commander says he said "Look at the fire!" and the driver says he was trying to figure out what the commander had said, and the gunner says he heard "Fire!", what do you do? Of course, they spoke Hebrew, not English, so my example may not work exactly, but you get the idea.

[McDuff]

Oh, I understand all that.

The issue is this:

Either,
1) the issue has not been fully reviewed, or
2) If there have been investigations and reviews, then someone, somewhere, in the Israeli heirarchy has decided that the collateral damage of pregnant women and 9 year old children is acceptable.

If neither of these things were true, then the tactics of the Israeli army would have been changed to reflect this. As they haven't, either someone is not taking responsibility, which is bad, or someone IS, which is worse.

When I was in high school, some pupils passed out leaflets on what was happening in the occupied territories. People said it couldn't be that our soldiers would do such things. Now you read worse things in the mainstream media and people don't care. We used to say that if only people know about it, it would stop. Now they know about it, and it hasn't stopped." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,911686,00.html)

[Radon]

Secessionist terrorist violence
The Palestinians are not just secessionist, although there is a great deal of debate on this point. For the bulk of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Arab position has been to destroy Israel completely. The IRA wasn't trying to conquer England. Until the 1990's the PLO was completely rejectionist (Israel has no right to exist).

When the PLO more or less stopped being rejectionist, the Oslo peace process started. The current crop of terrorist groups, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, are totally in the rejectionist (push them into the sea) side. The PA refused to suppress this rejectionist violence, having the effect of supporting it and denying it at the same time.

I would like to see a military study compare the two conflicts. It may be that the reason for the greater number of deaths in the Middle East has to do with population densities. Or it may be that both sides are simply more violent. The total number of IRA bombs that went off in England is very small. The Irish conflict was mainly between the Protestants and Catholics inside Northern Ireland, and that is a significant difference.

There is also a difference in history. The PLO used to send shells and rocket fire on completely civilian settlements inside Israel, and they killed many of the 1972 Olympic Team. The Arabs have fought several wars against Israel and nearly wiped it out. The existence of Great Britain as a nation was never in doubt. The Brittish Olympic Teams came home intact, and the shephards and farmers never had to worry about incoming rockets and artillery.

Also, our perception of a big difference in the level of violence may be due to the different ways that the media handle the two different issues. Here in the USA, the Irish situation recieves less press than does the Middle East, and your British media might give a different impression than either the US media or the Irish Catholic press.

In the current situation, the Israelis feel completely exasperated with the Palestinians, because they not only re-started the war and ended the negotiation process, they said that the reasons were 1) Ariel Sharons walk on the Temple Mount/ Al Aqsa Mosque, and 2) Killing Israelis should be winning policy because it clearly drove them out of Lebanon. The Israelis voted in Ariel Sharon as a sort of punishment on the Palestinians, where previously the Israelis had preferred the more conciliatory Barak. It is reasonable to conclude that these changes in Israeli attitude have also changed Israeli military attitudes and behavior. I see in all this no excuse for deliberately firing on a working fireman, if that's what happened, but it shouldn't come as a total surprise.

[McDuff]

To those of us who have been observing the conflict over the last few years, it doesn't come as a suprise.

It makes us cry, though.

Don't for a second think that I'm on the side of the PLO or whoever. I'm not. But the people in the Occupied Territories are caught between a rock and a hard place. With the terrorists on one side and the Israelis on the other, where do they turn? Unless we give the ordinary people a way out, how can they escape?

(And the Irish situation isn't bad *now*. Which is kind of the point. We managed to almost completely eradicate the bombs and contain the hardcore sectarian violence in a tiny area, where it duly turned into low-class drug running and organised crime, and we did it without killing Irish children. If we had killed Irish children, I very much doubt we'd have been able to get where we are today.)

[Tamerlane]

Just a tiny comment and nitpick.

Originally posted by McDuff

Seccesionist terrorist violence inspired by religious rivalries older than any of the combatants involved. Yup, I can't find a single similarity between them either.

In neither Northern Ireland, nor Palestine/Israel, are the conflicts inspired primarily by religious rivalries. They are at heart territorial and secondarily tribal ( part of which, and only part, is expressed in religion ).

For example Christian Palestinians tend to loathe Israel with every bit as much fervor as their Muslim compatriots and in similar proportions and that hatred is only tangentially related to anti-Semitism ( i.e. the anti-Semitism exists, but it is much a product as a cause ). The PLO ( and its PA successor ) was/is a secular nationalist organization, had and has Christians in its leadership and two of its most violent offshoots or splinter groups were ( I think at least one still is ) headed by Christians. When asked to articulate the reasons for Palestinian antipathy, the number one answer is always land. Whether it be anti-settler sentiments, right of return, Jerusalem, even water rights - It's all about territory.

The reason religion gets all the play these days is due to the rise of radical Islamism in the Palestinian population ( tied to a general rise in Islamism in the greater Muslim world, in part due to a perceived failure, at least the Arab world, of the political model of secular nationalism ). But this is quite recent, really, and obscures the true source of the underlying tensions.

Similarly for Northern Ireland - the Catholic/Protestant split is more a tribal byproduct, rather than the source of violence.

Apologies for the hijack.

- Tamerlane

[mecaenas]

Originally posted by sleestak
I am not an expert on the issue but my guess would be that the Israeli Armed forces generally don't make many mistakes like this. In fact I cannot remember any other incidents where the Israelis killed innocent people by mistake. I could be wrong.

Then you are uninformed, according to a recent Israeli government report (http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s806679.htm) over the last 29 months the Israeli army has killed over 360 innocent civilians, of which 130 were children under 16 years of age.

These figures are somewhat lower than those reported by Human Rights groups.

Originally posted by sleestak
What exactly do you think is the best way to get rid of terrorists? Invite them over for tea? Bow to their demands?
The issue is that the Israelis' hardline approach has not stopped terrorist activities. On the other hand, the level of terrorist activities in Northern Ireland has decreased, and it's not due to the British government tearing through Irish cities, guns blazing. The Israelis could learn a thing or two from that.

[McDuff]

Tamerlane - In the end, the problems in Ulster and Palestine come down to one thing "we've been fighting so long it doesn't matter *why* any more." Be it land or religion or water or control or self governance or whatever the excuse is, the overwhelming reason for fighting is that there's always been fighting. But, with that caveat, I agree with you in principle.

[IEatFood!]

Yes, I sure would. Because, you see, I happen to not break down the world into Black and White. I didn't see every person in Northern Ireland as a "savage." Dehumanising the enemy is a great way to let yourself off the hook and not accept responsibility for your actions, but sending a tank down the shankhill road and blasting the fuck out of a bunch of kids throwing rocks wouldn't exactly do much to convince the people of Ireland that we *weren't* the evil monsters that they'd been taught, would it? In fact, wouldn't it instead prove it and give them more reason to fight back?

It would only give them reason to fight back if they remained willfully ignorant of the situation regarding why the tank was there in the first damned place.

See here's the thing McDuff (cool name by the way.) The Arabs were offered half of palastine, including a lot of territory in what is now Isreal. Instead, they refused, on the grounds tat they didn't want the Jew to pollute their landscape.
And in so doing, several Arab nations have made it their mission to Destroy the only democracy in the middle east, while at the same time, deporting and not lifting a finger to help their Palastinian "Brothers." Isreal, on the other hand, is defending itself, brutally at times, but they have initiated Nothing of what happens today.
It was the Arab nations (Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, SA), that drew all sorts of rediculous lines in the sand, and declared that it was very much indeed, a black & white issue.
So what is Isreal to do now? Take it in the proverbial "rear" just to satisfy a world that may have other agendas not realting a whit to the interests of Islam?

As for the provos, there can be no doubt that there was considerable violence. But the Key difference is that they were willing to settle their differences with the UK. Apparently, both sides lost their tastes for violence, something I don't see the PA doing anytime soon.
Let me just say that I do not advocate wholesale slaughter of the Palastinians, but, when it comes to whether Isreal should defend herself from peopel who set out very specifically to kill children, I'm sorry, but that's not much of a thinker there.
Considering what Isreal has at it's disposal to use against the PA, I think they have shown remarkable restraint given the circumstances.
Considering the resources the PA has at it's disposal to use against the Isrealis, I think they have shown no restraint at all. Thats's where the difference is made.

And as far as the situation in Iraq goes, I don't see how that relates to the situation in Isreal & Isreal propper.

Because that's what it would take. You kill one terrorist or suspected terrorist, and four more are there to take his or her place. You kill a 13 year old a week, regardless of whether or not he was "throwing rocks", and you get a lot of angry parents, justified in their anger, because you killed their baby boy. Ain't nothing taking that hurt away from them.

Works that way on the oter side too. Except, Isreal has nukes to use. How long can you ask them to forget about their dead 13 year olds (who were NOT throwing rocks & breaking the law by the way), and not use such things before they say "f*ck it," and do it anyways???

[Fang]

Originally posted by mecaenas
The issue is that the Israelis' hardline approach has not stopped terrorist activities. [/B]
This is patently untrue. The fact that terrorist attacks still happen does not mean the policy is not working. The bomb in Haifa the other day was the first successful terrorist attack against Israel in nearly two months, there having been a tightening of the security restrictions ("hardline approach" if you will) in recent months. You can argue that the hardline approach is wrong, but it stupid to say that it is ineffective. The number of successful terrorist attacks is extremely low compared to the number of attempted terrorist attacks, and that is a direct result of Israeli policy? If you had a water filter which got rid of 99% of impurities, would you say that it does not remove impurities?

[Fang]

Originally posted by McDuff
In the end, the problems in Ulster and Palestine come down to one thing "we've been fighting so long it doesn't matter *why* any more." Be it land or religion or water or control or self governance or whatever the excuse is, the overwhelming reason for fighting is that there's always been fighting.
I think this is an incorrect and unhelpful approach to the problem. Both sides have grievances, legitimate or not. The Israelis are fighting because they want to stop the Palestinians from attacking them. The Palestinians are fighting because they want a state, many of them believing that state should (and in some cases can only) consist of the entirety of "historic" Palestine. These are not excuses; they are reasons, and to regard the conflict as completely arbitrary, some sort of silly childish game, is not only insulting to both peoples but also, IMHO, the biggest problem with the entire Oslo process.

[McDuff]

Apparently, both sides lost their tastes for violence, something I don't see the PA doing anytime soon.

Oh really?

Nothing has changed to make what we did in the 1970s right then and wrong now. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,3604,912923,00.html)

The dissident Real IRA last night claimed it was behind a large bomb left outside the law courts in Belfast city centre on Wednesday night. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,913761,00.html)

A member of the IRA's Army Council sent out the men who were killed and wounded in a shoot-out in south Armagh last week. (http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,915275,00.html)

Those are all from the last week. Seems to me like the extreme element is still alive and well. The difference, like all these cases, is that the average bloke on the street has a vested interest in not getting shot, not getting blown up, in having a safe place for his kids to go to school and his wife to go to work. The difference is that most people don't listen to the IRA's message of hate any more.
It would only give them reason to fight back if they remained willfully ignorant of the situation regarding why the tank was there in the first damned place.
Wilful ignorance, eh? The tank was there because of a suicide bomber, but the suicide bomber was there because of the assasination of a rebel leader, but the rebel leader was leading a rebellion against the tanks, but the tanks were protecting Israel against the terrorists, but the terrorists were fighting for their land....

It is, in fact, entirely possible to trace this back to 1953 and beyond, right back to Abraham if we want to. Who's at fault? Who's really to blame? *shrug* I blame the British, personally.

The Arabs were offered half of palastine, including a lot of territory in what is now Isreal. Instead, they refused, on the grounds tat they didn't want the Jew to pollute their landscape.
"The Arabs" are a single group in the same way that "the Catholics" are. There are a lot of Arabs who really don't give a flying rats arse one way or the other about Israel, who simply want bread on the table. If Israel has to go to get that, then so be it, but if they can get that with Israel there, then that's fine too. The Islamist movements rise up and grow where there is a particularly harsh concentration of poverty and hopelessness. Exacerbating poverty and hopelessness will not eradicate Islamism or terrorism.
when it comes to whether Isreal should defend herself from peopel who set out very specifically to kill children, I'm sorry, but that's not much of a thinker there.
I agree with you. But driving tanks into the settlements is not only a spectacularly poor defense, it's not even designed to be one. Sharon is a moralist. He's not interested in preventing terrorism as much as he is in punishing the Palestinians for their actions. Approaching the issue with this attitude doesn't protect his people, it locks them in a vicious circle of tit-for-tat violence.

If he was interested in peace, the Israeli forces wouldn't be bulldozing Palestinian houses to erect a huge wall around the Occupied Territories - they'd be spending the money to rebuild Palestinian houses. I've said it before, although maybe not here: when the fanatics come round your house and denounce a people as satanic heretics, it holds much less water if those people recently helped rebuild your house and shared a cigarette with you. Would that eradicate three thousand years of fighting? Of course not, but it would be a start.
Considering what Isreal has at it's disposal to use against the PA, I think they have shown remarkable restraint given the circumstances.
If I am on a trial for assault, I must remember this. "I could have killed him, yeronner, I think I showed remarkable restraint."
Considering the resources the PA has at it's disposal to use against the Isrealis, I think they have shown no restraint at all. Thats's where the difference is made.
I'm not supporting the PA's actions. The PA are on the side of the Palestinian people only because they are the only people willing to be there.

Remember WWII? Hitler's rise to power was caused by the poverty stricken German people being willing to accept *anything* that would put food in their bellies. The one person who was capable of it was Adolf Hitler. Had we not ran Germany into the ground at Versailles, any number of moderate politicians might have emerged. They might not, but it's worth considering that Versailles was designed to punish a people for the actions of its leaders.... just as Sharon's actions are.
And as far as the situation in Iraq goes, I don't see how that relates to the situation in Isreal
It's all to do with Land and Imperialism, and old Holy Sites. You want to make an Islamist mad? You put Jews in Jerusalem and Americans in Baghdad.
How long can you ask them to forget about their dead 13 year olds (who were NOT throwing rocks & breaking the law by the way), and not use such things before they say "f*ck it," and do it anyways???
We're not asking them to forget about them. We're pointing out that their actions, while they may be creating dead children on the other side, are singularly failing to protect any future 13 year olds from being victimised in the same way. Revenge and defense are two different things.

[legion]

<<WHY is the Israeli army not held accountable for its actions? Why is it not held to the same standards of accountability that other armies are held to.>>

Strange that I should read this complaint about accountability today, it being 35 years to the day since the My Lai massacre.

What was it that Lt Calley received after being found guilty of the premeditated murder of 22 civilians? House arrest and a presidential pardon in 1974.

[Alessan]

I really don't have the time to answer you point-by-point, McDuff, but I'd like to note two small differences between the Irish and the Palestinians:

1. All the IRA wants is to kick the English out of Ireland; not even the most extreme factions want to kick the English out of England. Michael Collins never promised to liberate London.

2. England is not surrounded by 1 billion angry Celts, most of whom would like nothing better than to wipe it off the map.


P.S. Stop patronizing us.

[McDuff]

Allessan, I'm not trying to patronise you.

What I'm trying to do is work out how come an organised military of a democratic country can get away with killing, accidentally or otherwise, children, firefighters, pregnant women, old ladies, etc etc, and have apparently no checks and balances introduced into their system, no reviews of their strategies and the ways in which they approach the situations, no attempts made to prevent these casualties occurring. Or, even worse, that someone considers it a tradeoff, or as payback.

I appreciate the siege mentality will probably be easy to get into in Israel, but there's a fundamental difference between terrorism within your own borders and military agression outside of it. There is also a fundamental difference between a ragtag bunch of stone throwing suicide bombers and the Government of Israel. That we expect better behaviour of a democratic government than a bunch of criminals and muderers is not an insult, it's an acknowledgement of your authority in the area. With authority comes accountability.

Honestly, as someone in Israel, do you feel safer knowing that the tanks are rolling through Jenin daily? Do you think that the destruction of Palestinian houses and the erection of this huge wall *will*, actually, make it any safer for you to walk down the streets?

Does this matter to you? Or does it matter more that Israel keeps getting back at the Palestinian Authorities for the damage it is wreaking on your society?

(legion, WRT My Lai, the problem there was that one man was made a scapegoat for the brutality of the entire US army. It wasn't fair to let him carry the can for it all. As someone whose name escapes me at the moment said, "every unit has it's My Lai." Far better would have been accountability across the board from the get-go in that situation. But nobody's claiming that Vietnam was a good thing, are they?)

[antechinus]

And why can Israel defy UN security council resolutions and get away with it, whereas Iraq will be invaded on the pretext that it has been defying a UN resolution?

[torben]

Originally posted by McDuff


If I am on a trial for assault, I must remember this. "I could have killed him, yeronner, I think I showed remarkable restraint."

This is a pretty empty analogy. Are you on trial for assaulting someone or was the assault the result of an act of self-defense? Because that is exactly what Israel is doing. They are defending themselves. These attacks on Palestinians are the direct result of being attacked by the Palestinians. Israel is targeting specific people that are responsible for attacks that have killed innocent children and civilians. The Palestinians are doing no such thing. They are targeting anyone they can, innocent or not, and this is why my sympathy for the Palestinians runs pretty thin. Israel actually knows how to differentiate between civilians and the people that are responsible for these crimes. Yes there are situations where innocent Palestinians are killed. There are times when Palestinians refuse to leave a certain site that is going to be attacked or refuse to cooperate or attack the Israeli troops as soon as they are seen coming to take a suspect into custody. These people usually end up dead. Big surprise. If you swim with the sharks your gonna get bit. The fact is that Israel has shown great restraint. Any other country being attacked in this manner where their own innocent civilians were being killed would have wiped out the Palestinians along time ago. Especially considering that this is a war. Israel has also taken some steps in good faith that the Palestinians have not. Every time there is a lapse in suicide attacks Israel pulls back out of Palestinian occupied territories and lifts restrictions set on the Palestinians. The Palestinians have done nothing to reciprocate. Look, the Palestinian tactics are despicable. I don't care if they are fighting with rocks, sticks, or bazookas. It doesn't make what the Palestinians are doing right. They target and kill innocent women and children and celebrate American deaths. Yet at the same time they want American sympathy. It's not gonna happen. Every time Israel attacks the Palestinians it is in direct response to an attack from the Palestinians. When the Palestinians don't attack, Israel doesn't attack. When Israel doesn't attack, the Palestinians attack anyway. In other words, the Palestinians attack regardless. This is why I believe the Palestinians are the aggressors. If the Palestinians want peace they need to stop attacking Israel. It's that simple.

[Boo Boo Foo]

Originally posted by McDuff
Allessan, I'm not trying to patronise you.

Then... 2 paragraphs later...

Originally posted by McDuff
Honestly, as someone in Israel, do you feel safer knowing that the tanks are rolling through Jenin daily?

Then... 3 paragraphs later...

Originally posted by McDuff
Does this matter to you? Or does it matter more that Israel keeps getting back at the Palestinian Authorities for the damage it is wreaking on your society?

McDuff, I'm not Israeli, nor am I biased one way or the other... but I have an observation which I'm compelled to make. You might NOT be trying to patronise Allessan, or myself, or any of your fellow Dopers - but the quotes I've lifted above prove inarguably that this is what you're doing - and quite objectionably too I might add.

Tameralane, in particular, gave an excellent unbiased appraisal of the subtle differences at play between "tribalism" vs "religious dogmatism". I loved that post - it summed it all up exceedingly well. Nonetheless, I've counted 6 posts by yourself now - and on each occasion you've introduced yet another "high emotion arguement button" into the equation.

And the net result? It's my opinion that you have fallen into the dreadfully ungracious trap of choosing to harangue anyone who doesn't agree with you. Not cool, my friend... not cool. I predict that you will now choose to add my name to the list of people to harangue now too.

Given the circumstances.... the Israel Defence Force, arguably, is the most morally justified defence force on the planet. It's a nasty place, and I point blank do NOT accept your choice of words to describe the actions by Hamas as merely being "a ragtag bunch of stone throwing suicide bombers". That choice of words, in my opinion, amply justifies your pre-chosen agenda in this thread.

[McDuff]

"The Palestinians" attack?

What, all of them?

What about "The Palestinians" who stay in their houses during the curfew and who would really rather go out and, say, run their businesses?

All these children and firefighters pregnant women who get caught in the crossfire between "The Palestinians" and the Israeli army... they were attacking Israel too?

You give the Terrorists legitimacy they don't have when you assume that they speak for the whole of the people. Worse than that, by assuming that the people don't have another voice, you force them to believe that they won't be heard except through terrorism.

It's perfectly human to lump whole swathes of people together as "the enemy." It doesn't mean it's right or sensible or acceptable, though.

[McDuff]

Boo Foo Foo

OK, here's the deal.

I don't give Arafat or the PLO any legitimacy whatsoever. They are criminals and terrorists and murderers. I would far rather that they were utterly bypassed in these precedings altogether. When I say that they are a "ragtag bunch of suicide bombers," I mean it. They are not a legitimate army. They have far more voice than they deserve.

I am neither pro-Israel nor pro-Palestinian on this issue. All I see are two sides fighting a needless battle. Some people blame the Israeli's entirely, some people blame the Palestinians entirely. Like I said, I mostly blame the British, but a lot of those who made the original fuckup are dead now, and everyone has to live with actions that cannot be undone.

The questions I asked, yes, they were biased. This issue makes me angry, more than anything else. I find it very hard to remain emotionally detached from it. But, I *do* want to know. I want to understand what in the name of all that is right goes on there. Is it fear that drives the IDF? Is it a sense of righteousness? Is there some genuine super-strategic defense plan in place that I'm just not seeing? I want to know. I have no agenda, other than that of really, really wanting to see people in this area, on both sides, stop dying.

I'm lamenting the title and OP of this post, to be honest. It has a more anti-Israel bias than I would have liked, had the overwhelming feeling of "what, again?" not taken me on a headtrip. I have tried, as much as possible, to present the fact that I don't approve of the Suicide Bombers (there are two links to things the IDF have done I disaprove of in the OP, three links to Palestinian Terrorist actions/threats), but more importantly, that I feel by allowing them to speak for the people of Palestine and not just letting them marginalise themselves, they have been granted more legitimacy than they deserve and more power over the people of Palestine than they have any right to.

I don't want to be seen as haranguing people, but am I allowed to say "this is wrong" without it seeming like I have a "bias" on the issue? There are people dying here. I care about that. I'd like to think that a democratic government can do better. If it can't, then there's no hope left, really, is there? Because it ain't doing that much of a spot on job.

You might feel that the IDF is perfectly legitimate in its being there, and I'd agree with you. But that doesn't mean I can't look at what it does, the ways in which it carries out its actions, and ask, truly, if people in Israel honestly believe that this constant barrage of attacks and counter-attacks is doing anything to *stop* the situation.

It may be that there are enough people on either side who honestly don't care. It may be that there are people on either side who really would rather extract revenge than work for peace. If so, then to be honest, go for it. Just try not to destablise the region and send terrorists out to places that *do* want peace. And try not to sound surprised when we speak up and say that killing 13 year olds is a really bad idea.

[Boo Boo Foo]

Now that's better! :D

No hard feelings McDuff. That last post was excellent.

[McDuff]

Cheers. I'm normally much more articulate than this. Israel gets personal.

[torben]

Okay, perhaps I should've clarified. Although I find it kind of funny I have to to you considering you had no problem lumping all the Israelis together as the enemy. I was referring to the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the large number of Palestinians that support and agree with their position. What you and many Palestinians fail to realize is that these extremist groups do end up speaking for the Palestinians. It's the only voice I ever hear coming out of Palestine. I've never heard a current resident of Palestine state that what these groups are doing is wrong. Have you? I sure haven't. This is what makes me think that the majority of opinon in Palestine is in agreement with these extremist groups. Yes, I know that just because these groups have the loudest voice doesn't mean that they are the only voice. However, when you (you meaning the Palestinians that disagree with the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc) do nothing to refute what these groups are saying and do nothing to push your own voice through, it's pretty easy to assume that you agree with these groups. McDuff, are these the same firefighters, children, and shopkeepers that throw stones (among other weapons that are used) at Israeli troops, support these extremist groups, fail to clear out of dangerous areas they are told to, and pray for the destruction of Israel and America? Chances are that they are. These people are responsible for their own actions. They hold their own fate in their own hands. If they are warned to leave a certain area (which Israel does as standard practice) and don't, well, they have pretty much sealed their own fate. Do the Palestinian terrorist groups give any such warning when they blow up a school bus full of children? No they don't because they are pathetic and have lightyears to go before they even compare to Israel.

[torben]

McDuff, please note that I wrote that last post before I read your post to Boo Boo Foo and was under the impression that you were not condemning what these extremist groups were doing and were trying to somehow justify what they are doing. My apologies.

[torben]

Another note, I should have said "when the Palestinian terrorist groups attack" instead of "when Palestinians attack" in my first post.

[McDuff]

torben
Although I find it kind of funny I have to to you considering you had no problem lumping all the Israelis together as the enemy
I did no such thing. I have specifically referred to the Military of the Israeli Government, and I also, if you will notice, linked to an article containing the voices of a number of Israeli pacifists.
However, when you (you meaning the Palestinians that disagree with the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc) do nothing to refute what these groups are saying and do nothing to push your own voice through, it's pretty easy to assume that you agree with these groups.
Who asks them? And, more specifically, who asks them to what extent they agree?

If an armed force enters your house in the refugee camp and shoots you dead, it's because you were a terrorist. Execution without jury. Were they really terrorists, all these men who were shot? We'll never know - but what we do know is that if they were or they weren't, their deaths created more terrorists, more desperation.

The voices *I* hear coming out of Palestine and the Arab speaking world, with incredible sameness, all refer to the same thing - Israel's presence in the occupied territories. This is the sticking point. Admittedly, I tend to read the moderate sources. Yet, the extremists who call for the total eradication of Israel are the greasy wheels, and they get wheeled out to justify the continuing attacks. It seems to me that many Palestinians do agree that Israel should leave the West Bank and Gaza, and that Hamas and Arafat are the only voices they have. It's a sad, unfortunate truth, and it makes it very hard to separate what is really being said.

I spent very little time in Palestine when I visited Israel, but still, I was there, for a day or so. I played basketball with a bunch of ten-year olds. I took some photographs which won a minor award. I talked to a nurse who told me that one in four babies dies before they're a year old. Whenever I hear about these ten or fourteen year olds dying, I think "I could have played basketball with them. One of those might be in the pictures stashed in a file somewhere." I can't dehumanise them. I can't believe that everyone there is an inhuman monster who wishes death on every Israeli, because, well... unless they were all putting on a show for me (and, for a day, it's possible), that fails to make much sense.

What I can believe is that they are hungry and desperate, that they are citizens of no country, that they have effectively no rights, and that they see friends and family killed every day, some with cause, some with an indiscriminate nature which frightens everyone, not only those in Palestine.

I don't know if you're familiar with Tom (http://salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/04/22/tomo/index.html) Tomorrow (http://salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/04/15/tomo/index.html).

sleestak
Here are a couple of articles (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=273185&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y&itemNo=273185) on the story that set this off (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=273196&contrassID=2&subContrassID=3&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y&itemNo=273196). Bit of local perspective, just so you know I'm not the only one to draw these conclusions from that story.

[jjimm]

Originally posted by Torben
However, when you (you meaning the Palestinians that disagree with the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc) do nothing to refute what these groups are saying and do nothing to push your own voice through, it's pretty easy to assume that you agree with these groups.And how, pray tell, are a poverty-stricken and disenfranchised bunch of people going to get their voice heard? Why would they dare, when there are so many terror groups willing to whack "collaborators" and those who disagree with them? I think it's terribly naive to assume that, just because their voices aren't heard, then the people are in favour. In Northern Ireland, peace campaigners and their families were threatened and attacked. There are still large communities in Northern Ireland that are in thrall to the "police" action of terror groups that are "on their side". But even if non-terrorist Palestinians agree with the terrorists' actions, do their thoughts alone make them criminals?

I think it helps to comprehend what's going on to examine terrorism itself as a dumb phenomenon, in as non-emotional a way as possible, with less consideration for the motives of the individuals involved than the existence of the groups in the first place. And it helps to think of a democratic government as being the intelligent factor in the situation.

The way I see it, if certain criteria are fulfilled, then there will be a tendency towards terrorism. The first is a grievance (legitimate or imagined), the second is political disenfranchisement. Economic considerations come next, and then cultural considerations. Put these - or a combination of these - together, and you've got a tendency towards the growth of terrorist groups. The proliferation of different groups of terrorists in Palestine should indicate this: their existence is a function of a certain number of criteria; otherwise there'd just be one big terrorist group.

Of course there are terror groups that appear with only one or two of these criteria - Al Qaeda, for example - and some areas of legitimate grievance that haven't resorted to terror - e.g. the Tibetans. But for the most part, this is what causes them.

Now we come to the terrorists themselves: there are always people in a society who are happy to embrace violence. These are the people who will be the foot-soldiers of terror groups. It's no coincidence that violoent crime in Northern Ireland increased when terrorism diminished. And of course the people who join these groups, thugs and murderers that they are, will also be the most extreme proponents of the political ideology behind the terror. Thus the stated aims of the terror groups "A united Ireland", "Push the Jews into the sea" mask the real reasons for the existence of these groups - namely "we're being screwed and there's nothing we can do about it". If concessions are made towards the people, they are not necessarily being made towards the terrorists.

Therefore, my proposal is that, to diminish the existence of terrorist groups that "represent" people one has to live next to in perpetuity (as opposed to global terror groups), the intelligent party in the deal, i.e. the government, simply has to remove some of the causal factors. Painful though this seems, given all the wrongs and suffering that has been perpetuated. The granting of political and social equity, some kind of self-determination, and concessions to the needs of the group from which the terrorists sprang, is what has contributed to peace in Northern Ireland, imperfect and tenuous as it is.

IDF actions in the Occupied Territories do none of the above.

BTW, I also think that Arafat should be considered one of the "intelligent" factors in this situation. His intelligence in this appears to be profoundly wanting.

[McDuff]

And, also, Torben, I just noticed your post after the one I replied to. Just so we kindof know where we all stand.

*stands over here ---------> *

[Saen]

Originally posted by McDuff
It doesn't matter that Israel is under attack by terrorist factions,

Did you hear that Israel? Potentate Mcduff hath spoken. And since you have changed the rules on us I agree 100%. Since you say it doesn't matter anymore I could never support any actions against terrorists. Thanks you oh thank you. Now I can dust off my peice signs and join the protesters against Bush. That monster bombed a invaded a country and plans to invade another because we all thought terrorism matters.

[Beagle]

What I'm trying to do is work out how come an organised military of a democratic country can get away with killing, accidentally or otherwise, children, firefighters, pregnant women, old ladies, etc etc, and have apparently no checks and balances introduced into their system, no reviews of their strategies and the ways in which they approach the situations, no attempts made to prevent these casualties occurring. Or, even worse, that someone considers it a tradeoff, or as payback.
Which is why I have proposed this topic about British General "Bomber" Harris. Oh, it's Israel, and not my topic? Sorry.

I do see similarity between the Brits (1939-45) and Israel all the time. It's a siege mentality. I'll say again, my standard observation, suicide bombing has backfired spectacularly on those that wish to cow the Israelis. Bombing central London brought out the fight in the British also.

As a US citizen keenly observing my nation since 9/11, I have to tell you that a siege mentality does strange things to some people.

[Beagle]

But, you noted that. :smack: McDuff, you are all over the map, I can't keep up.

[Michael James Tyler]

Honestly, I have more sympathy for the Palestinians.

I hate Sharon, he seems evil and heartless. If he could, I bet he would completely destroy all of the Palestinians. In fact, I bet he would destroy any race if he thought it would gain him more power, even if that race was his own.

I really see Arial Sharon as an evil, almost Hitler like leader. He holds no regard for any form of life, except his own.

That's my opinion anyway.

[Beagle]

On an independent Palestinian state a-la Tom Tomorrow: it is no panacea. If a new Palestinian state builds up a military to menace Israel or becomes a base for terrorism against Israel, a state magnifies the problems. If the rhetoric about respecting the state of Israel is just rhetoric, a newly formed state of Palestine will solve nothing.

On the presumably accidental killing of civilians. I agree that the IDF has to make an effort to limit civilian casualties. There have been some questionable IDF shooting incidents. However, this is due in part to those who are fighting an intifada against Israel and hiding within civilian areas as cover. If one wants to strike at the perpetrators of the violence, one has to go where they are.

I notice that you are dismissive of a siege mentality:I appreciate the siege mentality will probably be easy to get into in Israel, but there's a fundamental difference between terrorism within your own borders and military agression outside of it. There is also a fundamental difference between a ragtag bunch of stone throwing suicide bombers and the Government of Israel. That we expect better behaviour of a democratic government than a bunch of criminals and muderers is not an insult, it's an acknowledgement of your authority in the area. With authority comes accountability. I think you are mischaracterizing the threat to Israel, "a ragtag bunch of stone throwing suicide bombers."

Funded and armed by states with everything from rifles, plastic explosives, grenades, and rockets. Hamas, al-Aqsa, all the rest, "ragtag"? I think that is horribly misleading.

But, of course, you are right that the IDF, like any military force, must be held accountable for its actions. So long as the use of human shields is considered, I agree completely. If a master bomb maker lives and works next to a school, it is not the IDF that is in the wrong for going there to get him. It is incumbent upon combatants to limit the risks they impose upon civilian populations, "ragtag" or not.

[Monty]

[Content deleted. --Gaudere]

[Monty]

For some odd reason, I thought this thread was in the Pit. I've asked a Mod to remove that posting.

At any rate, McDuff; you are patronizing people here with your simplistic and incorrect descriptions of what's happening and why it's happening. Your comment about the My Lai massacre is also pure fantasy.

[Tee]

Originally posted by McDuff
Tamerlane - In the end, the problems in Ulster and Palestine come down to one thing "we've been fighting so long it doesn't matter *why* any more." Be it land or religion or water or control or self governance or whatever the excuse is, the overwhelming reason for fighting is that there's always been fighting. But, with that caveat, I agree with you in principle.

I agree with you with respect to Ireland. They don't want to let go of the fighting because that itself is part of the heritage now, it's the tradition. The extremists are still out in force - they might not all be armed, and they may be using politics instead of crude weaponry, but the level of hostility is relatively unchanged, the root conflict still unresolvable.

So I see the same thing happening in Palestine after the current tensions abate (when and if)...there are still going to be factions within each side that will disagree with whatever Peace plan is in effect, support for them will rise and fall, there will still be innocent victims...all the rest of the world can do is stand back and urge restraint on both sides, while cheering the good guys in each. So I have no problem w/cautioning the IDF in that spirit. "Do not become part of the problem" in other words. The whole of the Palestinian population is not the bad guy. Likewise, it would be wrong to lay blame at the feet of the IDF as a whole - they are being targeted, shot at, ambushed...they have the task of separating the civilian Palestinians wearing explosives from the rest of the civilian Palestinians. Not an easy job obviously, since too many have been successful.

[Monty]

Very many, very many thanks to Gaudere. {& this time I even got the name right!}

[whitetho]

The latest report Associated Press report: U.S. Protester Killed by Bulldozer in Gaza (http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81209,00.html)."Rachel was alone in front of the house as we were trying to get them to stop," Schnabel said. "She waved for the bulldozer to stop and waved. She fell down and the bulldozer kept going. We yelled, 'Stop, stop,' and the bulldozer didn't stop at all. It had completely run over her and then it reversed and ran back over her." The Israeli military and the U.S. State Department had no immediate comment.

[candida]

Well, I think you're all being terribly unfair.

Mr McDuff has come with a brand-new original idea that nobody has heard of before:

"It's all the fault of dem Kikes!"

It's not his fault that it's all exactly the same as all the other "It's the fault of dem Kikes!" threads, where we go around, and around, and around, and around the same old arguments where we pretend that it isn't all the fault of us Kikes.

After all, Mr McDuff is perfectly correct, nobody has ever suffered as badly as victims of us Kikes. There's all these young Palestinians around and us Kikes wrap explosives around them and tell them to blow themselves - and evil Kike toddlers, women, children and men - up just so the media can feed into the Palestinian propaganda machine that reveals the truth about us evil Kikes, that no Kike has ever suffered and it's all about us Kikes torturing and killing the rest of humanity.

No, Mr McDuff, is absolutely right - us Kikes were born to ‘take it' and we really shouldn't try to protect ourselves, otherwise we might upset all those wonderfully, sensitive people who know the truth, "It's all the fault of dem Kikes!"

After all, remember, if we'd just accepted Jesus we'd have avoided a couple of millennia of attempts to wipe us out.

In other words, Mr McDuff, you're doing a wonderful job.

[Florentine_Pogen]

Although whitetho beat me to it, here are some more links about the US protester that was killed:

Israeli Bulldozer Kills US Woman, 23 (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030316_676.html)

So far both the Israeli military and the US State Department have no comment on the incident, although Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/273457.html) quotes a spokesman as saying this was an accident.

I don't know if the IDF is having a bad week, month, or year, but it seems to me that after 9/11, the current Israeli government has used its military strength without much feeling of restraint or remorse.

[candida]

Looks like us evil Kikes are at it again!

[Tee]

Originally posted by candida
No, Mr McDuff, is absolutely right - us Kikes were born to ‘take it' and we really shouldn't try to protect ourselves, otherwise we might upset all those wonderfully, sensitive people who know the truth, "It's all the fault of dem Kikes!"

oddly enough, neither is this a brand-new original thing to post. When you have an army largely supplied and funded by the US, some US people might take a heightened interest in what exactly you do with it, because we share in the responsibility. Nothing personal. Kindly get stuffed.

[candida]

Thank you, Tee!

How can us Kikes be punished enough without the wonderful and earth-shattering insights of people of goodwill such as yourself.

<hint> I agree with you, I wouldn't trust people like you to avoid some Jew-baiting/Jew-killing as far as I could throw you. </hint>.

[Apos]

----The Arabs were offered half of palastine, including a lot of territory in what is now Isreal. Instead, they refused, on the grounds tat they didn't want the Jew to pollute their landscape.---

I just had to comment on this, because it conceals some really misleading rhetoric. It gets some of the reasons right: Israelis in particular dominating the landscape, but misses what is actually at issue. What is at issue is that "Palestine," even under the best agreements is made into a stained glass window and Swiss cheese, with its major transportation features being roads leading to Jewish settlements which are at various times of the day "settlers-only." Traveling to and from anywhere within "Palestine" often requires waiting for hours or even days to get through checkpoints or wait until the special times when non-Israelis are allowed to cross or use the special highways that crisscross the territory.

Now, this situation is not exactly to the Israelis preferences: its that way in a large part because of the acts of Palestinian terrorists attacking traveling settlers or blowing up the roads leading to settlements.

But it's also a little disingeuous to simply paint the Palestinian objection to this situation as being some sense of "racist pollution" of their land. A much more reasonable appraisal of their complaints would find them to be at least legitimate for everyday people: even under the settlements their "nation" would consist of countless tiny enclaves cut off from each other by roads still controlled by Israeli military and specially reserved for Israelis. They would still remain basically second-class citizens in their own terrotory. If you really think complaints about this situation constitute complaining about Jews "polluting" Palestine, it's hard to see why it wouldn't be just as legitimate to say that the settlers fear "pollution" by Palestinians in THEIR terrotory. After all: they're the ones walling away larger and larger parts of the area for Israeli-only living and transport.

[IEatFood!]

OK, just so you all know, my response to McDuff will be about 12 hours past due, owing to my server being gay...




Seems to me like the extreme element is still alive and well.

The extreme element will always be there no matter what. By building up Saudi Arabia, we made Usama's family wealthy beyond the wildest nightmares of your avergae american, in less than one generation at that. Hmmmmmmmmmmm, we make his daddy rich, develop his nation with our oil money, yeah that's a perfect reason for the man to hate us & fly planes into our buildings. Point is, there will always be moron hater types in the woodwork.

Regarding the Provos... They never had as a goal "The complete Destruction of the UK & repopulation of Anglia with the sons of Eyre."

And don't blame the UK for the situation in Isreal. The original deal they cut for the Arabs in Palastine was far better than anything decades of war and terrorism will ever get them. They wet the bed, now it's time to sleep in it.

Remember WWII? Hitler's rise to power was caused by the poverty stricken German people being willing to accept *anything* that would put food in their bellies. The one person who was capable of it was Adolf Hitler. Had we not ran Germany into the ground at Versailles, any number of moderate politicians might have emerged. They might not, but it's worth considering that Versailles was designed to punish a people for the actions of its leaders.... just as Sharon's actions are.

Yeah, but for better or worse, the die have been cast. It all goes back to the old "If my aunt had balls, she's be my uncle."
I agree that Sharon's actions are insane, but only because he lacks a coherent objective & spends far too much time reacting. It's time to shit or get off the pot. Either he goes all out, annihialtes ever suspected PA member, or the bend over & "make peace" (which will never really take place as long as the PA knows there are still Jews in the region), with these criminals. Dithering will only perpetuate the cycle.

It's all to do with Land and Imperialism, and old Holy Sites. You want to make an Islamist mad? You put Jews in Jerusalem and Americans in Baghdad.

Hate to be the one to tell you, but there were Jews in 'Salem long before there was a such thing as an "Islamist," or even a such thing as The Prophet Muhommed, for that matter. It's not imperialism, more like the landlord coming home and telling the teenaged renters to turn the freakin music down.

As for Americans in Baghdad, yeah that would be terrible. Imagine how awful Iraqi lives will become when there is no more Stalinist Dictator to cower under. It will get even worse when we start investing in their reconstruction and eventually being the average joe Iraqi's lifestyle up to par with his neighbors in Kuwait or SA. That would be horrific. Imagine all the choices they will suddenly have to deal with at the new local Tescoe (as soon as they figure out what one of those are), and BestBuy. Man will they be hating life when they are allowed to travel freely & join the rest of the modern world... You are right American imperialism sucks. And has everything to do with the ancient issues in Isreal & the west bank.

[Boo Boo Foo]

Originally posted by jjimm


...

The way I see it, if certain criteria are fulfilled, then there will be a tendency towards terrorism. The first is a grievance (legitimate or imagined), the second is political disenfranchisement. Economic considerations come next, and then cultural considerations. Put these - or a combination of these - together, and you've got a tendency towards the growth of terrorist groups. The proliferation of different groups of terrorists in Palestine should indicate this: their existence is a function of a certain number of criteria; otherwise there'd just be one big terrorist group.

...



Great post jjimm, great post. You've identified something crucial - that is, the "recipe" or "ingredients" which are necessary to breed a generation of terrorism - in any country or region.

In your paragraph above, in particular, the comment which worked for me was the one pertaining to "political disenfranchisement". In the context of Palestinian Arabs, historically, they (collectively) have made some terribly unwise moves at a political level.

Arguably, with hindsight, their dumbest ever move was to reject "outright" a proposal made by the British in 1937 named the "Peel Commission" headed by Lord Robert Peel, which argued that a co-operative existence in Palestine between Jews and Arabs was unworkable, and that separate autonomous regions should be set aside for both groups to live in, under a Westminster System of one secular goverment authority and 117 seats - representing suburbs and regions in the country. At the time, Palestinian Arabs still had a 70% demographic share of the region and they would have TOTALLY dominated such a legislature - they would have ruled the country - and would have done so with impugnity.

However, for whatever reasons, the Palestinian Arabs dug their heels in and outrightly rejected the "Peel Commission" - arguing that NO Jew would ever be welcome in a position of governance in Israel. By any yardstick, this was a really dumb move. By arguing the unrealistic option of "ALL or NOTHING", the Palestinian Arabs betrayed a dreadful lack of understanding about what was happening in the "real world" outside of just Palestine - namely, that Jewish immigration into the region was only JUST beginning to unfold - and if they had implemented a government in 1937 where THEY were totally in control, they could have decidec where, and how much of that immigration went.

But they, (the Palestinian Arabs) squandered that remarkable opportunity. And they squandered many others too. And in doing so, all along, their "demographic presence" continued to drop in relation to the inexorable and relentless immigration of Jewish refugees into the region.

Ultimately, as well all know, the Palestinian Arabs chose to ally themselves with Arab League and allowed a war to be declared the very next day after Israel was proclaimed a state in 1948.

This set the seal, forever more, of the Palestinian Arabs to be in a situation of being "politically disenfranchised" and further, by allowing their cause to be continually hi-jacked by maniac groups like Hamas, they do their cause no good service whatsoever.

The Palestinians traditionally have lacked a quality unified leadership. Even the PLO was a manufactured product by Nasser in 1964, and was as much a power play by Egypt against Syria for control over the Palestinian people as anything else.

It seems to me that the Palestinians desperately need to organise themselves into a creditable democratic sub group of Israel as quickly as possible. And they ALSO need to reject the maniac fringes which STILL call for the outright destruction of Israel. And they need to do this AS SOON AS POSSIBLE - for everyone's sakes.

Certainly, Israel could help the Palestinians achieve this goal I rather think.

As I said jjimm, your post was excellent.


Originally posted by jjimm
BTW, I also think that Arafat should be considered one of the "intelligent" factors in this situation. His intelligence in this appears to be profoundly wanting.

Arafat "lucked" into his position. He was put there by Nasser in 1964 due to Arafat's long term residency in Egypt prior to that.

The Palestinians have never TRULY had the opportunity to elect their leadership - and it has done them a dreadful disservice I rather think.

[ruadh]

Originally posted by McDuff
The IRA killed over 3,000 people during the Troubles

Wrong. Over 3,000 people were killed, but that number includes killings by loyalist paramilitaries and security forces. The IRA were responsible for "only" about 1700 deaths. Cite (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Organisation_Responsible.html).

I disagree also that "everyone" in Britain knew that that wouldn't justify barbarism, and that the British response didn't inflame the situation further, but that's probably a subject for another thread.

[antechinus]

Originally posted by candida
Well, I think you're all being terribly unfair.

Mr McDuff has come with a brand-new original idea that nobody has heard of before:

"It's all the fault of dem Kikes!"

It's not his fault that it's all exactly the same as all the other "It's the fault of dem Kikes!" threads, where we go around, and around, ...blah, blah, blah ... those wonderfully, sensitive people who know the truth, "It's all the fault of dem Kikes!"

After all, remember, if we'd just accepted Jesus we'd have avoided a couple of millennia of attempts to wipe us out.

In other words, Mr McDuff, you're doing a wonderful job.


candida, I am glad that you are lending support to McDuff's point of view. I agree he has a strong point but I think you are taking it a little too far.

Just a correction on the terminology. I looked up kike in the dictionary - it is an offensive word for a jew. The perpetrators of the violence are not jews, the violence is provoked by the Israeli government. Judeism is a peaceful religion.

Michael James Tyler - Yes, Arial Sharon is evil and he will probably be locked up one day.

[Tamerlane]

Just another minor correction :).
Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
The Palestinians traditionally have lacked a quality unified leadership. Even the PLO was a manufactured product by Nasser in 1964, and was as much a power play by Egypt against Syria for control over the Palestinian people as anything else.
Arafat "lucked" into his position. He was put there by Nasser in 1964 due to Arafat's long term residency in Egypt prior to that.

I agree with the first statement above - the PLO was originally a creation and tool of Nasser.

However the second is in error - Arafat wasn't put in power by Nasser. The first leader of the PLO was Ahmad Shuqairi, a Nasserite puppet. Arafat's al-Fatah ( founded by a small cadre including Arafat in Kuwait in 1957 ) and other groups were actually marginalized a bit. It was only after 1967, when Nasser and the concept of pan-Arabism was seemingly shown to be impotent, that the PLO became prominent ( and more distinctly "Palestinian nationalist" in nature, rather than pan-Arabist ) and Arafat vaulted to power in 1968/69 ( on his own merits, such as they were - i.e. Fatah was at least seen to be doing something, however ultimately unproductive it was ). Also Arafat wasn't a resident of Egypt at all in the several years lreading up to 1964 - As mentioned, he was in Kuwait. Though it is true that his father was Egyptian and Arafat had briefly served in the Egyptian military earlier. In contrast his mother was from the one of the two most influential Arab families in Jerusalem, the al-Husseini's ( the other, somewhat rival major family in Jerusalem, interestingly enough has produced one of the most prominent anti-terrorist Palestinian moderates, Sari Nusseibeh ).

- Tamerlane

[candida]

antechinus

Thank you for pointing out to this Jewess that 'kike' is an offensive term.

[Boo Boo Foo]

Thanks Tamerlane! I just went back to my history and you're right. For some silly reason, I keep trusting my own memory recall instead of verifying with some certitude the accuracy of the minutae.

I graciously stand corrected! :D

[Henry B]

The story about
The girl, Rachel Corey [sic], 23 years old from the state of Washington, was killed while she was trying to prevent Israeli army bulldozers from destroying a Palestinian home. Other foreigners who were with her said the driver of the bulldozer was aware that Rachel was there, and continued to destroy the house. Initially he dropped sand and other heavy debris on her, then the bulldozer pushed her to the ground where it proceeded to drive over her, fracturing both of her arms, legs and skull.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1248.shtml

Here is the whole story with photograps and everything:
- She can very well be seen.
- She had a megaphone
- She was wearing a fluorescent red jacket.
- The confrontation had taken two hours, so everybody knew what it was about.

Someone who knows how to put here the photoraphs, please put them here (if possible) so that everyone can see it.
(I bet some readers are too busy to open the link, by himself).

And pictures are easier also for those readers that can't read.

Have a nice day, the war begins tomorrow.

Henry

[Tee]

Originally posted by candida
Thank you, Tee!

How can us Kikes be punished enough without the wonderful and earth-shattering insights of people of goodwill such as yourself.

<hint> I agree with you, I wouldn't trust people like you to avoid some Jew-baiting/Jew-killing as far as I could throw you. </hint>.

People like me....Catholics? the Irish? MA conservatives...? What, exactly.

[candida]

Well, Tee, it has to be said that Catholics, particularly Rightist Catholics, have a tremendous history of Jew-baiting and Jew-killing; second to none until the activities of a certain Austro- German, ex-Catholic Rightist, one might say. Being Irish may be a mitigating factor, possibly because the Irish were too busy being persecuted to bother with the very few Jews around.

Meanwhile, I might have just meant those disposed to the endless one-sidedness one sees - a one-sidedness that has seen this particular Jewess move recently from the position of having always been a pretty consistently strong critic of Israeli policy.

Being critical of Israeli policy is one thing, seizing - uncritically - on each and every possible error or infraction speaks of something else.

[jjimm]

Henry B - you can't put pics on the SDMB. But I do urge people to follow his link (warning: distressing images).

[Monty]

Wow, candida; apparently you and I are the only ones here whose "obvious whooshing" meters are pegged. I found it obvious you were making a joke aimed at antechinus and at least one other (the OP).

[Tee]

Originally posted by candida
Meanwhile, I might have just meant those disposed to the endless one-sidedness one sees - a one-sidedness that has seen this particular Jewess move recently from the position of having always been a pretty consistently strong critic of Israeli policy.

Well then you might have said that, but instead you did say that you wouldn't put it past people like me to avoid Jew-baiting/Jew-killing. A very unfortunate choice of words imo, because it just proves that one can be undeniably pro-Jewish, pro-Israel, pro-war, and whatever else, and still run the risk of being smeared with the anti-Semitism brush. And by someone who might have agreed with me under other circumstances....good show!

Oh well.

[istara]

We have the last ever TV interview with Rachel Corrie on our programme in about 15 minutes time. Our current footprint doesn't reach northern Europe or the US, but I guess it could get passed on to other networks from tomorrow.

It's just being satellite fed through now, and I'm watching it, and I wish you all could have a chance to see it too: this bright, beautiful, impassioned and driven young woman who is no longer on this earth.

[antechinus]

Originally posted by Monty
Wow, candida; apparently you and I are the only ones here whose "obvious whooshing" meters are pegged. I found it obvious you were making a joke aimed at antechinus and at least one other (the OP).

I thought with a name like candida she would have understood my sense of humour. Oh well.

We should try putting ourselves in the shoes of the Palestinians, who are having their land gradually and continually taken from them.

[Henry B]

jjimm[b]

Henry B - you can't put pics on the SDMB. But I do urge people to follow his link (warning: distressing images).

Just jump over the distressing images. Find the facts we will have so many distressing images in a few days, that it vill be enough fot a decade.
Unless the photographers are shot, of course:

[b]Pentagaon Threatens to Kill Independent Reporters in Iraq

" Now, Kate Adie, you join us from the BBC in London. Thank you very much for going to all this trouble on a Sunday morning to come and join us. I suppose you are watching with a mixture of emotions this war beginning to happen, because you are not going to be covering it."

Kate Adie: " Oh I will be. And what actually appalls me is the difference between twelve years ago and now. I've seen a complete erosion of any kind of acknowledgment that reporters should be able to report as they witness."
" The Americans... and I've been talking to the Pentagon... take the attitude which is entirely hostile to the free spread of information."

" I was told by a senior officer in the Pentagon, that if uplinks --that is the television signals out of... Bhagdad, for example-- were detected by any planes ...electronic media... mediums of the military above Bhagdad... they'd be fired down on.
Even if they were journalists ..' Who cares! ' said.. [inaudible] .."

Tom McGurk: "...Kate ...sorry Kate ..just to underline that. Sorry to interrupt you. Just to explain for our listeners. Uplinks is where you have your own satellite telephone method of distributing information."
Kate Adie: " The telephones and the television signals."

Tom McGurk: " And they would be fired on? "
Kate Adie: " Yes. They would be 'targeted down,' said the officer."

Tom McGurk: " Extraordinary ! "
Kate Adie:
" Shameless."
" He said.. ' Well... they know this ...they've been warned.' "
" This is threatening freedom of information, before you even get to a war."

Read the whole story from:
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/031003_pentagaon_threatens_to_kill_inde.htm


Henry

[Monty]

Okay, antechinus. I'm in their shoes right now. Which pair did I find? The pair worn by someone who wants to have an honest dialogue with a nation with a right to exist and is claiming the same right for his people, or the pair topped by a fanatic on his way to kill some children just to kill?

I'm on the side of the peaceful shoe-wearing guy. The killer is just a killer, AFAIC.

[antechinus]

Originally posted by Monty
Okay, antechinus. I'm in their shoes right now. Which pair did I find? The pair worn by someone who wants to have an honest dialogue with a nation with a right to exist and is claiming the same right for his people, or the pair topped by a fanatic on his way to kill some children just to kill?

I'm on the side of the peaceful shoe-wearing guy. The killer is just a killer, AFAIC.

I am on the side of the peaceful shoe-wearing guy too.

The point is that the peaceful shoe-wearing guy becomes the fanatic when:
- his sister is shot by a soldier, or
- parents house is bulldozed by army, or
- grandparents are kicked out of their house and land that has been in the family for generations.

What turns a person into an explosive laden fanatic? Desparation and nothing to loose.

I do not condone what they are doing at all, just as I do not condone the Israeli army killing innocent people. Continuing to attack Palestinians does not reduce the incidence of suicide bombers. The violence just comes back.

I agree that "a killer is just a killer", even if they are in a helicopter gunship, or firing a cruise missile.

[Boo Boo Foo]

Originally posted by antechinus
We should try putting ourselves in the shoes of the Palestinians, who are having their land gradually and continually taken from them.

In the interests of fairness however, it should be noted that the Palestinian Arabs have adopted a policy since the 1930's of outright rejection of a Jewish state, and that this ONLY changed in 1995. It's no stretching of the truth to state that the Palestinian Arabs have politically backed the wrong horse, time and time again during that period, and in doing so, brought many of their problems upon themselves by demonstrating they were both untrustworthy, and deadly.

I would add, that I don't wish to take sides - merely my goal is to be reasonable and honest. I'm not Jewish, nor am I a religious guy at all, but at a military point of view? I would have done everything the Israeli's have done since 1948... including 1967 and 1973. As the old saying goes... locks are only meant to keep honest people out. If your neighbours are blatantly determined to kill you, then it's not unreasonable to adopt a survivalist position.

My point is this - the Palestinian Arabs have made some epicly dumb moves over the years - and they continue to do so. It's a shitfight now - no doubts about it - but I don't think I'm out of line in stating the Palestinians have painted themselves into the corner they're in - at least, when you consider the timelines of history since 1929.

[Monty]

Originally posted by antechinus
I agree that "a killer is just a killer", even if they are in a helicopter gunship, or firing a cruise missile.

Then you are equating a soldier who is in the defense of his country with a rabid piece of trash for a human being murderer. And you are wrong in that.

[IEatFood!]

Well, Tee, it has to be said that Catholics, particularly Rightist Catholics, have a tremendous history of Jew-baiting and Jew-killing; second to none until the activities of a certain Austro- German, ex-Catholic Rightist, one might say.

This may be, but for now, the Isreali Lobby will find few better partners. Keep in mind a lot of the areas in this so-called "Palastine", are also holy sites to us too (just little things, like the place of Jesus' birth --which BTW those vermin used as a hide out last year; blood boils just thinking about that!--), and belive you me, we are not thrilled to see Isreal having a terrible time trying to administer the area.
While historically anti-war (this century anyways), there is little doubt that the Church would throw in & support Isreal, should a larger conflict commence.


We should try putting ourselves in the shoes of the Palestinians, who are having their land gradually and continually taken from them.

My sister got her car repossed last year, and I gurandamntee you she much better reasons for missing her payments than the PA has for opposing Isreali occupation. Since she lost that "property", should she go bomb the repo guy's children & then pander cheaply for local support of such things?

This is so silly. So there are Jewish settlers in the west bank. Big Deal. There are migrant Palastinian workers in Isreal proper too you know.
They need to cut it out with the bombing and complaining already. Don't they realise that without Isreal, they wouldn't even have potable water?

[istara]

Come now - there's a big difference between being a "migrant worker" and a "settler."

Do you realise that thanks to Israeli troops, half the drinking water in one area was taken, because they destroyed two wells? Just one of the things Rachel Corrie witnessed to in the last interview.

Try to find one of the many docos and reports into the settlements in Palestine. Take a look at those protected, guarded compounds, and the lives and status of the Israelis within them, and then compare it to that of Palestinian migrant workers in Israel.

[jjimm]

Originally posted by IEatFood!
This is so silly. So there are Jewish settlers in the west bank. Big Deal. There are migrant Palastinian workers in Isreal proper too you know. You really don't appear to know much about human nature.

[scm1001]

I is odd that the isrealis feel so threatened now. It is only them in the region with any nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. They have effective peace treaties with most of their neighbours, who are sick to death of the whole issue. There only real security issue now is the palestinians.
They could shoot all of them or negotiate, or accept a running sore for the next 50 years.

[McDuff]

Apologies for the lateness of this post, and its length.

Saen

Thank you for quoting me out of context. As we all know, when I said "It doesn't matter that Israel is under attack by terrorist factions" that I meant everyone in Israel can go to hell for all I care. It wasn't, by any means a sentence fragment which formed the first part of a point something along the lines of "This is not sufficient justification for certain actions." I appreciate that some people, having read the rest ofthe post, may have been confused by the context and missed your insightful observations, so I am pleased you were able to point out the truth behind my words.

Beagle

McDuff, you are all over the map, I can't keep up.
As noted, the OP was posted rather more emotionally than I would have liked, looking back at it. Damn the lack of post editing, eh?

The point I wish to make is this. The actions being carried out by the IDF are treading the dangerous line between overenthusiasm and unjustifiable. Were the British Army, or, indeed, the German, French, US or Japanese, perpetrating these acts, I would want some very hard questions asked by those in power about exactly why they were taking place. As a citizen of one of these countries, were it the British Army I would fully expect my government to pay attention to Amnesty International. This expectation would not be assuaged, on my part, by the reality of terrorism. The whole point of having a civilisation and a trained army is that we *should* be held to a higher standard than terrorists and mercenaries. Otherwise, what point is there to the fight?

Given this, I wish to better understand exactly why the Israeli army/government continues to enjoy a seeming carte blanche to do what it likes. People imagined that the UNSC lost its meaning this week, but it has never, really, had any true meaning, and this has been underlined by Israel's actions again and again.

On an independent Palestinian state a-la Tom Tomorrow: it is no panacea.
And I, to be honest, agree with you here. The point I wished to make with that cartoon was in the first few panels; that whether "the Palestinians" or "The Israelis" are "the bad guys" or not depends entirely on your point of view. The issue, of course, being that from the point of view the IDF is labouring under, going and taking out Palestinian activists is perfectly acceptable, but because those they are going in and taking out are labouring under the opposite view, this doesn't solve the problem of suicide bombers and other terrorists.

I'm very big on searching for solutions to problems. I don't think an independent Palestinan state is the be all and end all, or indeed, any type of real answer (although recognising that the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are essentially sans Government of any form and taking steps to address that in a way which is actually helpful would be a start). I am also convinced that the military action, from both sides, has never and will never even approximate "helpful".
If a master bomb maker lives and works next to a school, it is not the IDF that is in the wrong for going there to get him. It is incumbent upon combatants to limit the risks they impose upon civilian populations, "ragtag" or not.
Again, I agree with you here. If the IDF have to take out a bomb-maker who lives next to a school, they have to do that. Some measure of responsibility must, of course, be placed on the bomb maker who has chosen to set up shop next to a school, believing that this will help him.

However, there is a burden on the IDF to acknowledge the inherent risks and do all they can to minimise them. If the IDF are doing this, then so be it. If this is the case, however, it must make this information available to us, not least so we can send them over people from the Marines and SBS who can teach them the combat skills they apparently haven't mastered yet.

Monty
At any rate, McDuff; you are patronizing people here with your simplistic and incorrect descriptions of what's happening and why it's happening. Your comment about the My Lai massacre is also pure fantasy.
Then please feel free to tell me what is happening and why it happened. I'm ont the only person who feels this way - as I have cited here, there are a good few people who live in Israel who have severe reservations as to the extent that the IDF have been allowed to run free recently. Are the editors of Ha'retz beign patronizing because of their simplistic and incorrect descriptions also?

Which bit of my comment about My Lai was incorrect?

Candida
Again, thank you for exposing the inherent anti-semetism in my words. Of course, all my comments up to now have been concisely and accurately summarised in your post.

In case you missed it, everyone, my thought process is as follows:
"It's all the fault of dem Kikes!"
For everyone who missed it in my posts, when I said "WHY is the Israeli army not held accountable for its actions?" that meant "It's all the fault of dem Kikes!" And when I said "The Israeli army is the military wing of a democratically elected government which receives Aid from the USA. Therefore, it should *act* like it. "Waa, but they started it" is NOT an excuse," that, too, meant "It's all the fault of dem Kikes!" When I said "either someone is not taking responsibility, which is bad, or someone IS, which is worse," I was sitting at my keyboard frothing at the mouth, hoping that someone would manage to read my subtext "It's all the fault of dem Kikes!" And, here's the thing that might have thrown you all off (so I'm pleased someone was paying attention), when I said "I blame the British," that, too, meant "It's all the fault of dem Kikes!"

Of course, what this subtext in all my posts means is that I am a Jew Hating white supremacist, definitely anti-Semetic and certainly a fully paid-up member of the Nazi party. Because of this, you can all feel free to ignore any points I'm making or questions I'm asking about the situation, because I'm anti-semetic and therefore nothing I ask can have any merit, QED.

On the other hand, there are some people here who apparently live in a strange Bizarro World where any criticism of Israel doesn't always spring from the mouth of an Anti-Semetic thug who wishes he could have joined the Hitler Youth. In such a world, there is such a thing as an ad hominem attack. Oviously, such things are not known to exist in the world of free thinking individuals such as yourself, Candida, but I hope you won't mind if I and the others who share this strange fantasy world carry on as if it was a possibility to discuss this issue without having the discussion break into a meaningless fudge of "You're Anti-Semetic!" "Am not!" tit-for-tat point scoring.

IEatFood
Point is, there will always be moron hater types in the woodwork.
Indeed. And it is possible, through various means, to limit them so that, for the most part, they remain there. There are West-Hating Intifada-Preaching Islamist clerics in the UK - but they can't raise armies and we tend to stop them bombing places without killing many children. Similarly in many places in the West. A population with a vested interest in not bombing people and not overthrowing the government, such as we have in Western Nations, is a far better defense against home-grown terrorism than any amount of bombs and bulldozers.

I agree that Sharon's actions are insane, but only because he lacks a coherent objective & spends far too much time reacting. It's time to shit or get off the pot. Either he goes all out, annihialtes ever suspected PA member, or the bend over & "make peace" (which will never really take place as long as the PA knows there are still Jews in the region), with these criminals. Dithering will only perpetuate the cycle.
Like I asked before, do you honestly believe that the *best* thing to do would be for Sharon to go and take out EVERYONE in one fell swoop? For the record, I agree with you that doing this would solve the short term problem of terrorism, but I have to ask: have you any idea what this would do to the region? And, more to the point, don't you realise that you're proposing what has been referred to previously as "Ethnic Cleansing" and "Genocide"? Sure, it could be said that the PA want to do the same to the Israelis, but since when does this make it "right"?

As for Americans in Baghdad, yeah that would be terrible. Imagine how awful Iraqi lives will become when there is no more Stalinist Dictator to cower under... etc etc
As it happens, this has nothing to do with addressing the point. From your own admission, Bin Laden got rich on Coca Cola dollars and ended up hating the USA. The point you thought you were attacking was "how do you make an Islamist mad." Nothing to do with the quality of life or otherwise. Just mad.

And as for what it has to do with Israel, again, best ask the Islamists.

Boo Boo Foo

It seems to me that the Palestinians desperately need to organise themselves into a creditable democratic sub group of Israel as quickly as possible. And they ALSO need to reject the maniac fringes which STILL call for the outright destruction of Israel. And they need to do this AS SOON AS POSSIBLE - for everyone's sakes.

Certainly, Israel could help the Palestinians achieve this goal I rather think.

Given our starting positions at odds in this thread, I am rather heartened to see that I agree with this quote in its entirety, and with most of what else you posted in this thread.
My point is this - the Palestinian Arabs have made some epicly dumb moves over the years - and they continue to do so. It's a shitfight now - no doubts about it - but I don't think I'm out of line in stating the Palestinians have painted themselves into the corner they're in - at least, when you consider the timelines of history since 1929.
Again, agreed. The situation is terrible, but history is made not only of events but of people's reactions to them. Everyone involved has a responsibility to acquit themselves the best way they can do in this situation - neither side can have that responsibility taken away from them just because the other side is, apparently, a bunch of bastards.

[Monty]

The bit about that looie being the scapegoat for the brutalilty of the United State Army. That comment alone proves you've no rational appraisal on this issue and thus your comments aren't worth listening to.

[candida]

McDuff

What I don't live in is a "bizarro world" where each and every accusation made about Israel, the IDF and so on is to be taken as some kind of self-evident truth just because some ranter demands that it is the case, neither do I live in a "bizarro world" where I even have to take every such accusation at face value.

I'd be the last to suggest that criticism of Israel makes one a Jew-hater, I've had a lifetime of it and I'm no self-hater, what is for sure is that obsessive accusation - where it's always "IDF murderers" 'do something' but "poor victimized suicide bombers in desperation" (never "Palestinian terrorist killers", note) 'do something' - provides a damn good cover for those who are.

It's "anti-Semitic", by the way.

[McDuff]

Monty
Fair enough. Don't listen to me then. No skin off my nose, old son.

Out of the whole massacre, there was only enough evidence to convict one man, although the whole company were undoubtedly involved, and there is plenty of evidence that My Lai wasn't an isolated incident. The fact that Lt Calley alone was sentenced made many people believe that he was unfairly carrying the whole can for actions which many more soldiers than him had taken part in. YMMV, of course.

Candida
I'd be the last to suggest that criticism of Israel makes one a Jew-hater, I've had a lifetime of it and I'm no self-hater, what is for sure is that obsessive accusation - where it's always "IDF murderers" 'do something' but "poor victimized suicide bombers in desperation" (never "Palestinian terrorist killers", note) 'do something' - provides a damn good cover for those who are.
Ahh. And you can find those sentiments in my posts, can you? In them, I, of course, claimed that the evil vicious nasty IDF were beating up on the poor helpless Palestinians.

When I said "I'm not supporting the PA's actions," or "I don't give Arafat or the PLO any legitimacy whatsoever. They are criminals and terrorists and murderers. I would far rather that they were utterly bypassed in these precedings altogether," did that not clue you in? Or would you rather have believed that I was just giving out the old pat rhetoric because that's what you expected me to be saying?

[McDuff]

Also, thank you for your correction of my spelling. I'll try and bear that in mind for future reference.

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

I find the Palestinean way of thinking quite unfathomable. They seem surprised that Israel is quite capable of using Terror against Terror. They seem to be pointing Israeli tactics as terrorist but try to downplay their own terrorism. Palestinean civilians get hurt, well duh.... Israeli civilians get hurt too and as a matter of fact, they are the palestineans main target. At least the israelis try to have a terrorist target but everyone knows they dont give a damn whether they miss or not and this situation would be highly objectionable if it werent for the fact that they are being terrorized first. They are 2 terrorist nations fighting each other like rabid dogs and each are calling upon the world to stop the other.

Now its quite obvious to anyone (i mean anyone) that Israel is the big dog here. nipping this dog's heels or tail gets you a giant bite at the neck. Its time to stop trying to bite this big dog. If it bites you first, then can the world justify going after Israel. Until then, palestine is getting what it deserves.

Stop the terror. Look for another way!

I saw the articles in this thread. There were children next to a burning tank. WHY??!! There was another tank looking for what destroyed this tank and children should NOT be anywhere near this place. Civilians getting shot in this scenario are not practicing what should be finely tuned palestinean instinct. Everyone there knows Israeli tanks mean death. Why do they go near one?

I dont know....

[Monty]

Everyone doesn't know that, X. Your assertion is baseless, and really should be in the BBQ Pit.

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Excuse me, Monty but i am not flaming anyone here. My assertions are based on the whole history of Israel. No one has beaten this rag tag motley group of jews. They went from being terrorist themselves to a fully mechanized, efficient and superbly coordinated military fighting machine. The fact that it beat back 3 countries that simultaneously attacked it gives Israel the Big Dog status. To deny this is delusional. to overcome this enemy, one needs to know this enemy. Anyone thinking they can beat Isreal in its own game is asking to eat a big can of whoop-ass.

[antechinus]

Originally posted by Monty
Then you are equating a soldier who is in the defense of his country with a rabid piece of trash for a human being murderer. And you are wrong in that.

I was assuming that you were refering to the killing of innocent people, as I was.

Palestinian suicide bombers are killing innocent people. The Israeli army is killing innocent people. They are both wrong, they are both 'killers'.

The difference one is a democratically elected government, the other is a bunch of fanatics.

As Boo Boo Foo said, the Palestinians have been politically stupid - they could have avoided this situation by accepting earlier the presence of their new 'neighbour'. The Palestinians suicide bombers should stop their dirty work, but they are bunch of fanatics.

A government, especially a powerful one, has a greater burden of responsibility to do good.

[candida]

McDuff

Yes, along the lines of "some of my best friends are . . ."

[Monty]

The difference, antechinus, is that the murderer, even if he's in uniform, faces court-martial when he's found out.

X: your assertions are based on prejudice.

[McDuff]

Fair enough.

Now, let tell you a little story.

I have spent quite a bit of time arguing with people recently about Immigration and Asylum in the UK. Many of those who are very "withdraw from the Genva Convention" about it often criticise those of us who are pro-immigration and anti-border controls. "You keep calling us racist," they claim, "you can't have a proper debate if insults are thrown about."

Now, some people on my side have a problem with this. "They are racist," they moan. "Some of what they say is cut from Hitler's cloth!" I, for the most part, agreed with them. However, I decided that enough was enough. The first thing I did was to agree with my opponents outright. "Yes," I said, "all this talk of racism stifles free debate, so let's have none of it and talk about the facts." Some time later, they were dead in the water.

My point? If you want to prove me wrong about something, don't bother calling the "you're an anti-semite" stuff. It might be right, it might be wrong. Who is to say? You won't convince anyone who knows me that I am, but you might convince yourself, for all the good it will do you.

On the other hand, if you were to argue with me on the issues presented, and defeat me on those, that would be a resounding victory that would, no doubt, influence some of those on the SDMB, as well as the other people who I meet (after all, I have said before that I have no fear of having been wrong in the past, but I would hate to be wrong now - prove me wrong and watch me change my mind!)

This can either become a slanging match along the lines of "you're an anti-semite!" "am not!" "are too!", or it can be a debate on the issues. I have less than zero interest in taking part in the former, because it's utterly pointless. If you are convinced that I am anti-semitic, then feel free to believe it: I shan't waste my time denying it to you.

[candida]

Thank you for the lecture, McDuff, I'll bear it all in mind the next time you turn up with a rant about yet another Isreali 'crime'

Or not.

[Monty]

I don't know candida. It looks like an interesting plan: make racist statements & have a racist agenda but demand those who are against you to not mention your racism.

[McDuff]

Oh, and Monty, your assertations are based on prejudice too.

See how easy it is to argue like that!

[candida]

Oh, no nice liberal is racist, Monty!

They're just continually horrified at the endless crimes all us psychopathic Jews commit.

When we were weak, they found us contemptible, now we are strong they find us contemptible, if only we would disappear and leave them with just nice acceptable people to pity.

[Boo Boo Foo]

People... I'd like to point out something in McDuff's defence.

Earlier in this thread, I think about 3 days ago, I took McDuff to task over his style in the opening posts in this thread. I made some observations which COULD have resulted in McDuff really going to town on me in terms of flaming.

However, McDuff took on board my post and considered it in a reasonable manner, and actually modified his tone somewhat. In turn, I thanked him for doing so and applauded his post where he did so.

This says to me that McDuff wishes to be reasonable. And that ultimately, like most of us, he wishes to improve his knowledge base.

May I ask that you at least ponder his earlier magnanimous gesture for what it's worth?

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Originally posted by Monty


X: your assertions are based on prejudice.

Prejudice of what? What I am saying is that both Palestine and Israel are terrorist nations except Israel is better at it. Who am I being prejudiced against?

[Monty]

Israel. For one thing, it's not a terrorist nation. Kind of odd terrorism, if it is, to assist the people you're terrorizing with setting up what could've been a nation.

[McDuff]

Hmm...

In an attempt to perchance strike somewhat of a concilliatory tone, I wonder if I might suggest something we can all agree on?

When the words "terrorism" or "terrorist" can be applied to countries such as Israel, the USA, the UK etc etc as much as they can be applied to organisations such as the IRA and PLA, we may be able to take this as a sign that the word ceases to have any meaning beyond "kills people," with possible "not nice" overtones, and that it has gone the way of "postmodern" and "communist" into the Buzzword Land. "Terrorist" should not be used as a synonym for "Bad" or "Evil" or "Aggressive" or "Militant" or, indeed, for whatever else you want it to mean, or it will end up losing its meaning, and thus its effectiveness as a word.

Personally, as I have said, I don't see Israel as a "Terrorist" nation, or the IDF as a Terrorist organisation. Israel is a democratic country, (which numbers Arabs and Christians among its electorate, not only Jews) This is precisely why I believe it should be held to higher standards of conduct than if it were just a terrorist organisation. For a start, a terrorist organisation, like any other, is, to a certain extent "opt in, opt out," wheras a Nation is something you're stuck with.

[McDuff]

Also, thank you to Boo Boo Foo for being my advocate in this thread following the disastrous OP

[Monty]

No dice. Calling my country a terrorist organization doesn't wash with me.

[antechinus]

Monty: The difference, antechinus, is that the murderer, even if he's in uniform, faces court-martial when he's found out.
That is what the debate is all about Monty, in a responsible and law abiding nation the murderer in uniform would be punished.

From this article (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/13/1044927740942.html):

"The "(1982)" massacre, during which between 800 and 2000 Palestinian refugees were slaughtered, was carried out by an Israeli-allied Christian militia during Israel's war against Lebanon.
An Israeli tribunal in 1983 found Mr Sharon, then defence minister, to be indirectly but personally responsible. Mr Sharon was forced to resign but was not prosecuted."

In a country that does not prosecute for this sort of activity, you will continue to have murderers in the armed forces and government (please remember at this point that I am not saying that Palestine 'government' is any better).

If the UK ever slaughtered 1000 innocent people, I am sure the person with responsibility would have been punished.

The only legal action (http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/features/sharonlawsuit.html) taken against the current leader of Israel is from outside the Israeli government.

Monty and candida: I know there is no convincing you with logic, but can you at least understand how others around the world think when they see acts of violence by a supposedly civilised nation.

Candida: Why do you continue to play the professional victim? No one is persecuting you. Like I said earlier, the Jewish faith embraces peace. I think it is good that you spread the word of peace and I admire this aspect of the Jewish faith. It is violence perpetrated by the Israeli government that people around the world are concerned about. Please dont get the two confused.

[McDuff]

Monty
No dice. Calling my country a terrorist organization doesn't wash with me.
Are you talking to me here? If you are, then I'm afraid that you managed to get entirely the opposite meaning from my last post than I put there.
"Terrorist" should not be used as a synonym for "Bad" or "Evil" or "Aggressive" or "Militant" or, indeed, for whatever else you want it to mean, or it will end up losing its meaning, and thus its effectiveness as a word.
Or, in other words, calling Israel or the USA or the UK a "terrorist" nation simply because they happen to do things like wage wars is innaccurate and does the language a disservice, as well as nullifying the effectiveness of the word "terrorist" in its correct usage.

Or, in simple terms, "I don't think Israel/the USA/the UK/Japan/Vatican City are terrorist nations."

Of course, if you weren't talking to me and were merely indicating your intransigence over X~Slayer(ALE)'s statement, then ignore this post.

Candida If it will help you visualise that people can be anti-specific actions of the Israeli Government without necessarily wishing ill on all Israelis or Jews, consider either Rush Limbaugh's villification of the president of the USA from 1992 to 2000. I doubt anyone would claim that Rush hates all Americans and America (although I have doubts about his grasp of reality, not least his continuing need to blame said president for things that happen AFTER he left office), yet he opposed the highest ranking politician in the land without hestitation because he disagreed with his policies. The same can be said for those who oppose the War in Iraq now. The don't hate all Americans or America, yet oppose the actions of the ruling administration.

See how it works?

[Malthus]

Originally posted by antechinus
Monty:
That is what the debate is all about Monty, in a responsible and law abiding nation the murderer in uniform would be punished.

From this article (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/13/1044927740942.html):

"The "(1982)" massacre, during which between 800 and 2000 Palestinian refugees were slaughtered, was carried out by an Israeli-allied Christian militia during Israel's war against Lebanon.
An Israeli tribunal in 1983 found Mr Sharon, then defence minister, to be indirectly but personally responsible. Mr Sharon was forced to resign but was not prosecuted."

In a country that does not prosecute for this sort of activity, you will continue to have murderers in the armed forces and government (please remember at this point that I am not saying that Palestine 'government' is any better).

If the UK ever slaughtered 1000 innocent people, I am sure the person with responsibility would have been punished.



If you are of the opinion that the leaders of the army of the UK (and of the US) have never been "indirectly but personally responsible" for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, might I direct your attention to the fire-bombing campagn of WW2?

I believe that a single raid over Dresden killed more civilians than the IDF has in its entire history.

Where were the prosecutions for that?

Or, if that is too long ago, what about the US and its bombing campaign in Viet Nam?

Of course, those examples were different, in that the deaths of civilians were deliberate and ordered by the generals in charge - whereas the deaths of the Palistinians in the incident cited were actually caused by *other (Christian) Arabs*, and there is *no* allegation that Sharon actually ordered them - check out the indictment in the Belgian court. The allegation is that, as general in charge, he must bear the responsibility *even if he was totally unaware* of the impending massacre.

So, given that he was fired in disgrace - a fate *not* meeted out to the US and UK generals responsible for deliberate civilian deaths - am I to presume that Israel is more "responsible and law abiding" than the UK, which never so far as I know punished "Bomber" Harris for his quite deliberate policy of incinerating innocent civilians?

[Monty]

Yep, it didn't even take two pages for the same old crap to be brought up.

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by McDuff
This can either become a slanging match along the lines of "you're an anti-semite!" "am not!" "are too!", or it can be a debate on the issues. I have less than zero interest in taking part in the former, because it's utterly pointless. If you are convinced that I am anti-semitic, then feel free to believe it: I shan't waste my time denying it to you.

McDuff - You’re going to have to get used to the “anti-Semitic” crap being thrown at you for even suggesting Israeli wrong-doing. IMHO, the only way to try and address issues and stay on topic in relation to Israel (on this board) is to accept a percentage of posters will always try and make as much distracting noise as possible by turning the attention on you, or your reasons for posting, or distract you by misrepresenting what you say … anything but address the issues. You’ve found one of those in this thread. Welcome to my world :)

Good luck with the smearing, the accusations, the misrepresentations, the quoting out of context, etc, etc – I’m sure you understand it’s designed to intimidate you to not post on the subject again.

Btw, welcome to the board and I hope you stick around.

[McDuff]

Malthus
So, given that he was fired in disgrace - a fate *not* meeted out to the US and UK generals responsible for deliberate civilian deaths - am I to presume that Israel is more "responsible and law abiding" than the UK, which never so far as I know punished "Bomber" Harris for his quite deliberate policy of incinerating innocent civilians?
You want a British person's response?

Were those firebombing raids to be carried out today, by British forces, I would DEMAND (as would, I have no doubt, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch et al) that the generals responsible be tried by the ICC. As it is, I, and several others, are keeping a close watch on a certain Mr A Blair's actions during the war. Although the American forces are not under the jurisdiction of the ICC, "Operation Shock and Awe" certainly counts as a War Crime according to a not-very-creative reading of the Genva Convention, the ECHR, and the ICC, and so British involvement may end up with Mr A Blair in the dock unless he is very careful exactly where he sticks his forces.

If you like, you can also point out that the British beat the Nazi party to the invention of the Concentration Camp during the Boer War. That, too, would result in immediate prosecution right up the scale to Mr A Blair if it happened today. And that, too, I view as an episode in British History that we could well do without, but cannot be rid of and must live with and learn from.

"It happened in the past," or "they did it first" is not an excuse. Not for us, not for anyone. It might be terribly unfair on Mr Blair that, as much as he may want to be like Churchill, he cannot posibly allow the firebombing of a city without facing arrest under the laws of his own country, but that's just the way it crumbles for him, I'm afraid.

Although Sharon's "war crimes" are an interesting aside, what worries me much more is the actions of leaders and armies today, with the intent to prevent future death, rather than merely to rebuke past atrocities.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by McDuff
Malthus

You want a British person's response?

Were those firebombing raids to be carried out today, by British forces, I would DEMAND (as would, I have no doubt, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch et al) that the generals responsible be tried by the ICC. As it is, I, and several others, are keeping a close watch on a certain Mr A Blair's actions during the war. Although the American forces are not under the jurisdiction of the ICC, "Operation Shock and Awe" certainly counts as a War Crime according to a not-very-creative reading of the Genva Convention, the ECHR, and the ICC, and so British involvement may end up with Mr A Blair in the dock unless he is very careful exactly where he sticks his forces.

If you like, you can also point out that the British beat the Nazi party to the invention of the Concentration Camp during the Boer War. That, too, would result in immediate prosecution right up the scale to Mr A Blair if it happened today. And that, too, I view as an episode in British History that we could well do without, but cannot be rid of and must live with and learn from.

"It happened in the past," or "they did it first" is not an excuse. Not for us, not for anyone. It might be terribly unfair on Mr Blair that, as much as he may want to be like Churchill, he cannot posibly allow the firebombing of a city without facing arrest under the laws of his own country, but that's just the way it crumbles for him, I'm afraid.

Although Sharon's "war crimes" are an interesting aside, what worries me much more is the actions of leaders and armies today, with the intent to prevent future death, rather than merely to rebuke past atrocities.

I have no quarrel with that - it is consistent, and fair. I may not agree, but that is an entirely different topic.

I was reacting to this quote: "If the UK ever slaughtered 1000 innocent people, I am sure the person with responsibility would have been punished." - which, to my mind, displayed a staggering lack of historical awareness, as it outright states that the UK has never slaughtered innocent people, or if it did, that the responsible people were punished. Wheras we both know that the UK *has* slaughtered innocent people, and those responsible were *not* punished.

Selective memory of this sort simply irritates me - lord knows why.

[McDuff]

Oh, I agree with you there. The British Empire slaughtered many more than 1000 people during its long and bloody past, something which most of us have absolutely no desire to repeat (although you'll always attract Fuggheads, to paraphrase Niven)

The assertion would be correct within the last 35-40 years or so, however this isn't really a long time, historically. It does, though, give some indication that we might possibly have got some degree of a message through our thick heads by now, and it only took thousands of years of bloody warfare to do it!

[antechinus]

Originally posted by Malthus
I have no quarrel with that - it is consistent, and fair. I may not agree, but that is an entirely different topic.

I was reacting to this quote: "If the UK ever slaughtered 1000 innocent people, I am sure the person with responsibility would have been punished." - which, to my mind, displayed a staggering lack of historical awareness, as it outright states that the UK has never slaughtered innocent people, or if it did, that the responsible people were punished. Wheras we both know that the UK *has* slaughtered innocent people, and those responsible were *not* punished.

Selective memory of this sort simply irritates me - lord knows why.


Good greif, you have totally misunderstood. I should be more precise and say "If the UK ever (from NOW on) slaughtered 1000 innocent people ..."

I am not talking about Julius Ceaser or Alexander the Great* or anything historical. I am talking about NOW, because something can be done about NOW and people who are alive NOW can still be punished.

If I had written: "If the UK had ever ..." then the sentance would have a different meaning.


*please dont tell me they were not british - may seem a silly request to some, but some people need this sort of clarification

[candida]

McDuff

Using the "You yids call any criticism of Israel anti-Semitism" card is one thing but following it with the "playing the victim" card!

We await the next rhetorical cliché with bated breath.

[candida]

Yes, London Calling

That must be as tiresome as being berated as a supporter of the "murderous/apartheid/nazi/imperialistic Israeli state" because one doesn't abjectly accept every piece of Palestinian or Arab propaganda at face value.

[leander]

candida, why is it necessary to use inflammatory language in your debate?

[McDuff]

Candida
That must be as tiresome as being berated as a supporter of the "murderous/apartheid/nazi/imperialistic Israeli state" because one doesn't abjectly accept every piece of Palestinian or Arab propaganda at face value.
I have gone out of my way to tell you why I do not believe this to be true. I also said that I have no desire to keep playing this game.

If I am anti-semitic and unworthy of your time, then, please, feel free to not waste your time on me.

Incidentally, the "victim" comment was by antechinus.

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by candida
Yes, London Calling

That must be as tiresome as being berated as a supporter of the "murderous/apartheid/nazi/imperialistic Israeli state" because one doesn't abjectly accept every piece of Palestinian or Arab propaganda at face value.
Candida – If you ever want to debate OP’s or issues in a thread, bet back to me. For now I’ll just assume you’re intentionally making noise to distract, smear and intimidate. Same old, same old …

People like you remind me of those pathetic misty eyed, IRA supporting, 'American Irish’ of the 70’s and 80’s who had no grasp of the issues but thought it their patriotic duty to financially support terrorism. Yeah, that tactic really impressed Londoners when $US became bombs, and really contributed to the peace process.

Sad uprooted fuckwits who felt a 'tribal' need to connect with a distant (homeland) cause, no matter how ignorant, how destructive, how counter-productive, how much the real Irish laughed at them. Very often, it was all about them, those American ‘Irish’, and what they (emotionally) needed, and nothing to do with the real world or the issues.

As I say, some US Jews remind me of that level of emotional self-flagellation and masturbation. This abuse you’re dishing out in this thread, it’s about you, isn’t it, and nothing to do with the administration of Sharon or Israel. It’s all about your emotional needs. You see it, somehow, as your duty, your contribution to the greater fight ?

Only in America ! Jesus.

I’ll leave this interesting thread alone now.

[candida]

Thank you, London Calling!

Next time I need a pop-up exemplar, you're the man!

[istara]

candida - first you used the word "kike", and now the word "yid."

So you are the only person using anti-jewish terms in this thread.

Are you trying to create the impression that others have used them?

Or are you - despite being jewish - actually an anti-semite yourself?

Or are you - like some african americans using the "N" word - trying to "reclaim" these terms?

I would respectfully suggest these terms are more appropriate for the Pit.

[candida]

istara

The use was purely for effect and speak to motivation.

Since the point has been to raise the question of obsessive criticism of Israel and the kind of language used to describe things done by Israelis as opposed to Palestinians . . .

For example, where Israelis are continously portrayed as doing monstrous things, while Palestinians, even suicide bombers, are constantly portrayed as innocent victims of 'evil' Israeli policy, I'm reminding people that civilized language can merely hide other motivations.

[Tee]

Originally posted by London_Calling
People like you remind me of those pathetic misty eyed, IRA supporting, 'American Irish’ of the 70’s and 80’s who had no grasp of the issues but thought it their patriotic duty to financially support terrorism. Yeah, that tactic really impressed Londoners when $US became bombs, and really contributed to the peace process.

Sad uprooted fuckwits who felt a 'tribal' need to connect with a distant (homeland) cause, no matter how ignorant, how destructive, how counter-productive, how much the real Irish laughed at them. Very often, it was all about them, those American ‘Irish’, and what they (emotionally) needed, and nothing to do with the real world or the issues.

Much as I hate to get in the way of your upbraiding of candida,

you are, of course, likening them to the tribal Arab American or British Arab fuckwits of today. Right?

[Latro]

Originally posted by candida
For example, where Israelis are continously portrayed as doing monstrous things, while Palestinians, even suicide bombers, are constantly portrayed as innocent victims of 'evil' Israeli policy, I'm reminding people that civilized language can merely hide other motivations.

Candida, do you really feel that McDuff's O.P. falls into that category? That he is only maskerading his 'other motivations' with a question that just looks legit?

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by Tee
you are, of course, likening them to the tribal Arab American or British Arab fuckwits of today. Right?

I don’t see those people disrupting legitimate threads in this forum, nor smearing posters to distract from debating issues – standard straw man tactic 2/10, could do better.

[Tee]

I could go downtown today and see them disrupting traffic and heaven knows what else. That's not the point. Your assessment of the Irish Americans in the 70s, the Jews at key points in history....it applies to ceertain Arabs in the world today as well, correct?

[Tee]

WTH...

*certain.

[London_Calling]

Why not ? It's a human trait, Arabs aren't immune from same. Just don't get a lot of it in the GD forum. You fight ignorance where you see it, where you can and I ain't in "downtown". I'm on this board. Now.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by antechinus
Good greif, you have totally misunderstood. I should be more precise and say "If the UK ever (from NOW on) slaughtered 1000 innocent people ..."

I am not talking about Julius Ceaser or Alexander the Great* or anything historical. I am talking about NOW, because something can be done about NOW and people who are alive NOW can still be punished.

If I had written: "If the UK had ever ..." then the sentance would have a different meaning.


*please dont tell me they were not british - may seem a silly request to some, but some people need this sort of clarification

I interpreted:

"If the UK ever slaughtered 1000 innocent people, I am sure the person with responsibility would have been punished"

As referring to events in the past. "Would have been" is usually considered to refer to past, not future, events. If you had meant the future, you would no doubt have written "would be punished".

Besides which, if you don't care about the past (and WW2 is within living memory, there are plenty of people still alive who fought in that conflict - unlike say the wars of Julius Ceaser or Alexander the Great) - why bring up the Lebanon war, which happened more than 20 years ago? As far as I am aware, that is an event "in the past" as well.

If you *do* care about the past, why not prosecute those who ordered or flew fire-bombing missions? Some are in fact still alive - I saw an interview with one recently.

Or do you mean that the UK was "not law abiding" because it failed to prosecute the generals in charge when they were still alive? I am sure many were still around in the early '80s, at the same time as the Lebanon war ... and were considered national heros. Meaning that both the UK and Israel share the very same lack of "law abidingness" at the same period of time - the early '80s.

Or is it that you only care about the Israeli past, but not the UK past? Is there some sort of magic shut-off date for responsibility, which exonerates one nation but not the other?

Bingo! Answer found.
:rolleyes:

[jjimm]

Originally posted by candida
istara

The use was purely for effect and speak to motivation. So you're incorrectly portraying your debating opponent's point of view. This is known as a straw man.

Since the point has been to raise the question of obsessive criticism of Israel and the kind of language used to describe things done by Israelis as opposed to Palestinians . . .

For example, where Israelis are continously portrayed as doing monstrous things, while Palestinians, even suicide bombers, are constantly portrayed as innocent victims of 'evil' Israeli policy, I'm reminding people that civilized language can merely hide other motivations. Candida, you're arguing against stuff that isn't being said.

I don't think there is a single person I have seen in this thread, or any other, who supports the terrorists.

So let's take it as read that we think blowing up innocent people is utterly despicable and wrong. It's a given. Palestinian terrorists = bad. I am sure you agree with me. Hence: no debate.

However, there are some posters, myself included, who think that Israeli policy WRT the Palestinians is pretty awful too. And that part - not all by any means, but part - of the reason for the horror of terrorism visited upon the Israeli people, are those policies.

Can we start again from there?

[istara]

jjimm - up to now, I've considered Palestinian violence to be a reaction to oppression, one of desperation, albeit wrong. Were they to limit to military targets, I would consider that a "just" war, but the bombing of civilians is unacceptable to me.

Now, my perspective is shifting - in that I believe they are being deliberately goaded to continue the violence, to allow Israel to maintain and increase its presence there.

Our Jerusalem correspondent recently filed a report on this - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-601551,00.html - and we frequently hear other stories of oppressive measures that go so far beyond what would be rational, reasonable, "acceptable" military action that they defy belief.

When you see the crappy little shacks these people live in, their third world villages, their failing and destroyed farms and orchards, their lack of clean drinking water and electricity, their lost jobs and livelihoods (travel restrictions) their families dying because they can't reach hospital on time, you can't continue to justify Israeli actions on "security" grounds.

Crimes against humanity are being perpetuated here. It doesn't negate the validity of an Israeli state, or the general innocence of Israeli people to acknowledge these things.

What I find terrifying is the continuing "emerald-tinted spectacles" approach by americans and jews outside Israel that the people who run their religious homeland are behaving acceptably. They are not. The terrorism on the Israeli side needs to be rooted out as much as the Palestinian suicide bombing does.

What is happening is a stain on Israeli (and Jewish in a sense) history. I don't understand how jews and jewish and israeli supporters can bear to tolerate this, let alone support it.

Eg: we didn't see American catholics vehemently defending the Vatican over its history of sex abuse cover ups. We witnessed outrage, distress, regret - why don't we see the same emotions over what Sharon's regime is doing?

[Monty]

And it continues. :rolleyes:

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Originally posted by Monty
No dice. Calling my country a terrorist organization doesn't wash with me.

Well, I am sorry you feel that way but it still doesnt change established fact that Israel uses much the same tactics as Palestinean terrorists do short of suicide bombers in public places.

Terrorists are persons or groups of persons that target civilian and non-involved military units to induce a political change.

Israel target the suspected terrorists family and neighborhood.

There is a common protocol among Israeli occupational forces that if they challenge anyone and he runs, shooting him would be justifiable. This was shown on MTV as if everyone would understand the logic. Not being in that situation, I dont ..not fully.

It takes a palestinean 2 hours to cross a border that an Israeli would take 20 minutes to get across.

You have refugee camps patrolled by tanks.

and lastly all your actions are directed at having Arafat change his way and reform his governement.

This is not one sided tho. I still cant figure out what the strategic advantage is to blowing up your comrades in a bus full of israeli civilians other than getting you friends and family killed for the media to see.

[Monty]

What you related is not a fact, XS. Get back to me after you realize what a fact is and what truth is.

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Originally posted by istara
jjimm - up to now, I've considered Palestinian violence to be a reaction to oppression, one of desperation, albeit wrong. Were they to limit to military targets, I would consider that a "just" war, but the bombing of civilians is unacceptable to me.

Now, my perspective is shifting - in that I believe they are being deliberately goaded to continue the violence, to allow Israel to maintain and increase its presence there.

Our Jerusalem correspondent recently filed a report on this - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-601551,00.html - and we frequently hear other stories of oppressive measures that go so far beyond what would be rational, reasonable, "acceptable" military action that they defy belief.


Altho I mentioned earlier that I dont fully understand Israeli mindset, that doesnt mean I dont agree with some if not most of their tactics. Both nations live in fear of each other. One is prospering the other isnt. A sense of imbalance exists between them and Israel would rather it keeps on prospering. Palestine likes to prosper as well but doesnt have America to support it. All well and good but what about Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Syria? These nations can chip in and help the palestinean economy but all they do is lend moral support and arms. The underlying objective of paletinean extremists and terrorists is nothing less than the total annihialation and destruction of the nation of Israel. They dont want cooperation or harmony. They want the jews outta there. Thats like Saddam's sons telling Bush to resign. Kinda futile and self destructive.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by istara
jjimm - up to now, I've considered Palestinian violence to be a reaction to oppression, one of desperation, albeit wrong. Were they to limit to military targets, I would consider that a "just" war, but the bombing of civilians is unacceptable to me.

Now, my perspective is shifting - in that I believe they are being deliberately goaded to continue the violence, to allow Israel to maintain and increase its presence there.

Our Jerusalem correspondent recently filed a report on this - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-601551,00.html - and we frequently hear other stories of oppressive measures that go so far beyond what would be rational, reasonable, "acceptable" military action that they defy belief.

When you see the crappy little shacks these people live in, their third world villages, their failing and destroyed farms and orchards, their lack of clean drinking water and electricity, their lost jobs and livelihoods (travel restrictions) their families dying because they can't reach hospital on time, you can't continue to justify Israeli actions on "security" grounds.

Crimes against humanity are being perpetuated here. It doesn't negate the validity of an Israeli state, or the general innocence of Israeli people to acknowledge these things.

What I find terrifying is the continuing "emerald-tinted spectacles" approach by americans and jews outside Israel that the people who run their religious homeland are behaving acceptably. They are not. The terrorism on the Israeli side needs to be rooted out as much as the Palestinian suicide bombing does.

What is happening is a stain on Israeli (and Jewish in a sense) history. I don't understand how jews and jewish and israeli supporters can bear to tolerate this, let alone support it.

Eg: we didn't see American catholics vehemently defending the Vatican over its history of sex abuse cover ups. We witnessed outrage, distress, regret - why don't we see the same emotions over what Sharon's regime is doing?

It is amusing to see that not only is the Israeli government's actions against the Palistinians "their fault", but the Palistinian terrorist's actions against Israel is "Israel's fault", too.

Actually, the reverse is much more likely the case. There is no way that suicide bombing actually supports the legitimate asperations of the Palistinian people for a state of their own. Much more likely, it "goads" the Israelis into increasingly harsh reprisals - which, not coincidentally, increase support for the terrorists. Outsiders who unilaterally blame Israel for everything of course increase the legitimacy of these terror tactics.

The net effect of these reprisals is of course increased misery for Palistinians - which can then be portrayed as "crimes against humanity", blamed on Israel, and used to justify further terrorism (with or without ritual denunciations of the killing of random civilians).

Those who are really interested in the welfare of Palistinians would demand that they stop this vicious cycle. If they did, peace would be made easy - and the slum-like conditions of the Palistinians eased by investment and economic growth.

But unfortunately that is unlikely to happen, because the basis of the suicide bombing campaign is not to stuggle for Palistinian statehood - but to struggle to rally the Arab world for the destruction of Israeli statehood. If you don't believe me, read this - concerning the debate within Palistine over the use of these tactics:

http://memri.info/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=jihad&ID=IA10102

Or this article, defining what motivates a bomber:

http://memri.info/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=jihad&ID=SP37302

I found these parts particularly instructive:

"There are no Israeli civilians. They are all plunderers. History teaches this… I am completely convinced that the psychological effect [of the attacks] on the Israeli plunderer is [the realization] that his existence is temporary… They have become completely convinced that their existence in this region is temporary… Remove the Apache [helicopter] from the equation, leave them one-on-one with the Palestinian people with the only weapon [for both sides] being dynamite. Then you will see all the Israelis leave, because among them there is not even one man willing to don a belt of dynamite…"

"On the strategic level, there must be a pan-Arab plan in order to reach our goal. The goal of all of us is to liberate Palestine from the Israeli aggressors. To use words that some people no longer like to use today: 'We will throw Israel into the sea.' This phrase, by the way, is the truth. Either they will throw us into the sea, or we will throw them into the sea. There is no middle ground. Coexistence is total nonsense…"

"The real means of dealing with Israel directly is those who blow themselves up. According to what I see in the battle arena, there is no [other means] except for the pure, noble Palestinian bodies. This is the only Arab weapon there is, and anyone who says otherwise is a conspirator. I regret having to use these terms, but Arab politicians and journalists who condemn this fedaai movement are trying to impose such ideas on us to appease the West… The Palestinian body is the only means [of warfare] in this battle."[2]

Until this attitude is changed, there can be no peace. What sort of compromise can there be with this type of attitude?

[candida]

Monty

Yes, indeed, it continues. Soon as somebody turns up to deny any possible one-sidedness, somebody pops up to demonstrate that the 'strawman' is hardly made of straw.

Why is it that the only logical fallacies most people seem to have heard of are strawman and ad hominem (which they usually define incorrectly)?

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

Malthus, do you think that MEMRI has a partcularly objective view, given that it was founded by an Israeli intelligence officer and roughly half it's staff are former members of the Israeli intelligence service.

[jjimm]

Originally posted by candida
Yes, indeed, it continues. Soon as somebody turns up to deny any possible one-sidedness, somebody pops up to demonstrate that the 'strawman' is hardly made of straw.I still maintain your use racist language to describe "motivation", and your use of "nazi" to describe what you think people who argue against you are thinking about the Israeli government, is utter bull. Those are your straw men.

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

I should of added if you are looking for an objective study of the motivation of suicide bombers a science journal just published one (I have a copy of the issue somewhere, can't rember the name tho')

[candida]

If you've never heard Israel described as 'Nazi', you've obviously not been around much!

Check out Hamas propaganda (it's even in their Charter), for example.

It's a fairly regular slogan.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by MC Master of Cermonies
Malthus, do you think that MEMRI has a partcularly objective view, given that it was founded by an Israeli intelligence officer and roughly half it's staff are former members of the Israeli intelligence service.

As far as I know, they simply translate and publish statements made for the press in various middle-east countries.

If they were found to have *forged* any documents, their credibility would vanish overnight. However, they are always very careful to document and footnote everything, so no doubt it can be checked for veracity.

So I don't see what their *identity* has to do with anything, considering that they only act as translators - they didn't write this stuff themselves (I assume). Are you saying that the papers I quoted are not authentic? If so, do me a service and back it up - I will never trust them again. If not, what does it matter if they are totally biased and prejudiced (if that is the allegation)?

Either these views were published as stated, or they were not.

[Tee]

Originally posted by istara
jjimm - up to now, I've considered Palestinian violence to be a reaction to oppression, one of desperation, albeit wrong. Were they to limit to military targets, I would consider that a "just" war, but the bombing of civilians is unacceptable to me.

Now, my perspective is shifting - in that I believe they are being deliberately goaded to continue the violence, to allow Israel to maintain and increase its presence there.

I agree that they are being goaded, I just don't think it is Israel doing it. There are factions within Israel that want Israel to extend to the Jordan River, and there are factions within Palestine that want Palestine to extend to the sea...they will always be there. They haven't always been blowing each other up though, and "martyrdom" has not always been so popular. So I fault the radical pan-Islamic sociopolitical movement. The same one that is responsible for bombings in other spots around the globe and is so willing to cite the Palestinian plight as its cause when it suits them.

At the same time I do recognize the desperation of the people and how it can lead to situations like this. :::shrugs::: It's hard to say where the middle ground begins and ends in this.

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

I'm don't think the accuracy of the translations have been questioned (though there probably has been some 'spinning'), it's that they only choose to publish extreme and unrepresentative pieces.

Quite frankly they don't have much credibilty because of their partizan and propagandist nature (which is now quite well known after a piece in the Guardian was published by about them).

[Malthus]

Originally posted by MC Master of Cermonies
I should of added if you are looking for an objective study of the motivation of suicide bombers a science journal just published one (I have a copy of the issue somewhere, can't rember the name tho')

I am not sure what the meaning of an "objective study" of suicide bombing is. The article I linked to is decidedly *subjective*, in that it gives an explaination for the phenominon which is evidently the *subjective* meaning for some in the Arab world.

I consider that it is this "subjective" meaning which is important, as it is the one which actually motivates people and gives public meaning to the act.

Or are you referring to you doubts about the objectivity of MEMRI? If so, please provide some evidence that the commentary found there was forged.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by MC Master of Cermonies
I'm don't think the accuracy of the translations have been questioned (though there probably has been some 'spinning'), it's that they only choose to publish extreme and unrepresentative pieces.

Quite frankly they don't have much credibilty because of their partizan and propagandist nature (which is now quite well known after a piece in the Guardian was published by about them).

Are you referring to this?

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/The_Guardians_Selective_Memri.asp

"Most surprising of all is that while Whitaker spends 1,700 words attacking Memri as a "mysterious organization" and its "air of secrecy," he has forgotten to tell Guardian readers of his own secrets. For in addition to his work as Middle East editor of The Guardian, Whitaker also runs the anti-Israel, website Arab Gateway
(http://www.al-bab.com).

Arab Gateway lists viciously anti-Israel "associate sites," such as that of the spuriously-named "Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding" (http://www.caabu.org).

Whitaker's site has pages about non-Arab minorities in the Middle East, such as Berbers and Kurds -- but no page on Jews. The site's section on "maps" lists a "country map of Palestine" (we didn't know Palestine was a country), but upon clicking the link it takes you to a file at the Univ. of Texas archives with a slightly different name: "israel_map.jpg".

See a beaming photo of Whitaker on the "about" page of Arab Gateway at
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/about.htm

Sound to us like a conflict of interest."

Sounds to me like a typical partisan shit-fight.

Unless someone can convince me that the articles are forgeries or otherwise fakes (and the Guardian article itself says they are authentic), why should I care what motivates their publication - any more than I should care that the Guardian hires a guy who is so clearly biased himself?

That line of attack is pure smear and bullshit - on both sides. So the best thing to do is ignore it.

So, I ask again - is there any *legitimate* reason for not believing what I read on that site?

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

Yes, but Malthus, the Guardian is a repected national daily newspaper, Honestreporting on the other hand has the stated aim of winning the media war for Israel and is extremely partizan. I had a brief look at the site it called antisemitic I can't find anything there to justify that, especially as most of it's articles are taken from other sources.

As I stated before MEMRI is not much use for getting a realistic view of the Arab media.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by MC Master of Cermonies
Yes, but Malthus, the Guardian is a repected national daily newspaper, Honestreporting on the other hand has the stated aim of winning the media war for Israel and is extremely partizan. I had a brief look at the site it called antisemitic I can't find anything there to justify that, especially as most of it's articles are taken from other sources.

As I stated before MEMRI is not much use for getting a realistic view of the Arab media.

Let's work through the logic of this, shall we?

1. MEMRI can't be trusted because it employs Israelis. Therefore it is biased and anything published there can be ignored. This was uncovered by an article in the Guardian. With me so far?

2. The Guardian can't be trusted because it employs fellows like Whittaker. Whittaker is clearly biased, and so anything he says can be ignored, applying exactly the same logic as above. This was uncovered by Honestreporting. Agree?

3. Honestreporting can't be trusted ... etc. etc.

This type of "logic" is just a cascade of smears. Not one of these positions says anything about the content of the information in question. It just casts doubt on the motives for providing said information. Whether the Guardian is "well respected" or not is a matter of opinion - it employed this fellow and its editorial staff approved his article, which as far as I can see was a textbook example of a smear, so it cannot be said to have *acted* in a reputable manner in *this particular case*.

Now, you claim that MEMRI is useless, although you have admitted its translations are not biased (indeed, so did the Guardian). Why is that, I wonder?

Is it because MEMRI only publishes articles that make Arabs look bad? But that is demonstratably false - look here:

http://memri.info/reform.html

Is it because the articles focus on certain themes like "antisemitism" and "Jihad"? So what? Those are the articles of interest.

I personally think that it is because the articles, untailored for Western consumption, show sides of the conflict that you and others find uncomfortable. But if it is a true, existing opinion, maybe this discomfort is a good thing.

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

You just have to look at it's contents, for example the only cartoons it contains are antisemtic ones. It is also a Hasbara site too. All I'm saying is that it is hardly objective.

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

Malthus I have no problem with it highlighting the bad things in the Arab world, because I am well aware of them and they need to be tackled. What I do take issue with is the fact they are not what they say they are and are doing because of ulterior motives.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by MC Master of Cermonies
You just have to look at it's contents, for example the only cartoons it contains are antisemtic ones. It is also a Hasbara site too. All I'm saying is that it is hardly objective.

I have looked at the contents, which are organized by themes. I linked to the section on "reform and progress in the Arab World", but that doesn't seem to have changed your mind ...

As for the cartoons, perhaps you missed the introduction:

"These cartoons are part of MEMRI's Arab Antisemitism Documentation Project which documents Arabic newspaper reports, editorials, and other media sources which are primarily based upon antisemitic themes."

And you are surprised that they are all antisemitic? That is the category of cartoons collected in that site! Or maybe you think that there is no point in collecting such cartoons? If so, why? I myself think that they provide a valuable insight into this aspect of Middle Eastern Culture, and think a similar site collecting cartoons of how Arabs are viewed in Israel would also be valuable - or how either are viewed in the West. But such is not the mandate of this particular site.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by MC Master of Cermonies
Malthus I have no problem with it highlighting the bad things in the Arab world, because I am well aware of them and they need to be tackled. What I do take issue with is the fact they are not what they say they are and are doing because of ulterior motives.

Really?

Here is what they say:

"The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) explores the Middle East through the region's media. MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East.

Founded in February 1998 to inform the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East, MEMRI is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501 (c)3 organization. MEMRI's headquarters is located in Washington, DC with branch offices in Berlin, London, and Jerusalem, where MEMRI also maintains its Media Center. MEMRI research is translated to English, German, Hebrew, Italian, French, Spanish, Turkish, and Russian."

What part of this is deceptive?

And even if the organization has "ulterior motives" (which certainly cannot be *proven* by simply saying that Israelis work for it - notice how their headquarters is in DC and their media centre is in Jersusalem, a fact they announce up front), how does that impact in any way on the service they provide?

You don't have to like or trust them as people, to read their translations.

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

Yes but just antisemtic cartoons nothing else, it clearly concentrates only on the negative aspect of Arab media, especially in it's e-mail dispatches, which are all avaidable here, but not on the site:
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?threadid=1856&perpage=15&pagenumber=2

another article about MEMRI:
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/reviews/1017788174.php

[Malthus]

Originally posted by MC Master of Cermonies
Yes but just antisemtic cartoons nothing else, it clearly concentrates only on the negative aspect of Arab media, especially in it's e-mail dispatches, which are all avaidable here, but not on the site:
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?threadid=1856&perpage=15&pagenumber=2

another article about MEMRI:
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/reviews/1017788174.php

Did you actually read the article you linked to?

Because if you did, you may have noticed that this article in fact praises MEMRI, and the work they do!

"But what has gotten MEMRI attention and, in the past two months, a crucial spot in the media food chain, is its translations of articles - particularly unhinged, rabid articles - from the Arabic media. Whatever you think of its story-selection process, MEMRI is filling an important gap in our understanding of the Middle East. Americans still have little access to important news and viewpoints from the Arab and Farsi media. The Beirut Daily Star provides welcome English-language coverage, but even that fine paper can't reproduce the range of news and opinion available in Arabic. The resulting vacuum tends to get filled by D.C.-based Arab journalists like as-Safir's excellent Hisham Melhem, by Condy Rice-approved snippets from al-Jazeera, or worst of all, by American blowhards explaining how this or that policy is going over in the 'Arab street.' Translations of the sort MEMRI provides are essential.

They're also risible. MEMRI's window opens on a world where the line between the crazed mob and the reasoning intelligentsia doesn't exist, where government officials, playwrights and popular dailies all believe in the Blood Libel, a myth of Jewish perfidy that went into decline in Europe around the time of Chaucer's Prioress's Tale, but still seems to have currency in the Levant.

These translations get around quickly. A juicy MEMRI mailing will get picked up quickly by bloggers, discussion lists and various right-wing journals of opinion. In the case of Dr. 'Atallah Abu Al-Subh's recent ode to anthrax, MEMRI was first with a version in English. The story picked up a favorable notice from the Wall Street Journal's editorial site, ran in the Jerusalem Post, and received the inevitable Drudge link, all within a day. What's impressive is that the organization, formed in 1998 ' to study and analyze intellectual developments and politics in the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli conflict,' can put out this volume of translations on a relatively tight budget. MEMRI representatives refused repeated requests for comment, but it's clear that the organization puts great effort into culling and translating. (Most of the actual legwork and translating seems to be done from the group's Jerusalem office.) Nearly a quarter of the organization's half-million-dollar annual budget is spent on translations, and its site asks for interns fluent in Hebrew or Arabic.

Nor is MEMRI a media powerhouse fueled by AIPAC-level bucks. A 501(c)(3) non-profit that raised less than a million dollars in its first three years of operation (2000 records were not available), the organization cites mostly small-time expenses in its tax filings - $54,000 in compensation to Meyrav Wurmser, one of the organization's three officers, $13,000 in 'apartment expenses,' and so on. Its work is paid for mostly by relatively small donations, the largest being an undated gift of $150,000 - chump change in the shadow world of well-heeled interest groups and free-spending millionaire cranks where non-profit policy centers dwell. A $48,000 line-item for salaries and wages, at an office with half a dozen people, hints at the sort of slavery Washington interns are routinely subjected to; but MEMRI's finances, at least in its US office, appear to be on the up-and-up.

MEMRI's success depends on doing a simple job well, and using a push medium to get it out. The news selections - made at the group's Jerusalem office - are not a substantially different species from the news provided by World Press Review, but e-mail and fax distribution puts these stories into rapid circulation, and helps ensure this version of Arab media gets prominence.

It's a service that organizations more sympathetic to the Arabs seem unwilling or unable to provide. 'We don't have any money,' says Andrew Killgore, publisher of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. 'We don't have the resources to put out translations. Have you ever seen our magazine? Our magazine is a gem by itself, and that's what we do.'

To be fair, MEMRI's picture of an extreme, militant and delusional Arabic press allows for a few shadings. One recent article notes the efforts of Kuwaiti professor Ahmad Al-Baghdadi to critique Arab Muslims as 'the masters of terrorism towards their citizens.' Another cites a rhetorically deft dismantling of current anti-American and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories by Saudi columnist Hamad Abd Al-Aziz Al-'Isa. But there are enough stories about extremist kindergartens and calls for jihad to attract criticism from the growing Arab and Islamic lobbies. 'They tend to translate non-representative stories,' says Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, 'and members of the pro-Israel lobby then use them to club Muslims.'



That MEMRI has a bias against Arab societies can hardly be disputed. Although chairman Yigal Carmon occasionally argues for restraint in Israel's dealings with the Palestinians, he has been fixated on both the failure of the peace process and extremist Arab media for many years. Co-director Wurmser argues at length for blood-and-iron approaches to Israeli nationalism. MEMRI writers stay focused on the Middle Eastern culture of incitement when writing for other publications.

What is not clear is why this is necessarily an unfair representation of the Arabic media. 'They look for the absolute worst, most inflammatory rhetoric they can find in the Arabic press,' says CAIR's Hooper. 'It's kind of like if we translated Franklin Graham's remarks [condemning Islam as a 'wicked' religion], and then went to the Arabic press and said 'See, this is what they're saying in America.''

Well, since Franklin Graham is the son of a prominent U.S. religious leader, and his views are neither unique nor even particularly unusual, it would be quite fair to do just that.

'Not if you say it's representative,' says Hooper. 'I don't think those remarks by Franklin Graham represent a large number of Americans.'

But that's the catch. Just how unrepresentative are the comments the Middle East Media Research Institute highlights? Anybody who has spent any time in the Middle East, or even stayed alert to Arab politics, knows that MEMRI doesn't need to travel very far to cherry-pick offensive comments. Indeed, after listening to enough college professors who believe Jews blew up the World Trade Center, priests who say the Holocaust never happened, business executives who tell you McDonalds donates all its Saturday profits to suppressing the Palestinians, burghers who contend that the CIA assassinated Bashir Gemayel, and college students who argue that a rabbinical cabal is suppressing the message of Pat Buchanan, you begin to recognize MEMRI's picks not as extreme outliers but as very common Middle Eastern sentiments, the very air of political discourse in the Arab world.

MEMRI is enjoying some success. (Steve Stalinksy, the organization's executive director, now brags at National Review Online that awareness of extremism in the Egyptian media has begun to penetrate Capitol Hill). But that success is also a measure of the failure of moderate pro-Arab thinkers to get ahead of this story, to debate, or even acknowledge the existence of, the abundant lunacies that hold sway in the Arabic media. To listen to the many followers of Edward Said's increasingly irrelevant Orientalist critique, you'd think the problem is American misperceptions about Middle Eastern culture. CAIR's Ibrahim, for his part, doesn't confront the issue but simply counterattacks, using the tried and true 'I know you are but what am I' tactic. Meanwhile, it's left to the Arabs' enemies to explain for an American audience why so many people seem to believe that Jews blew up Egyptair 990 and that the U.S. is dropping poisoned food packets on Afghanistan.

The Web and particularly the kinds of mailing-list approaches that work well for instant news are vital tools for getting a broader picture of opinion in the Middle East. So far, the champions of Arabic and Islamic thought have markedly failed to use those tools. The picture of Arab media presented by MEMRI is a slanted, ridiculous cartoon. But it is not an entirely inaccurate picture. It's also a vital service at a time when Americans are starved for other viewpoints. And at the moment, it's one of the only shows in town."

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

the Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute spreads hate speech, baseless conspiracy theories and vicious calumny in a blatant effort to discredit Arabs and stir up malice toward Muslims missed out the first bit where it clearly establishes that MEMRI is a partizan organisation

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

Anyway, we could argue about MEMRI forever, but again I will say to you an American (?) science journal recently released a study of suicide bombers and their motivation in it's social science section, I advise you to get your hands on this as it is much more objective.

The only thing I can remember from it is that suicide bombers actually have a higher level of education than the average population, which is perhaps contary to what you would of thought. But I've only had a chance to browse it briefly.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by MC Master of Cermonies
missed out the first bit where it clearly establishes that MEMRI is a partizan organisation

And you seem entirely immune to the obvious irony employed in the "teaser" paragraph.

The whole quote:

"At a time when interfaith dialogue groups are opening around the country, when Islamic histories make the bestseller lists and bookstores can't keep the Koran in stock, when the nation is following the President's lead in working toward a fuller and more amicable appreciation of Islam and the Arab world, the Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute spreads hate speech, baseless conspiracy theories and vicious calumny in a blatant effort to discredit Arabs and stir up malice toward Muslims. And they're providing a pretty valuable service in the process."

Correct me if I am wrong, but to me at least the intent of this paragraph is as a "teaser" to get readers interested in the apparent contradiction - how can "spreading hate speech" be a "valuable service"? - answered in the rest of the article: because it happens to be the Arab Media's "hate speech" and "baseless conspiracy theories", and without MEMRI, we would not even know it existed.

I am starting to seriously wonder why this is not clear to you.

[antechinus]

Originally posted by candida
McDuff

Using the "You yids call any criticism of Israel anti-Semitism" card is one thing but following it with the "playing the victim" card!

We await the next rhetorical cliché with bated breath.

It was I who said you were playing a victim, not McDuff. This just shows that you dont really pay any attention to the arguments, you are just a gainsay automaton. No-one other than you has said"You yids call any criticism of Israel anti-Semitism".

You are doing a good job of creating a distraction from rational debate - i will hand you that. Must remember dnftt.

istara - very interesting post. Thanks.

[candida]

Surely, a partial hijack of yet another anti-Israel rant thread is no great crime, though they turn up with such regularity that it's obvious that, for some people, there is an insatiable hunger for them and the ritualized 'arguments' that take place - often more theater than 'debate'.

[leander]

Originally posted by candida
Surely, a partial hijack of yet another anti-Israel rant thread is no great crime, though they turn up with such regularity that it's obvious that, for some people, there is an insatiable hunger for them and the ritualized 'arguments' that take place - often more theater than 'debate'. candida, if you could come down off that cross (oops) for five minutes, maybe you could contribute to the many debates that are actually taking place here.

The irony, of course, is that the blind hatred you are accusing many here of having is exactly what you yourself are revealing. If a supporter of Palestine were partaking in the same sort of baiting, I'm sure you would find many objecting as well, rather vocally I imagine. In fact, anti-Semitism is not tolerated on these boards, and the accusation of such is an insult to the many interesting and intelligent debaters/debates here.

You are not the only Jew here, and acting like the world is persecuting you will get old very fast.

[candida]

leander

The point is that 'supporters of Palestine' are doing just that (baiting) and you have no idea whatsoever what my position on the issues involved actually is (believe it or not, very anti-Sharon, and pro the setting up of a viable Palestine).

Meanwhile, I'm allowed to raise the question of the motivations behind the obssessive criticism of Israel and the language used.

[istara]

candida - you can raise it, but that's another thread. Preferrably a Pit thread, if you want to use the sort of terms you've been using.

And just a suggestion - do you think the "obsessive" (ie extremely strong) criticism of the Sharon administration's current actions (most of us aren't actually condemning Israel itself, ie innocent Israeli people who may have no clue what their military is really up to - may be a result of the abominable, inexcusable behaviour of that administration?

What I mean is, could you for one moment consider that our motivation is that we actually have a point? That our criticism in this case, at this current time, actually has some validity?

[McDuff]

Malthus
Is there some sort of magic shut-off date for responsibility, which exonerates one nation but not the other?
No.

But then, I have a bit of a philosophical problem with claiming "a nation" has a responsibility for something anyway. Individuals have responsibilities. Leaders of nations have authority over the people in a nation, and the responsibilties that go with that authority. I am not responsible for Tony Blair's actions, and Tony Blair is not responsible for mine, unless he has enacted a policy or given an order which influences my behaviour (and by this, I do not mean "he made a law which I *had* to break, I mean giving a law that I *had* to keep).

Likewise, I don't blame "Israel" for any actions by the IDF, or "Palestine" for any actions of the suicide bombers. In both cases, there are clear lines of responsibility, and all individuals are to be considered fully responsible for their actions at any time. If they aren't, then they have no business being out on the streets withot a minder and a hard hat, let alone a gun.

All that said, no. Things are wrong or they are right. Every nation in the world has had the same problems arise over the last century. Actions which people considered justifiable during war or peace in 1900 or 1950 are not considered so today. Negotiating the treacherous paths of declaring people "war heroes" or "war criminals" is made doubly perilous because of the fact that they can, as you have pointed out, be one in 1950 and the other in 1980. Are there any "right" answers? Is it preferable to let sleeping dogs lie, or to right past wrongs? Each case has to be considered on its merits; there is no general answer for this type of case.

On the other hand, when discussing actions taking place this week or in the future, we can make viable comparisons. I'm keeping as close an eye as I can on British activity in te Gulf, because I want our army (which takes orders from my elected representative Mr A Blair and is therefore, ultimately, accountable to me and the rest of the British public) to behave in a way which is right, or at the very least, legal under British law. If any member of our army breaks the law, I want him arrested and tried fairly. It might sound harsh, but it is only by creating rules for our own conduct that we ensure we do not create more My Lais or concentration camps.

because the basis of the suicide bombing campaign is not to stuggle for Palistinian statehood - but to struggle to rally the Arab world for the destruction of Israeli statehood.
Which is why Arafat and Hamas should be sidelined in favour of people and organisations who are concerned with the welfare of the Palestinians, rather than being given the megaphone and the responsibility to speak for them.

And, again, people on both sides need to accept reponsibility for this.

Istara
Now, my perspective is shifting - in that I believe they are being deliberately goaded to continue the violence, to allow Israel to maintain and increase its presence there.
No, I disagree.

What I think is happening is that both sides* are dehumanising the other side, and refusing to countenance the possibility that things could be any other way. The Israeli government refuses to believe that there could be a way to co-exist without the Palestinians bombing their buses, and the PLO refuses to believe that there could be a way to co-exist without the risk of houses being knocked down. Whether or not this belief is justified by either side is a matter for debate, but I don't believe that any side is deliberately goading the other side into acting inhumanely, I just think they've stopped believing there can be any other way.

The terrorism on the Israeli side needs to be rooted out as much as the Palestinian suicide bombing does.
And, again, I think it's a misnomer to call it "terrorism". I think the technical term for such things is "excessive / disproportionate use of force". "Terrorism" doesn't really leave grounds for a counterargument to defend the actions, wheras that term leaves room to argue that the use of force is NOT excessive or disproportionate. It's little legal niceties like this that gives a State an advantage over a group like the PLO.

*just so this doesn't get overlooked, let me remind everyone: both sides. Ta.

Monty
What you related is not a fact, XS. Get back to me after you realize what a fact is and what truth is.
Please, Monty, enlighten us. What ARE the facts? Given our poor, fragile minds are tainted by biased media sources, full of anti-semitic bile spewed by the Media (that's the same media that we anti-semites believe is controlled by the Jews, I think, but let's not worry about that for now), please, tell us the truth. I, for one, await your enlightened answer explaining exactly WHY you are right and we are wrong, which gives you such absolute intellectual authority to post, thus far, nothing except "unless you agree with me you are wrong and can't tell the truth from the lies." Please, educate us.

Candida
If you've never heard Israel described as 'Nazi', you've obviously not been around much!

Check out Hamas propaganda (it's even in their Charter), for example.

It's a fairly regular slogan.

Must I do this still?
Above is an example of a combination Illicit Major Syllogistic Error (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/illmin.htm) and an Ad Hominem Attack (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm).

The reasoning goes as follows:

Hamas criticizes the IDF's actions. Hamas calls Israel a "Nazi" state.
I criticize the IDF's actions. Therefore, I am calling Israel a "Nazi" state.

Pretty piss poor rationalisation.

Firstly: I am not Hamas.
Secondly: I do not support Hamas.
Therefore: Hamas' actions or opinions cannot be taken as being evidence of or influencing my actions or opinions.

The point is that 'supporters of Palestine' are doing just that (baiting) and you have no idea whatsoever what my position on the issues involved actually is (believe it or not, very anti-Sharon, and pro the setting up of a viable Palestine).
That's because you didn't TELL me, did you? Nor, to be honest, does it have anything to do with the issues.

a) I am not "anti-Sharon," per se. I have no pressing need to see him prosecuted for anything he did in the past, I have a pressing need to see the situation in the Occupied Territories calm down. His policies strike me as short-termist ad do not seem to me to do anything about the problem, and his reponsibilities for the actions of the individual IDF soliders are self-evident because of his position, but that is as far as it goes.

b) I don't believe that "a viable Palestine" will necessarily solve the problem, although it depends, I suppose, on exactly what you mean by "a viable Palestine." I have no idea what you mean by that, because, up to this point, you haven't said anything whatsoever about it.

The fact is, if you claim "Ahh, you don't understand ANYTHING ABOUT ME"*, I can turn around and point out that you have been guilty of the exact same thing. You know nothing about me whatsoever, as evidenced by the fact that you are making judgements about me based not on my post but on the contents of the Hamas website, and on prior arguments you have had with OTHER PEOPLE.

Sorry to break it to you, dear, but you, personally, are just a series of posts on a message board to me. All I have to go on to inform me about you are the contents of these posts. To argue that I am a) uninformed and b) anti-semitic, because I am not telepathic is yet another fallacy.

Everything I see from you so far consists of ad hominems and inductive or syllogistic errors of reasoning, and all of it has been about the people making the arguments, not the arguments themselves. You want to convince me that you actually HAVE an argument and some degree of ability to argue it rationally, then post it here. If you don't, how in the name of Buddha Q Fitzgerald am I supposed to answer it?

"You are wrong, I am right" is not an argument. "You are wrong, I am right, and here is why" is an argument. (Unless, of course, the "here is why" is some variant of "because you are a poopyhead neener thbbbt!")

*(weep weep, wank wank, get a therapist, frankly)

[candida]

Istara

I apologize (well, not really) for interrupting The Performance.

By "obsessive", I don't mean "extremely strong", I mean pathological and demonizing; the constant assumption, pre-judgement, of evil motivations and evil behavior, where Israel never acts in self-defense, only in ‘revenge' and where the IDF, presumably taking time off from collecting Palestinian babies and BBQ-ing them to eat with favva beans and a nice (kosher) Chianti, chases saintly peace demonstrators around with bulldozers.

The thing is, you see, you want to see Israeli and IDF actions as ‘abominable' and ‘inexcusable' but are you prepared to say the same about the actions of the PA and suicide bombers? Is turning the ‘Protocols' into an Egyptian TV Soap Opera ‘abominable' and ‘inexcusable', or not?

You see, Istara, I think that ‘abominable' and ‘inexcusable' are part of the problem, they allow us to dehumanize one another and where dehumanization is the norm, politics is impossible.

[candida]

McDuff

You can always tell the importance of a guy when he calls you 'dear' . . .

. . . and his intellectual prowess when he starts with the Philosophy 101 terms.

I'm seriously impressed.

[McDuff]

Candida

I'm not that impressed, to be honest.

Because if you do understand why fallacies are called such, and you understand them far better than I (because as an unimportant, intellectual midget, I only understand them to "philosophy 101" level, although I wasn't aware that when you did a PhD on Plato's Cave you were suddenly allowed to start using them...), then it means that you're making bad arguments deliberately.

And that isn't impressive anywhere.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by McDuff
Malthus

No.

But then, I have a bit of a philosophical problem with claiming "a nation" has a responsibility for something anyway. Individuals have responsibilities. Leaders of nations have authority over the people in a nation, and the responsibilties that go with that authority. I am not responsible for Tony Blair's actions, and Tony Blair is not responsible for mine, unless he has enacted a policy or given an order which influences my behaviour (and by this, I do not mean "he made a law which I *had* to break, I mean giving a law that I *had* to keep).

Likewise, I don't blame "Israel" for any actions by the IDF, or "Palestine" for any actions of the suicide bombers. In both cases, there are clear lines of responsibility, and all individuals are to be considered fully responsible for their actions at any time. If they aren't, then they have no business being out on the streets withot a minder and a hard hat, let alone a gun.

All that said, no. Things are wrong or they are right. Every nation in the world has had the same problems arise over the last century. Actions which people considered justifiable during war or peace in 1900 or 1950 are not considered so today. Negotiating the treacherous paths of declaring people "war heroes" or "war criminals" is made doubly perilous because of the fact that they can, as you have pointed out, be one in 1950 and the other in 1980. Are there any "right" answers? Is it preferable to let sleeping dogs lie, or to right past wrongs? Each case has to be considered on its merits; there is no general answer for this type of case.

On the other hand, when discussing actions taking place this week or in the future, we can make viable comparisons. I'm keeping as close an eye as I can on British activity in te Gulf, because I want our army (which takes orders from my elected representative Mr A Blair and is therefore, ultimately, accountable to me and the rest of the British public) to behave in a way which is right, or at the very least, legal under British law. If any member of our army breaks the law, I want him arrested and tried fairly. It might sound harsh, but it is only by creating rules for our own conduct that we ensure we do not create more My Lais or concentration camps.


Which is why Arafat and Hamas should be sidelined in favour of people and organisations who are concerned with the welfare of the Palestinians, rather than being given the megaphone and the responsibility to speak for them.

And, again, people on both sides need to accept reponsibility for this.



I congratulate you on what I consider a balanced, fair and well-thought response.

Such is rare on (I admit it) either side, and so it is worthy to point it out when it is made.

I agree that a "nation", as an abstraction, cannot take responsibility - that is the perogative of individuals. To the extent that I seem to have been advocating this, I mis-stated. Though in the context of my post, I was actually trying to *critisize* this type of generalization, on re-reading it was not as clear as it should have been.

That being said, clearly the important point is to draw lessons from history so as not to repeat the gruesome bits -- not to pin blame for historical events, and certainly not to brand whole nations as "non law abiding" or otherwise inferior based on past disasters, of which each nation has its share...

[Though on a side note, on the topic of responsibility on individuals, I myself would give much more leeway to the Brits in the dark days of WW2 than in today's war - given that they were fighting for survival against a powerful enemy then, and have an overwhelming perponderance of power now. But that is another quite seperate issue.]

[McDuff]

Originally posted by Malthus
I congratulate you on what I consider a balanced, fair and well-thought response.

Such is rare on (I admit it) either side, and so it is worthy to point it out when it is made.
You flatter me, but thank you anyway.

That being said, clearly the important point is to draw lessons from history so as not to repeat the gruesome bits -- not to pin blame for historical events, and certainly not to brand whole nations as "non law abiding" or otherwise inferior based on past disasters, of which each nation has its share...
Absolutely. My problem with the Israeli government is not what it has done in the past but what it does now. Should it change, I would not have a problem with it.

[Though on a side note, on the topic of responsibility on individuals, I myself would give much more leeway to the Brits in the dark days of WW2 than in today's war - given that they were fighting for survival against a powerful enemy then, and have an overwhelming perponderance of power now. But that is another quite seperate issue.]
I agree with you there, but I would add that it is not just the balance of power. Even if we were fighting off an invasion from the Evil Iraqi Empire, firebombing Baghdad would not be justified. [/tangent]

[candida]

McDuff

It's ok, you served your purpose (no, I didn't get a Phd, never said I did) but. with people currently dying, there seem to be more important things to think about than squabbling with you.

[McDuff]

Don't let me hold you back from them.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by McDuff

Absolutely. My problem with the Israeli government is not what it has done in the past but what it does now. Should it change, I would not have a problem with it.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Having read several of your posts, I am beginning to think this is actually true.

It generally isn't, you know.

Originally posted by McDuff
I agree with you there, but I would add that it is not just the balance of power. Even if we were fighting off an invasion from the Evil Iraqi Empire, firebombing Baghdad would not be justified. [/tangent]

And this is why I think the above is true. Because it appears to come from a moral sense which is applied consistently [again, a rareity].

I disagree with the moral basis, because my sense of morality is somewhat different - again a side issue. But it is different across the board.

In other words, I understand (even if I disagree) with why you disapprove of Israeli actions, and it has nothing to do with concious or unconcious prejudices. It has to do with the specific application of a general moral theory.

Therefore, it seems likely to me that any disagreement we may have is not really over Israel per se, but rather results from the different way in which we approach the issues of war and peace.

The problem with this specific example is that the issue of Israel is riven with lots of deep-seated prejudices and fears, that your POV will be mistaken for apologetics - for one side or another. I can see several examples of that on this thread, and no doubt you could spot a couple aimed in your direction. ;)

In their defence, often it is very difficult to tell a strong (if mistaken ;) ) moral sense from prejudice, because in reality the one is often used as a mask to disguise the other. Not that anything excuses the rudeness you have suffered.

[McDuff]

I think that the above post is possibly the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me on an internet message board, and possibly the nicest thing ever.

But then I'm strange like that ;)

[istara]

candida - yes, I am. I do and have said that blowing up a civilian passenger bus eg is abominable. Actions on both sides are abominable. I don't think either side's actions should excuse the others.

My current problem with Israel is that they are supposedly a democracy, and have a greater choice of how to act. Maybe it is unfair to expect a better level of behaviour from them, but we are always told that the reason the US supports Israel is because they are a democracy, etc etc. So act like one, don't act like a oppressive tyrant. The thing that really distresses me is the huge imbalance of power. Israel is effectively bullying a much weaker, increasingly desperate Palestine. It's for this reason I believe their behavior is tantamount to "goading." (Also - when I say "Israel" - plese read that as the Sharon administration. Just to disclaimer again that I don't believe Sharon's regime is in any way truly representative of the majority of Israelis).

[Boo Boo Foo]

istara - I would respectfully offer a slight caveat to your , otherwise entirely admirable post.

Namely this - possibly, due to the nation state of Israel having been the target of so much hostility in it's time, possibly they have become conditioned beyond repair into believing they live in a permanent state of seige.

I would suggest that possibly the single most outstanding overture the Arabic World could offer, in the interests of procuring a workable peace in the region, would be to simply state in totally open terms - once and for all...

"Isreal, we accept you. We accept you as brothers in our region, and we promise to help you survive. Please help us help our Palestinian brothers, and please let us help you too..."

I reckon such a pronouncement, by all members of the Arab League, and offered with total sincerity, would soooooooooooooo go towards helping things I suspect.

That being said, if it's not being too pushy, would you be so kind please as to tell us about yourself istara? You write so wonderfully well! :D

[istara]

Boo Boo Foo - thanks for your post!

I totally agree with you that the Arab world needs to formally recognise Israel to move things on, but I don't know when or if that will happen, at least in the near future.

I think a lot of things need to be recognised on both sides. That bombing civilians is wrong. That mistakes have been made by both sides, serious, far reaching mistakes. That some land was unfairly and illegally taken. That lies and libel in the media on both sides hinder rather than help. That the US is unfairly biased towards Israel, just as the Arab world is unfairly biased towards Palestine.

[off topic] about me, I am a UK origin journalist, I worked in the UK and Australia before coming here to Dubai, where I work producing business TV and general news TV, for two different companies.

My one regret is that I haven't visited the US, so my perceptions of a lot of things there are based on stuff I read, and the experiences of friends. I would like to visit there, and find out what it is really like to perceive the news as an American - what the networks really show, what the papers really print, what the majority of people actually read, watch and hear, compared to what is available to them.

Eg: here, except for us media types who get access to newswires and free internet access in a special zone, there is virtually no way for the average Arab to get a fair picture of the Israeli situation. Quite apart form the fact that the newspapers are obviously biased pro-Palestine, many Israeli websites are blocked, and calling Israel is difficult - the international +972 dialing code is blocked, though you can get through on +970 (mobile numbers?)[/off topic]

[Boo Boo Foo]

Well gee, istara, that's precisely what has to change it seems to me. History shows that any country, absolutely ANY country can be manipulated via the media into being all sorts of yucky things - from mild yucky through to draconian yucky - determined I guess by the inherent malevolence of the regime which controls that media.

A belief in a true "freedom of the press" is probably what makes the Western World the place that it is, I rather think.

My father is Austrian, from a town called Podina on the Italian border. He emigrated to Australia after WW2 during the period that Austria was under communist control. He always used to tell me the story of his first day of walking the streets of Sydney after his arrival, and reading the newspaper headlines on the stands outside of newsagencies - and remarking to himself how openly critical the Australian press were towards the Federal Government if they wanted to be. He says it's one of the reasons why he so became so proud to become an Australian citizen.

If anything could be brought into the open as a reason to campaign against in the Arabic world, surely it must be their blatant manipulation of the media - and in particular - the open censorship of media from the outside world. And here's my reasoning... if any country is so darn sure that their way of life is superior to someone else's - they should be prepared to risk open criticism and put it to the test. They should be prepared to let their citizens be able to read and hear and see anything they wish to see or read or hear - at least in terms of the media and the internet. To simply argue that "we do this to protect the spiritual purity of our people" is bullshit - pure bullshit. All it results in is an indoctrinated culture with a skewered view on certain issues.

And there's nothing noble about that. It allows the seeds of emnity to stay alive it seems to me.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by McDuff
I think that the above post is possibly the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me on an internet message board, and possibly the nicest thing ever.

But then I'm strange like that ;)

My intent was not to flatter. ;)

It is just that on this issue the positions are becomming more entrenched than ever. Prejudice and its flipside, personal allegiance, are motivating attitudes as never before. It is often difficult to see through the fog of motivations, to understand why someone takes a stand one way or another.

This is a question that has come to intrigue me more and more - why do people care so much about the doings of this tiny country? For many reasons of history, religion and politics, it seems to be the focus of fears, hatreds and asperations of many around the world who have no direct contact or interest.

The theories are various, and my own could probably fill a book. The point is, with so many conflicting interests at stake (even though many are symbolic rather than real), an objective stance based on the same set of moral criteria applied to other situations is, in my opinion, quite rare - and I say this while disagreeing with the moral criteria which evidently motivate your opinions.

Perhaps this would be a good place to ask generally - those who post in this thread, what, in all honesty, motivates your interest?

[antechinus]

malthus Perhaps this would be a good place to ask generally - those who post in this thread, what, in all honesty, motivates your interest?

That is a very good question.

For me, in no particular order:

- my disgust in seeing suffering of people (both sides) for such a long period of time where there could be a solution (I believe), but nothing succesful has been done about it

- the immediacy of the situation - it is not history, it is now

- a sense of fairness - disgusted with people having land taken off them, when they have had contact with the land for ages, and the huge inbalance of power of one side over the other

- the disrepect shown by the Israelis towards the Palestinians - regarding them as sub-human

- that the Israeli government is supposed to be a democracy - this is a slur on democracy


All these things motivate my interest in the situation. Similarities with South Africa prior to 1990s and Timor prior to 2002.

So, malthus, how does your moral framework differ such that you agree to see a continuation of attacks on innocent poeple by a democratic govenment.

[Tee]

Originally posted by Malthus
Perhaps this would be a good place to ask generally - those who post in this thread, what, in all honesty, motivates your interest?

A strange fascination with the politics of it all. It's intricate, entwined, embedded, and so far reaching. Like a central terminal of modern history.

I could argue for either side at this point just from what I've picked up in past debates. Sometimes I just referee. Why, I don't really know. In the preceeding post by antechinus certain things would trip my propaganda meter like "slur on democracy", "attacks on innocent people" and "having land taken off them..." You know there's at least some factoid they are conveniently disregarding, and that can happen on either side. I did not notice any such things in McDuff's OP, it seemed to be a straightforward "WTF?" Fair debate fodder.

[istara]

Originally posted by Malthus
Perhaps this would be a good place to ask generally - those who post in this thread, what, in all honesty, motivates your interest?
Because I now live in a part of the world where I have met a lot of Palestinian people, and for the first time have really been confronted with the situation.

And also, because it seems to me that the situation there has never been worse: the Israeli military has never been ordered to act this aggressively before, and the Palestinians have never been quite this desperate, disempowered, and oppressed before.

[E-Sabbath]

Well, at least _some_ of the bombings should decrease now Saddam won't be able to give the families money posthumously. I know that's got to be some kind of factor. If we could cut the arms shipments in, too, there might be a chance for real peace. It's not that Palestine has to disarm, it's just that those elements are fairly provoking in and of itself.

So, it's not just Israel and Palestine, it's the neighboring states.

[RandySpears]

Hm let me put forward a "conservative leftist" view:

The proper way to stop the bombings is to returned the illegaly occupied land to the palestinians.

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

E-Sabbath, the money paid by Saddam is such a minor factor that I seriously doubt that the volume of suicide bombings will change at all due to his removal.

Everybody knows that there will not be any peace until Israel has completely withdrawn from the territories occupied in 1967. Though there are many disagreements about other things only extremists on either side do not see this as the end result of a peace process.

[E-Sabbath]

I don't know if it's such a minor factor, as far as personal motivation goes. I rather suspect it's why the Israeli forces are now bulldozing houses of families. "Well, if I kill myself, my family will be taken care of. I'm not doing so well these days..." "If you kill yourself, your family will be thrown out of house and home."

And I'd like a cite for that last half of the statement. It certainly seems to have a goodly number of factual errors. "Everybody knows" "completely withdrawn" and "Only extremists on either side"

What is that, argument ad populaum?

[Monty]

Randy: Are you not aware that the position of some of those outfits conducting the bombings is that the entirety of Israel is "illegally occupied" by Israel?

[RandySpears]

E-Sabbath:

Well, I believe it takes good rethorical skills, and a whole lot of determination to argue that the dominant reason that people are blowing up themselves and others would be an economic one.

As to why Israel makes the decisions Israel makes: Jehova only knows....

I think most observers would rather make it Saddam trying to ride on the general support for the palestinians that exists in the Arab populations. I won't provide a cite; I'll trust your good judgement.

About the withdrawal of Israel from occupied territories there are UN resolutions to that effect.

[RandySpears]

Monty:

I am aware of that. But their position is a marginal one and would be even more so, were it not for the ongoing occupation, the ongoing establishment of new settlements on occupied territory, and the ongoing harrassment of the palestinian people.

Now, in a sovereign state with a prosperous people and a working law, those people could contained. In an occupied state, with a disparing, desperate people, they gain support (public, logistic) that they could never hope for otherwise.

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

Originally posted by E-Sabbath
I don't know if it's such a minor factor, as far as personal motivation goes. I rather suspect it's why the Israeli forces are now bulldozing houses of families. "Well, if I kill myself, my family will be taken care of. I'm not doing so well these days..." "If you kill yourself, your family will be thrown out of house and home."

And I'd like a cite for that last half of the statement. It certainly seems to have a goodly number of factual errors. "Everybody knows" "completely withdrawn" and "Only extremists on either side"

What is that, argument ad populaum?

I mentioned earlier in the thread about a social science study into suicide bombing (Science, 7 March 2003, Vol. 299, No. 5612, American Association for the Advancement of Science), here it said that suicide bombers were not generally poorer than the surrounding population and were not motivated by economic factors. Also Saddam Hussein has only being paying this cash for a year (exactly a year next Wednesday), if it was a major factor you would of expected a sharp rise in after that period, as it happens the figures are roughly equal.

The Israeli peace bloc recognizes that only a total withdrawal will bring peace,

http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/

The UN,

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/19842f5f9635ff248525643e00632c6b!OpenDocument

Also on a more anecdotal level, I do know several Israelis with more centist politics than Gush Shalom, they pretty much agree that a total withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967 will be the end result of any peace process.

[Tee]

Originally posted by RandySpears
I think most observers would rather make it Saddam trying to ride on the general support for the palestinians that exists in the Arab populations. I won't provide a cite; I'll trust your good judgement.

Trying to ride the support? Have you seen the pictures?? They idolize the man, the assault on Iraq is viewed as an assault on themselves personally. One guy referred to Baghdad as 'the capital of the Islamic world.' Most likely because Saddam told them so himself.

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5612/1534,

For the article on suicide bombings and it appears that saddam has been paying them for two years not one (the one year refers to the higher amount) so it's difficult to judge the effect from the figures as that is the length of the al-Asqua initfada, but the fact that the raising of the money paid had no effect on the number of suicide bombings is still in an indication that it is a minor factor.

[RandySpears]

Yep, so he was successful. A not righteous man capitalizing off the righteous claims of the palestinian people.

Something he could never do had the occupation ended.

Actually, Tee, Baghdad has been the capital of the entire Arab empire for long periods and has importance close to mecca, as i've understood it.

[Tee]

Oh, how funny. Normally you hear that being his redeeming quality - his support of the Palestinians. So is his "support" considered a good thing or a bad thing?

[RandySpears]

Tee:

What, are you asking me if I consider it a redeeming quality of Saddam?

I am sure that his burning sympathy for the palestinians are about as deeply felt as that of any other asshole trying to gain public support by populistic means.

The palestinians are once again the losers, since Saddams support only takes legitimacy from the other widespread support the palestinians have for their claims.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by antechinus
malthus

That is a very good question.

For me, in no particular order:

- my disgust in seeing suffering of people (both sides) for such a long period of time where there could be a solution (I believe), but nothing succesful has been done about it

- the immediacy of the situation - it is not history, it is now

- a sense of fairness - disgusted with people having land taken off them, when they have had contact with the land for ages, and the huge inbalance of power of one side over the other

- the disrepect shown by the Israelis towards the Palestinians - regarding them as sub-human

- that the Israeli government is supposed to be a democracy - this is a slur on democracy


All these things motivate my interest in the situation. Similarities with South Africa prior to 1990s and Timor prior to 2002.

So, malthus, how does your moral framework differ such that you agree to see a continuation of attacks on innocent poeple by a democratic govenment.

First, I thank everyone who answered my question. I would like to point out that I was not trying to be rhetorical, or to score points for one side or the other.

Rather, my question was intended to involve a certain amount of self-examination - for people on both sides of the debate.

When I get a response like that above, it makes it slightly difficult. Statements of this sort:

"- the disrepect shown by the Israelis towards the Palestinians - regarding them as sub-human

- that the Israeli government is supposed to be a democracy - this is a slur on democracy"

"So, malthus, how does your moral framework differ such that you agree to see a continuation of attacks on innocent poeple by a democratic govenment. "

Seem to call for debate over the assumptions (I believe wrong assumptions) which underline the opinion.

This is not what I was after. There is plenty of this sort of debate already, and we all know it tends to go in circles. Naturally, if you (or anyone) thinks that one side is all good, and the other all evil, and the reason you support one side is because you like good and hate evil, the debate is effectively over.

Although I am not sure that it was made in good faith, I will answer the question asked.

In my own moral framework, I believe that people have the right to self-defence. Some of the actions taken by the Israeli government are undertaken to defend the state and the people of that country. Others (such as the settlement policy) are not. The former actions are unfortunate necessities and morally justified - with the proviso that they are perportional. The latter are not.

The suicide bombing campaign is not, I believe, undertaken in self-defence. Indeed, there is no conceivable way that such actions benefit or defend the people of Palistine. On the contrary, they are the cause of increased misery for those people. Therefore, they are not justified, and there is no need to debate whether they are perportional or not.

Now, what actions the right of self-defence justifies varies with the extremity of the danger posed. This is where I undoubtably disagree with McDuff. It is an individual issue whether any particular action taken by the Israeli government crosses the line from being justified to being unjustified, based on the extent of the danger and the severity of the response. So far, as a matter of historical fact, their response has been (in my opinion) reasonably restrained. Compare for example their response to suicide bombing (isolating, but not arresting or killing, Arafat) with that of the US and the al-Queda situation. Would the US agree to isolate bin Laden if they knew where he was? Has the US invasion of Afganistan dispossessed, killed or disrupted the lives of "innocents"? I am afraid it has.

Unfortunately, excercising the right of self-defence tends to have that effect. It cannot be otherwise, particularly given an enemy who uses the innocent civilian population as its cover. To claim that never, under any circumstances, may the right of self defence impinge on innocents is to naively hand victory to the aggressors - as it renders that right essentially meaningless, given that those who engage in attacks are highly unlikely to seperate themselves willingly from the general population so as to enable them to be destroyed with impunity.

As for why I am interested, myself: it mostly has to do with the fact that I lived there for almost a year, working on an archaeological dig (Tel Dor, if any are interested) in the days when I considered becoming an archaeologist. This gave me a certain amount of insight into the place and its history.

The length of occupation of the area, and its seeming centrality over long periods of time, I found very interesting.

So was the attitude of Israelis. I can best sum it up by saying that the events of the 20th century have taught the Israelis the absolute importance of both the right and ability to defend themselves. I can hardly disagree.

[RandySpears]

Malthus:

I am sure that many people would agree with you that there exists a right to self defence. But then there's the quastion of applying that general principle to a particular case.

So let's dissect the circumstances in this particular case. The original resolution that called for the creation of a jewish state also called for the creation of an arbic state. This two-state solution was not accepted by the neighbouring arab states (they wanted an ethnically mixed, one-state solution).

The state of Israel was proclaimed, and immediately the neighbouring arabic states attacked. Israel won the war, and it can safely be argued that they were acting in self-defence.

Now, Israel kept control of territories won in that war, and has since then often argued that these territories are needed for Israel's security, in effect this constitutes the second, arabic state. This, i believe, falls outside what can safely be credited to self-defense. The united states do no longer occupy afghanistan in the sense Israel is occupying the west bank, and the gaza strip.

This is the key issue. Neither can you argue that Israel has a right to occupy these territories in self defense towards suicide bombers. Or for any other reason.

For sure you can argue that Israel feels safer holding on to the occupied territories (although i would very much doubt if it really makes them safer). But you can't say they have a right to do so, on the grounds of self-defense.

Now, i don't support the suicide bombings. They cannot be justified by the occupation, since their victims often are civilians. But in the same way, you can never justify the Israeli's revenge raids (that's what they are) with the suicide bombings.

The bombings kills women and children on the sidewalk. So does the Israeli "terrorist raids". The former are carried out by fanatics, extremists among the palestinians. The latter are carried out by the Israeli army.

And finally i wholeheartedly agree with the view that "Israel is a slur on democracy". As of now there are 3 million inhabitants in the Gaza strip and the West Bank that are effectively governed by the Israeli state but has no right to vote!

[Tee]

"The state of Israel was proclaimed" and was created. Period. It is non-negotiable. As long as Arabs are calling for a Free Palestine they are essentially denying what gives them the right to administer their own land - the original resolution.

From earlier:

I am sure that his burning sympathy for the palestinians are about as deeply felt as that of any other asshole trying to gain public support by populistic means.

The palestinians are once again the losers, since Saddams support only takes legitimacy from the other widespread support the palestinians have for their claims.

I agree. They've been used. The damage is done now though, and they are filling the streets and crying Death to Israel, Death to America and probably will be for a very long time.

When they are done figuring out whether they are respresenting themselves in the matter or whole Arab race for past injustices, then maybe an honest discussion about land can begin.

[RandySpears]

Who's trying to negotiate the existance of the state of Israel? Maybe some people. Certainly not me.

But much in the same way the return of the occupied territories should not be negociated. They should just be returned. I fail to see how "Arabs calling for Free palestine" denies that?

Maybe i'm not reading you right, Tee?

[Boo Boo Foo]

My gut feeling is this... if Israel (the country) could somehow reach a state of security where they were SURE, absolutely 100% sure that no further arms or terrorists against the Jewish people were being smuggled in through the incredibly porous borders with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Sinai Desert - then I honestly believe the Israeli's would go a long way towards implementing open land holdings and equal voting rights for the Palestinian Arabs living in the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank.

As it stands, the Israelis are paranoid - quite justifiably I rather think - that still, to this day, all of the borders she shares with her Arab neighbours remain conduits for those enemies who would seek to kill her.

Accordingly, the first step in a workable Peace Plan now is to accept that all of the occupied territories are now Israel - and that this is fait accompli. Next, we need to somehow implement a 100% watertight border control around the ENTIRE country. And folks - it's got to be tighter than a frog's arse. If it takes building a one kilometer high wall around the friggin place, then that's what it takes. But something has to be done, once and for all, to physically stop the endless parade of terrorists ENTERING the occupied territories from countries OUTSIDE of Israel.

Next, we, the countries of the world who are genuinely interested in a true lasting peace, must then FORCE total equality onto the Israeli people - of all religions - of all backgrounds. Everyone, from Tel Aviv to the Gaza Strip to the Golan Heights must have equal voting rights and equal representation in a Westminster style democratic government.

And it wouldn't hurt to do a total utter house to house search of the entire country - on both sides - for guns and explosives. And further, all guns henceforth should be illegal - unless held in the hands of the police.

Lastly, Israel, in my opinion should change her name - and it should not be "Palestine". She should simply change her name to the "Land of Jerusalem" because that's a city which is sacred to everyone - regardless of tribalism - and as such, it's neutral. And if anything in the state of Israel is in short supply, it's a spirit of neutrality.

[RandySpears]

But Boo,

Paranoia in the Israeli people - justified or not justified - can never be a legal ground for their right to occupied land. It is occupied and, in the context of international law, therefore stolen and should be returned. No matter any other circumstances.

Therefore the occupied territories can also never be accepted as part of the state of Israel.

Even if you had it your way, the Israelis would never award full citizenship to the palestinians. Since they would then make up half of that new states voters and that's a transfer of power that neither Likud nor the workers party is interested in.

[Boo Boo Foo]

Then the question becomes a simple one... "reality" vs "survival".

The reality is that the Israeli's will never know true peace whilstsoever they share their immediate neighbourhood with a people who are blatantly forced to live in inferior living standards while the Israeli people live in much superior living standards.

The survival of Israel, in the above circumstances becomes a moot point - she can't survive - not indefinitely because the demographics and the polarisation of wealth will ultimately prevail.

Hence, Israel now, ironically is faced with the same "choice of accepting reality" that the Palestinians were faced with during the 1930's - namely - that they simply HAVE to embrace integration and shared voting rights and shared police rights and shared civil functions etc etc etc.

Otherwise, the disparity of wealth and living standards will forever condemn both sides to everlasting atrocities.

Ergo, it's now "reality" vs "survival".

But I caution - all sides involved have to be prepared to cast aside the arguements of "tribalism" and "we were here first". They all have to be able to think of themselves as "one country, one people" - from the Lebanon to the Sinai, from Tel Aviv to the Jordan river.

Unless this giant "diametric quantum shift" is undertaken, it's never going to be resolved I rather think.

[RandySpears]

Yeah, well actually i'm not sure if a one state with equal rights solution is such a bad idea. The only problem is that both parties in the conflict agree only on rejecting that solution.

[Boo Boo Foo]

Indeed Randy - and now we're getting to the real "heart" of the problem... namely, that the place is rife with endemic, and instutionalised "tribalism".

And oddly enough, in some respects, the whole imbroglio is similar to the "black townships" outside of Johannesburg, and the institutionalised "racism" which used to exist in South Africa.

The South African blacks used to point to their squalid townships and their awful living conditions, and the fact that they couldn't vote, and the fact that their fellow "white South Africans" lived in much better living standards - and they simply despaired at the dreadful injustice of it all. There were terrorist actions as a result.

And yet, in just 10 glorious years (albeit not without hiccups I accept) they've transformed the place.

But I would argue something very important here - I'll bet you a million bucks that there's NO WAY the South Africans could have sorted themselves out if there were other neighbouring African countries who were deliberately sending armed terrorists INTO South Africa with the mission of "Kill all the Whiteys!" - and that there, is a mighty important analogy I rather think.

[antechinus]

First, I thank everyone who answered my question. I would like to point out that I was not trying to be rhetorical, or to score points for one side or the other.

Rather, my question was intended to involve a certain amount of self-examination - for people on both sides of the debate.

When I get a response like that above, it makes it slightly difficult. Statements of this sort:

"- the disrepect shown by the Israelis towards the Palestinians - regarding them as sub-human

- that the Israeli government is supposed to be a democracy - this is a slur on democracy"

"So, malthus, how does your moral framework differ such that you agree to see a continuation of attacks on innocent poeple by
a democratic govenment. "

From all the evidence I have, the Israeli government does treat the palestinians like shit and democracy is not applied evenly.



Seem to call for debate over the assumptions (I believe wrong assumptions) which underline the opinion.
This is not what I was after. There is plenty of this sort of debate already, and we all know it tends to go in circles. Naturally, if you (or anyone) thinks that one side is all good, and the other all evil, and the reason you support one side is because you like good and hate evil, the debate is effectively over.


Thats right, it is not that simple, both the suicide bombers and elements in the Israeli government are bad. Everyone else is caught in the middle.



Although I am not sure that it was made in good faith, I will answer the question asked. In my own moral framework, I believe that people have the right to self-defence. Some of the actions taken by the Israeli government are undertaken to defend the state and the people of that country. Others (such as the settlement policy) are not.
The former actions are unfortunate necessities and morally justified - with the proviso that they are perportional. The latter are not. The suicide bombing campaign is not, I believe, undertaken in self-defence. Indeed, there is no conceivable way that such actions benefit or defend the people of Palistine. On the contrary, they are the cause of increased misery for those people. Therefore, they are not justified, and there is no need to debate whether they are perportional or not.

I agree. The suicide bombing is not done in self defense, but provoked by desparation for international attention. I think it does the palestinians more harm than good.
I am glad you agree that the settlement policy is not morally justified.


Compare for example their response to suicide bombing (isolating, but not arresting or killing, Arafat) with that of the US and the al-Queda situation. Would the US agree to isolate bin Laden if they knew where he was? Has the US invasion of Afganistan dispossessed, killed or disrupted the lives of "innocents"? I am afraid it has.

Arafat was preserved to avoid a huge international response. Come on - how can you compare Arafat with Bin Ladin.

The Israelis launch attacks on civilians in order to protect themselves from suicide bombers, which just creates more Palestinian hatred and recruits more suicide bombers. Surely you can see the vicious cycle. Both the government and the fanatics are reacting to provocation. Who do you think is in a better position to break that cycle - individual fanatics or a democratic govenment?

Malthus: I think this is your answer to the question (please correct me if I misinterpreted in this precis):
The Israeli actions of killing innocents are "unfortunate necessities and morally justified" because it is in Israels self defence. And that the attacks are "morally justified - with the proviso that they are perportional"

This thinking would never solve the situation. It justs perpetuates the viscious cycle.

The attacks by the Israeli army are NOT proportional. Even if the attacks were, then this is just an eye-for-an-eye morality. One that no modern human should subscribe to.

[RandySpears]

Boo:

Yes, Israel/Palestine is ripe with tribalism and "hama-rules".

But i find the South-Africa analogy a bit far-streched.

Back then most american condemned the apartheit system (as did most europeans). That is not the case with Israel / Palestine. The debate in american mass-media seem to more or less lean towards the Israeli viewpoint, as could be expected in the case of a strategic ally in the region. The apartheid system in SA could be easily associated by americans to their own country, pre- civil rights. That which one has recently abandoned is often most easily condemned!

Now, in reality it was actually apartheid South Africa that sent militia into all of it's neighbouring states, to pursue SA s perceived national interests. And, for sure, looking to the situation post-1967, Israel has been involved in a number of "preventive" interventions, f. e. the occupation of Leebanon.

The present day Bush-doctrine actually seems to have taken a lot of inspiration from what the Israelis been doing for a long, long time.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by RandySpears
Malthus:

I am sure that many people would agree with you that there exists a right to self defence. But then there's the quastion of applying that general principle to a particular case.

So let's dissect the circumstances in this particular case. The original resolution that called for the creation of a jewish state also called for the creation of an arbic state. This two-state solution was not accepted by the neighbouring arab states (they wanted an ethnically mixed, one-state solution).

The state of Israel was proclaimed, and immediately the neighbouring arabic states attacked. Israel won the war, and it can safely be argued that they were acting in self-defence.

Now, Israel kept control of territories won in that war, and has since then often argued that these territories are needed for Israel's security, in effect this constitutes the second, arabic state. This, i believe, falls outside what can safely be credited to self-defense. The united states do no longer occupy afghanistan in the sense Israel is occupying the west bank, and the gaza strip.

This is the key issue. Neither can you argue that Israel has a right to occupy these territories in self defense towards suicide bombers. Or for any other reason.

For sure you can argue that Israel feels safer holding on to the occupied territories (although i would very much doubt if it really makes them safer). But you can't say they have a right to do so, on the grounds of self-defense.

Now, i don't support the suicide bombings. They cannot be justified by the occupation, since their victims often are civilians. But in the same way, you can never justify the Israeli's revenge raids (that's what they are) with the suicide bombings.

The bombings kills women and children on the sidewalk. So does the Israeli "terrorist raids". The former are carried out by fanatics, extremists among the palestinians. The latter are carried out by the Israeli army.

And finally i wholeheartedly agree with the view that "Israel is a slur on democracy". As of now there are 3 million inhabitants in the Gaza strip and the West Bank that are effectively governed by the Israeli state but has no right to vote!

Unfortunately, I think you are a tad mistaken about the history of the region.

1. I know that the surrounding Arab states publically proclaimed in '48 that they wanted a "democratic single state" solution, but they also proclaimed that their goal was to "toss the Jews into the sea". I am more inclined to believe the latter would have been the outcome, particularly as none of the surrounding states implemented democracy themselves, and most after losing that war exiled their own Jewish communities (links available concerning this, on request).

2. The WB and Gaza were *not* taken in '48 -- by Israel. They were taken by Jordan and Egypt, respectively (no-one complained about that, for some reason).

3. The WB and Gaza were taken by Israel during the so-called six day war in '67.

4. That war was a defensive war on the part of Israel. The UN disgraced itself in that conflict, by agreeing without debate to an Egyptian demand to remove peacekeepers seperating Egypt from Israel so as to facilitate an Egyptian attack (one of the many reasons Israel distrusts the UN).

5. Israel, following victory, obtained several territories - Sinai, WB, Gaza, Golan heights. Immediately, Israel sought to give these territories back to the Arab states they got them from -- in exchange for peace treaties. I am sure you would agree that this was the proper thing to do. Sinai and Gaza were to go to Egypt, the WB to Jordan, Golan to Syria.

6. The Arab states refused to offer peace treaties.

7. After "Black September" (the attempted Palistinian take-over of Jordan) in 1970(?), Jordan renounced its claim to the WB - making that territory effectively stateless. The reason: Jordan's Hashimite monarchy feared the absorbtion of so many Palistinians would undermine the kingdom.

8. After Egypt's comparatively good performance during the Yom Kippur war in '73, Egypt considered that honour was satisfied and accepted the Sinai in exchange for a peace treaty. They did not want Gaza back either. Like Jordan, they had no intention of accepting so many Palistinians.

9. Syria has never been interested in obtaining a peace treaty. The Golan hights are extremely strategic (they were used prior to '67 by the Syrians to shell deep int Israel), so Israel is unlikely to give them back without firm guarentees.

10. That leaves Gaza and the WB. These territories were in effect abandoned by the countries which originally "owned" them (quite illegally, assuming that the UN's decision in '48 represented a legal decision). What is Israel supposed to do with them? Extremists on the Israeli side thought that the answer was to grab the important bits via the settlement policy.

11. Over the last decade, attempts were made via the Oslo accord and otherwise to transfer them to the Palistinian people themselves -- attempts which were unsuccessful, mainly because the Palistinian leadership rejected them. Still, it is hoped that a new Palistinian leadership will prove more accomodating.

Please point out to me what steps taken by Israel during this sequence of events amounts to a "slur on democracy". The intent all along was *not* to hold onto the WB and Gaza - with the exception of some extremists. Arab instrangence has strengthened those extermists' positions immensely.

But seriously, assume you were in control of Israel. What would *you* do? Attempt to hand them over peacefully? Been tried, and failed. Give them to the countries you took them from? They don't want them. Hand them over to UN control? The *same* UN that so conspicuously failed to even attempt to protect Israel in '67?

Maybe it is easier to simply condemn Israel out of hand. Easier, but easy answers are not always right.

[RandySpears]

After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. Israel also occupied the larger part of Jerusalem. Over half the indigenous Palestinian population fled or were expelled. Jordan and Egypt occupied the other parts of the territory assigned by the partition resolution to the Palestinian Arab State which did not come into being.

In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine, until then under Jordanian and Egyptian control (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). This included the remaining part of Jerusalem, which was subsequently annexed by Israel. The war brought about a second exodus of Palestinians, estimated at half a million. Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 called on Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in the 1967 conflict.

(From the UN Department of Political Affairs : http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html)

So I admit that my recount of the occupation of the gaza strip and the west bank was sloppy, and ill-informed. My apologies!

Still it should be pretty clear that the legal basis of the state Israel is from the outset coupled to the existance of another palestinian arabian state, which territory has been, and is as of now occupied by Israel.

Now i don't and would never lay all the blame for the current state of affairs on Israel. That would indeed be simplified and inaccurate. And I fully agree with you that the neighbouring arab states are worthy of much critisism.

But that do not constitute a defence for holding on to the occupied territories. No argument based on Israels security, critisism of the UN, or the villain-ness of Egypt, Jordan or Syria can motivate this.

Since UN is the instance that gave Israel existance, and legitimacy in the first place. And since Egypt, Jordan and Syria are not identical to Palestine or the Palestinians.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by antechinus
From all the evidence I have, the Israeli government does treat the palestinians like shit and democracy is not applied evenly.

Really?

Do your sources indicate that Arabs are prevented from voting, that Arabic is not an official language of Israel, and that there are no Arab political parties in parliament?

If so, I would like to see them.


Originally posted by antechinus
Thats right, it is not that simple, both the suicide bombers and elements in the Israeli government are bad. Everyone else is caught in the middle.

I am not one to go for a cheap moral equivalence argument.

Originally posted by antechinus
I agree. The suicide bombing is not done in self defense, but provoked by desparation for international attention. I think it does the palestinians more harm than good.
I am glad you agree that the settlement policy is not morally justified.

I never thought of suicide bombing as a cry for attention. More like a rally for a Jihad.

Originally posted by antechinus
Arafat was preserved to avoid a huge international response. Come on - how can you compare Arafat with Bin Ladin.

Why not? Both have sponsored terrorist bombings of innocents.

What, to you, is their distinguishing feature?

Originally posted by antechinus
The Israelis launch attacks on civilians in order to protect themselves from suicide bombers, which just creates more Palestinian hatred and recruits more suicide bombers. Surely you can see the vicious cycle. Both the government and the fanatics are reacting to provocation. Who do you think is in a better position to break that cycle - individual fanatics or a democratic govenment?

Malthus: I think this is your answer to the question (please correct me if I misinterpreted in this precis):
The Israeli actions of killing innocents are "unfortunate necessities and morally justified" because it is in Israels self defence. And that the attacks are "morally justified - with the proviso that they are perportional"

This thinking would never solve the situation. It justs perpetuates the viscious cycle.

The attacks by the Israeli army are NOT proportional. Even if the attacks were, then this is just an eye-for-an-eye morality. One that no modern human should subscribe to.

Actually, if the Israelis wanted to protect themselves by killing innocents, they have the power to kill every last Palistinian. If they behaved as you have characterized them, there wouldn't be one left. You make it sound as if the Israeli army just randomly shoots Palistinians for revenge, as a matter of policy. Is this what you really believe is happening?

Rather, the deaths of innocents are the unfortunate result of attacks on the not-innocent who hide among innocents for protection.

As for whether you believe that self-defence is *ever* justified, or is only archaic "eye-for-an-eye behaviour [that] no modern human should subscribe to", that "just perpetuates the cycle", that is your opinion - I don't subscribe to it, myself. If someone crept into your house and killed your wife and children, would you want that person caught - even if you risked killing *his* wife and kids, because he is hiding under their bed - if only to prevent him from killing others?

In any event, that is really an opinion on the *effectiveness* of the tactic, not on its *morality*. You may think that the action is not *effective*, but that is not the same as proclaiming it *immoral*.

For example, the Israeli govermnent has a policy - it never negotiates with hostage-takers. If a gunman takes an Israeli civilian hostage, and puts a gun to his or her head and makes a demand, that demand will not be considered - only efforts made to kill the gunman. The result: no hostage incidents. Is this a good self-defence policy, or one worthy of condemnation as callous and inhumane? Its effectiveness and its morality are seperate issues [I myself think it both effective and morally justified]. Point is, not all choices are easy and safe. Rolling over and appeasing the violent may indeed "break the cycle of violence" -- but at the cost of doing what the violent want.

And in this case, I am not at all sure that what the Palistinian men of violence want is a democratic, free Palistine alongside a free Israel. I think what they want is a country cleansed of the Jewish invaders, and an authoritarian state run by themselves.

As for myself, I would be very reluctant to condemn someone elses' actions taken in self-defence. I can see nothing marally seperating the US's actions in Afganistan from Israel's in the WB.

[Tamerlane]

Just a couple of minor factual corrections ( some of the other points may be debatable in context or course ).

Originally posted by Malthus

7. After "Black September" (the attempted Palistinian take-over of Jordan) in 1970(?), Jordan renounced its claim to the WB - making that territory effectively stateless. The reason: Jordan's Hashimite monarchy feared the absorbtion of so many Palistinians would undermine the kingdom.

No, not quite. Jordan agreed in principle to sign away its claim to the West Bank in favor of the PLO in 1974 ( not 1970 ), during the post-Yom Kippur War's Rabat Summit. They did so very reluctantly and only under intense pressure. In part they had to be bribed with cash subsidies from the Gulf states.

In 1988, the above was made formal.

Jordan was a majority Palestinian state from 1948 and actually the loss of the West Bank in 1967 didn't change that ( though it did alter the proportion ) due to demographic shifts over those decades. It's still a majority Palestinian state today.

A similar situation occurred with Egypt ( only they were less reluctant to surrender their claims, as Gaza was not a great prize ).

- Tamerlane

[RandySpears]

The three million Arabs of Gaza and WB are not allowed to vote.

Calling the suicide bombing in Israel a "cry fo jihad" is a simplification if there ever was one! As is comparing Arafat to Bin Laden. That's ludicrous!

Com'on Malthus, i thought you just now was asking for people that viewed issues not in all-white or all-black. Try to be a role-model will you?

[Malthus]

Originally posted by RandySpears
(From the UN Department of Political Affairs : http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html)

So I admit that my recount of the occupation of the gaza strip and the west bank was sloppy, and ill-informed. My apologies!

Still it should be pretty clear that the legal basis of the state Israel is from the outset coupled to the existance of another palestinian arabian state, which territory has been, and is as of now occupied by Israel.

Now i don't and would never lay all the blame for the current state of affairs on Israel. That would indeed be simplified and inaccurate. And I fully agree with you that the neighbouring arab states are worthy of much critisism.

But that do not constitute a defence for holding on to the occupied territories. No argument based on Israels security, critisism of the UN, or the villain-ness of Egypt, Jordan or Syria can motivate this.

Since UN is the instance that gave Israel existance, and legitimacy in the first place. And since Egypt, Jordan and Syria are not identical to Palestine or the Palestinians.

I don't know why you read my post as proclaiming that Israel shoud keep the WB & Gaza. I think they should give them back, and have been trying to do this ever since they got them.

But, that giving back has to be coupled with a recognition of their own right to exist.

In other words, what is lacking is not the will to give those territories back, but an acceptable way of achiving this goal. That must be suppled by Palistinian leadership.

Receint events pose some hope for this. Arafat has been forced to appoint a prime minister, specifically because Palistinians have lost patience with his corruption and his inability to accept any peace plan. This could mark the beginning of a Palistinian state:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/03/22/international1957EST0709.DTL

[RandySpears]

Malthus:

So how then, if the Israelis have been so anxious to return WB & Gaza would you explain the Israeli settlers, and the administrations historical policies in regard to them?

[Malthus]

Originally posted by Tamerlane
Just a couple of minor factual corrections ( some of the other points may be debatable in context or course ).



No, not quite. Jordan agreed in principle to sign away its claim to the West Bank in favor of the PLO in 1974 ( not 1970 ), during the post-Yom Kippur War's Rabat Summit. They did so very reluctantly and only under intense pressure. In part they had to be bribed with cash subsidies from the Gulf states.

In 1988, the above was made formal.

Jordan was a majority Palestinian state from 1948 and actually the loss of the West Bank in 1967 didn't change that ( though it did alter the proportion ) due to demographic shifts over those decades. It's still a majority Palestinian state today.

A similar situation occurred with Egypt ( only they were less reluctant to surrender their claims, as Gaza was not a great prize ).

- Tamerlane

You are correct. My account was somewhat simplified, because otherwise it would be a book, not a post.;)

Jordan was, is, and has always been, a majority Palistinian state.

However, I believe that I am correct in stating that the Jordanian monarchy's fears of millions of politicised WB Palistinians played a major role in its decision to renounce the territory, particularly after the attempted violent overthrow of the monarchy by the PLO.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by RandySpears
The three million Arabs of Gaza and WB are not allowed to vote.

Calling the suicide bombing in Israel a "cry fo jihad" is a simplification if there ever was one! As is comparing Arafat to Bin Laden. That's ludicrous!

Com'on Malthus, i thought you just now was asking for people that viewed issues not in all-white or all-black. Try to be a role-model will you?

They don't vote because they are not citizens of Israel. If Israel ever attempted to make them citizens by formally annexing these territories, the outcry would make the current situation seem like a tea-party.

As for what motivates the suicide bombers, I fully believe that it is a millenial vision of a land purified by faith - i.e. a Jihad. That is what they themselves say, why should I not believe them?

And as for Arafat, he is clearly not identical to Bin Laden. But he has been responsible for as many deaths via terrorism over his four decades in power. What is so offensive about pointing that out?

[Malthus]

Originally posted by RandySpears
Malthus:

So how then, if the Israelis have been so anxious to return WB & Gaza would you explain the Israeli settlers, and the administrations historical policies in regard to them?

If by "explain" you mean "justify", I don't.

I think it is clear what they are up to - to grab as much of the best locations as they can get away with, *before* handing the place back (minus the bits they have grabbed). Plus, it increases the pressure on the Palistinians to make a deal - as every year that goes by, they grab a bit more.

Indeed, the settlement policy only makes sense if one assumes that they regard handing back the place as inevitable. If they wanted to annex the whole region, why would they bother with this nip-and-tuck strategy?

[RandySpears]

They don't vote because they are not citizens of Israel. If Israel ever attempted to make them citizens by formally annexing these territories, the outcry would make the current situation seem like a tea-party.

For sure. But effectively being governed by the state of Israel leaves the Palestinians hanging in a particularly nasty form of limbo wouldn't you say? Even without the public outcry Israel would never make the Palestinians citizens since that would leave as many arabs as jews with a right to vote.


As for what motivates the suicide bombers, I fully believe that it is a millenial vision of a land purified by faith - i.e. a Jihad. That is what they themselves say, why should I not believe them?

I don't know which suicide bombers you have spoken to, or read about. But i don't question that some (maybe all) of them would believe in something like that. But I would also think some of them would say they were motivated by the current situation Israel/Palestine. So I maintain that you're characterization of the suicide bombings as a "cry for jihad" is a simplification.

And as for Arafat, he is clearly not identical to Bin Laden. But he has been responsible for as many deaths via terrorism over his four decades in power. What is so offensive about pointing that out?

Well first of all i would say that you are stating a belief more than actually pointing something out. Secondly i would ask you what definitions of "terrorism" and "responsibility you would use to arrive at that conclusion.

[RandySpears]

If by "explain" you mean "justify", I don't.

I think it is clear what they are up to - to grab as much of the best locations as they can get away with, *before* handing the place back (minus the bits they have grabbed). Plus, it increases the pressure on the Palistinians to make a deal - as every year that goes by, they grab a bit more.

Indeed, the settlement policy only makes sense if one assumes that they regard handing back the place as inevitable. If they wanted to annex the whole region, why would they bother with this nip-and-tuck strategy?

Well. Darnit, Malthus, i would say that it takes a new take on logic to construe the encouragement of settlers on occupied land as a undisputable proof of a commitment to hand that occupied land back! As well as a willingness to disregard large parts of world history.

See, when you have citizens on a disputed strip of land, suddenly there arises the issue of these citizens security. Ergo the need for military presence to protect them. Ergo a strong argument not to return disputed strip of land since security of settlers cannot be guaranteed. (Invasion, for that matter, of a disputed strip of land can also be justified this way, as a lot of Nazi germanys arguments in the outbreak of WWII would show).

Surely you are aware of this?

[Tee]

Yes they have been in limbo. But Israel has not exactly stolen the land. Plans are and have been in the works for that Palestinian state everyone talks about. Last year the US brought the matter to the UN Security Council resulting in resolution 1397 (reaffirming the two-state solution, calling for an end to acts of violence) with Israel's blessing. And Arafat's, obviously.

One issue holding up the works is the right of return for Palestinians. I can't see them agreeing to let all the refugees back into Israel on the land they'd been on previously, and speaking as their ally I'd say that's a few different kinds of suicide...but anyway, that's one example of something the Palestinians are holding out for in the process. It involves much more than land-swapping.

[RandySpears]

Yes, Tee, i would agree that the right of return for all Palestinian refugees is a major problem. It is obvious that this is not practically possible. Still it is a claim that the PLO has made, and one that would extremely unpopular with the palestinian public to give up for Arafat.

Still PLO knows they have to, and i actually thought that they had been willing to do so, recent years? Anyone know more about this?

[Malthus]

Originally posted by RandySpears
For sure. But effectively being governed by the state of Israel leaves the Palestinians hanging in a particularly nasty form of limbo wouldn't you say? Even without the public outcry Israel would never make the Palestinians citizens since that would leave as many arabs as jews with a right to vote.

I agree - a bad situation all around.

But Israel has been pushing to change it.

Originally posted by RandySpears

I don't know which suicide bombers you have spoken to, or read about. But i don't question that some (maybe all) of them would believe in something like that. But I would also think some of them would say they were motivated by the current situation Israel/Palestine. So I maintain that you're characterization of the suicide bombings as a "cry for jihad" is a simplification.

How are the two - "Jihad" and "motivated by the current situation" - mutually exclusive?

Originally posted by RandySpears

Well first of all i would say that you are stating a belief more than actually pointing something out. Secondly i would ask you what definitions of "terrorism" and "responsibility you would use to arrive at that conclusion.

The definition of "terrorism" and responsibility for it demands its own thread, actually - it is a diversion that threatens to swallow the topic here.

I would gladly debate this, but maybe it should be elsewhere - I will start a new thread, if any are interested.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by RandySpears
Well. Darnit, Malthus, i would say that it takes a new take on logic to construe the encouragement of settlers on occupied land as a undisputable proof of a commitment to hand that occupied land back! As well as a willingness to disregard large parts of world history.

See, when you have citizens on a disputed strip of land, suddenly there arises the issue of these citizens security. Ergo the need for military presence to protect them. Ergo a strong argument not to return disputed strip of land since security of settlers cannot be guaranteed. (Invasion, for that matter, of a disputed strip of land can also be justified this way, as a lot of Nazi germanys arguments in the outbreak of WWII would show).

Surely you are aware of this?

I don't see that we are in any disagreement here - or if we are, I don't know what it is.

I say, the settlement policy is a naked land grab - of the bits taken. Another "bonus" is that it pressures the Palistinians.

Agree so far?

However, taking little bits a bit at a time would be pointless, if you intended to take the whole thing at one gulp by annexing the whole place.

Does that make sense to you?

Naturally, those thinking about the policy intend to make the argument that those bits "settled" should not be subsequently handed back - only those parts which have *not* been settled.

Still with me?

So, this policy logically pre-supposes that at some future time an act of "handing back" *some* land (that is, the WB and Gaza minus the bits 'settled') is very likely.

If you do not agree, I would be happy to hear why.

On re-reading, I think the confusion lies here, in the first sentence: "Well. Darnit, Malthus, i would say that it takes a new take on logic to construe the encouragement of settlers on occupied land as a undisputable proof of a commitment to hand that occupied land back!" [emphasis added]

It is not "that land" (i.e. the 'settled' bits) which the planners of the policy intend to hand back, but the parts *not* 'settled'.

[RandySpears]

Malthus,

They are not mutually exclusive; you answered one simplification "provoked by desparation for international attention", with another one "a rally for a Jihad". That's all!

About Arafat, and Bin Ladin: I believe that any argument for the equivalence of the two would need to be based on very inclusive definitions of "terrorism" and "responsibility". As indeed is often the case.

If you wan't to make an argument for the equivalence of YA and ObL we can discuss it here. But you have to be a little more explicit on what terrorist kills you believe arrafat to be responsible for in that case, and how their numbers compares to those of ObL.

[RandySpears]

I don't see that we are in any disagreement here - or if we are, I don't know what it is.

I say, the settlement policy is a naked land grab - of the bits taken. Another "bonus" is that it pressures the Palistinians.

Agree so far?

However, taking little bits a bit at a time would be pointless, if you intended to take the whole thing at one gulp by annexing the whole place.

Does that make sense to you?

Naturally, those thinking about the policy intend to make the argument that those bits "settled" should not be subsequently handed back - only those parts which have *not* been settled.

Still with me?

So, this policy logically pre-supposes that at some future time an act of "handing back" *some* land (that is, the WB and Gaza minus the bits 'settled') is very likely.

If you do not agree, I would be happy to hear why.

On re-reading, I think the confusion lies here, in the first sentence: "Well. Darnit, Malthus, i would say that it takes a new take on logic to construe the encouragement of settlers on occupied land as a undisputable proof of a commitment to hand that occupied land back!" [emphasis added]

It is not "that land" (i.e. the 'settled' bits) which the planners of the policy intend to hand back, but the parts *not* 'settled'.

What we do not agree on here, Malthus, is the following.

You claim that the settlement policy logically pre-supposes handing the land back. I do believe that in the case of the land ever being handed back that policy helps in holding on to some strategic parts. But it also helps making arguments for not returning the land at all.

And to that effect, both these scenarios are being pursued by actors on the Israeli domestic scene.

And even if the benevolent scenario you hope for would come true, I hope you agree with me that it would be quite unsatisfactory? The occupied territories should be handed back whole, and not in some balcanized form without "islands" of Israeli territory.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by RandySpears
What we do not agree on here, Malthus, is the following.

You claim that the settlement policy logically pre-supposes handing the land back. I do believe that in the case of the land ever being handed back that policy helps in holding on to some strategic parts. But it also helps making arguments for not returning the land at all.

And to that effect, both these scenarios are being pursued by actors on the Israeli domestic scene.

And even if the benevolent scenario you hope for would come true, I hope you agree with me that it would be quite unsatisfactory? The occupied territories should be handed back whole, and not in some balcanized form without "islands" of Israeli territory.

I wouldn't characterize the scenario I outlined as "benevolent". I think it a naked land grab, and unjustified.

I have always said that the settlement policy is wrong, both in a moral sense and wrong because it is counter-productive for a peaceful and just solution. The best thing would be an agreement that saw the Israelis agreeing to remove the settlements (by force if necessary), and the Palistinians agreeing to suppress the terrorists (by force if necessary) - and a Palistinian state.

I don't think there is any real support in Israel for keeping the whole area. No doubt some extremists dream of an Israeli empire including these territories and more besides. But the vast majority of Israelis are heartily sick of these places, and would like nothing better than to be rid of them - if they could be assured that their security would not be compromised thereby.

[RandySpears]

Then we agree on issue! Let's hope for the best.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by RandySpears
Malthus,

They are not mutually exclusive; you answered one simplification "provoked by desparation for international attention", with another one "a rally for a Jihad". That's all!

About Arafat, and Bin Ladin: I believe that any argument for the equivalence of the two would need to be based on very inclusive definitions of "terrorism" and "responsibility". As indeed is often the case.

If you wan't to make an argument for the equivalence of YA and ObL we can discuss it here. But you have to be a little more explicit on what terrorist kills you believe arrafat to be responsible for in that case, and how their numbers compares to those of ObL.

Sorry for the lateness of this reply. I was trying to find a source that was (in my opinion) not overtly biased one way or the other -- a difficult task, I assure you!

Finally, I found this which looks okay:

On the definition of terrorism: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

On Terrorism and Israel:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_against_Israel

Check this out:

"Second Intifada
In Autumn 2000 began the Second Intifada. While the Palestinians blame Ariel Sharon, then the Israeli opposition leader for starting it, while Israel claims, the PA started it intentionally to improve the Palestinian positions at the negotiating table.

Over 100 suicide bombings have taken place in Israeli targets, killing more than three hundred civilians. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah are said to have at their disposal enormous quantities of weapons and explosives, which all sides agree are not made by the individual bombers themselves but at informal factories in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel names the towns of Jenin, Nablus and Ramallah as centers of this activity.

Israel claims that the PA's position regarding terrorism was shady in the first place. While condemning most terrorist attacks, the PA has never arrested figures of importance to the terrorist networks, confiscated their weaponry or even publicly denounced future violence against Israelis. Operatives from the Fatah movement of Yasser Arafat, the head of the PA, are known to have participated in a large number of attacks themselves.

Since Israel's recent military incursion into the West Bank (including the town of Jenin) the Israeli government has obtained and published thousands of pages of internal Palestinian Authority documents which demonstrate that the PA has been covertly funding and directing, many of the suicide bombings. The head of the United States' CIA, as well as many other US politicians and analysts, have gone on record as saying that these documents are without a doubt real, and prove that Arafat personally orders terrorism through his Al Aksa Martyr's brigade. The Palestinian Authority initially responded by saying that these documents were taken out of context. However, the PA's current position is that the documents never existed, that they are fabrications -- and that they are the property of the Palestine Authority and must be returned. The change in position is interpreted by many in the US and Israel as tacit admissions that the documents were authentic.

As an international consensus on the proper definition of terrorism (against Israel or any other country) has not been achieved yet. Notwithstanding the continued European general condemnation of any violence towards civilians, Israelis included, the State of Israel continues to complain that acts taken against European citizens are always labeled as terrorist, but that similar actions against Israel are seldom labeled as such." [emphasis added]


And more specifically, this article: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat

However, as of 2002, the Israeli government and many neutral commentators were convinced that the Fatah faction's Al Aqsa Brigades had simply adopted the methods of the fundamentalist groups, and were under Arafat's direct command. What is more, spokesmen for Hamas and Islamic Jihad were publicly supporting Arafat. Arafat seemed to be adopting a similar structure to that of the Irish Republican Army and its political wing Sinn Fein, wherein the political arm can claim plausible deniability of actions undertaken by the military arm.

On May 6, 2002, the Israeli government released a report, based in part on documents allegedly captured during the Israel Defense Forces' occupation of Arafat's Ramallah headquarters, which shows the connections, and includes copies of papers seemingly signed by Arafat himself authorizing funding for those organizations' terror activities. These documents however drew skepticism from various quarters since the IDF forcefully prevented any independent observers or reporters from observing the operation.

Others simply point to the constraints of the political situation, and argue that Arafat could neither condemn nor constrain the tactics employed; and that any attempt to do so would endanger his rule or his life. Furthermore, Prefusal to employ terrorism would amount to a de facto surrender to Israel, which has access to weapons that Palestinians so far lack. The use of suicide bombers appears to be a permanent feature of this conflict. The number and intensity of attacks rose sharply in the first months of 2002.

In March 2002, the Arab League made an offer to recognize Israel in exchange for Israeli retreat from all territories captured in the Six-Day War and statehood for Palestine and Arafat's Palestinian Authority. Supporters of this declaartion see this as a historic recognition of Israel by the Arab states, while critics of this offer say that it would constitute a heavy blow to Israel's security, while not even guaranteeing Israel the cessation of suicide bombing attacks.

The Arab League offer coincided, however, with yet another upsurge of Palestinian terrorism against Israel (some of which came from Arafat's own Fatah militants), that led to more than 50 Israeli dead. Ariel Sharon has previously pressured Arafat to speak strongly in Arabic against frequent suicide bombings; following the attacks, he declared that Arafat assisted the terrorists and therefore made himself an enemy of Israel and obviously irrelevant to any immediate peace negotiations. The declaration was followed by Israeli entry to the cities of the West Bank, in a program called "Operation Defensive Shield".

[emphasis added].

And this:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLO_and_Hamas

[RandySpears]

Hm Malthus, i'd like to adress all of that but this disclaimer at the top of your first link made me cautious:

"The neutrality of this article is disputed". Aha.

Now the wikipedia is obviously an "open-source dictionary" according to themselves. And it's also a Wiki, meaning that anyone can edit the contents of any page.

I aknowledge the work you put into finding this, but i'd like a more reliable source as a starting point for a useful discussion.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by RandySpears
Hm Malthus, i'd like to adress all of that but this disclaimer at the top of your first link made me cautious:

"The neutrality of this article is disputed". Aha.

Now the wikipedia is obviously an "open-source dictionary" according to themselves. And it's also a Wiki, meaning that anyone can edit the contents of any page.

I aknowledge the work you put into finding this, but i'd like a more reliable source as a starting point for a useful discussion.

That is going to be difficult.

I chose this site because it had no obvious axe to grind that I could detect, and covered a lot of information. Any article on this topic is likely to be "disputed" by zealots on either side - I think that goes without saying, particularly when the truth is so very damaging to the PA. I seriously doubt however that major inaccuracies are likely - I have not detected many, just by sniffing around.

From the IDF side:

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=430

Try using a search engine and looking for "Al Aksa Martyrs brigade". You will find a whole lot of screaming articles on both sides, but little in the way of solid info from neutral sources.

I myself think it most likely that the account described below is more or less true - that Arafat uses terrorism as a tool, with the Al Aksa Martyr's brigade as his instrument, while outwardly stating (for Western consumption) that he has given up his terrorist ways after the Achile Laurel incident (which resulted in much bad publicity). This sham was exposed when the IDF captured and published PA papers detailing the links between the brigade and Arafat -- not that anyone in the region was seriously fooled in the first place. Naturally, the PA declared that the papers were fogeries.

For what it is worth, the US has put the brigade on its list of terrorist organizations - but not of course the PA or Fatah. Clearly, if you are a terrorist, splitting your organization into a "terror" wing and a "legitimate" wing pays off - when necessary, you can disown the "terror" wing, while your constituents know the truth.

If you can find more information about the ties - or lack of ties - between the brigade and Arafat, I would be grateful.

[RandySpears]

Malthus:

I agree with you that this is a subject that is emotion-packed for many. But if you make a comparison between Arafat and Bin Laden and then suggests that Arafat is responsible for as many terrorist kills as ObL you have to back that up with (reasonably) unbiased and reliable sources.

Now, a wiki, is not independent since anyone can write anything and it is hard (or at least takes an unreasonable amount of time) to check out the originators. I think it is reasonable to request a better source.

I checked out the site from the new link you supplied. The name alone ("International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism") gives me bad vibes. The board of directors should give you a clue to their impartiality:

Shabtai Shavit Chairman, Board of Directors, former director of the Israeli Intelligence Agency (Mossad)

Uriel Reichman President of the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya

Aharon Scherf Former director of Israel’s Foreign Affairs Division and senior official in prime minister’s office

[antechinus]

Originally posted by Malthus
Really?
As for whether you believe that self-defence is *ever* justified, or is only archaic "eye-for-an-eye behaviour [that] no modern human should subscribe to", that "just perpetuates the cycle", that is your opinion - I don't subscribe to it, myself. If someone crept into your house and killed your wife and children, would you want that person caught - even if you risked killing *his* wife and kids, because he is hiding under their bed - if only to prevent him from killing others?


There is a difference in capturing a criminal and killing others as an automatic reprisal.

Your reply seems a bit confused. Are you saying that self defence and eye-for-an-eye behaviour is the same?

I believe that self defense is justified and should be proportional to the agression experienced. This is different to meting out violence after the event.

Just to clarify your moral position. Do you subscibe to the morality of proportional reprisal?

I doubt that the Israeli government has a policy of shooting randomly, however it is evident that the lives of innocent people are not given much value by the Israeli army.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by RandySpears
Malthus:

I agree with you that this is a subject that is emotion-packed for many. But if you make a comparison between Arafat and Bin Laden and then suggests that Arafat is responsible for as many terrorist kills as ObL you have to back that up with (reasonably) unbiased and reliable sources.

Now, a wiki, is not independent since anyone can write anything and it is hard (or at least takes an unreasonable amount of time) to check out the originators. I think it is reasonable to request a better source.

I checked out the site from the new link you supplied. The name alone ("International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism") gives me bad vibes. The board of directors should give you a clue to their impartiality:

Shabtai Shavit Chairman, Board of Directors, former director of the Israeli Intelligence Agency (Mossad)

Uriel Reichman President of the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya

Aharon Scherf Former director of Israel’s Foreign Affairs Division and senior official in prime minister’s office

Why in the world did you think I called it "from the IDF side"?

Maybe those initials were unfamiliar. "IDF" = "Israeli Defence Forces". I was not claiming this site as "impartial"!

As for numbers of kills, that is not really in dispute: prior to his public renunciation of terrorism, Arafat was an organizer of terror attacks on a wide scale (even his *supporters* in the West acknowledge this).

What is in dispute is whether he has actually renounced terror as a method and is now a peaceful elder statesman or not.

[RandySpears]

aha ok, i am happy then that i was wrong about that then. But i was not aware of that IDF = "Israeli Defense forces" was common knowledge :)

Now I am not a supporter of Arafat. He's got blood on his hands. But I dp think Sharon would be a better comparison than ObL.

But I have never heard the numbers you are claiming (about 4000 or more?), terrorist act kills for which Arafat is responsible. Are you sure these are not in dispute? I very much doubt it!

[Tee]

Originally posted by RandySpears
Yes, Tee, i would agree that the right of return for all Palestinian refugees is a major problem. It is obvious that this is not practically possible. Still it is a claim that the PLO has made, and one that would extremely unpopular with the palestinian public to give up for Arafat.

Still PLO knows they have to, and i actually thought that they had been willing to do so, recent years? Anyone know more about this?

I do not think the willingness to give in on the right of return is there at all.

http://www.nad-plo.org/permanent/refugees.html

Israel must recognize the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes. Every refugee should be permitted to return if he or she chooses to do so. This should be done pursuant to a detailed repatriation plan that includes the modalities, timetables and numbers for a phased return of the refugees. This plan must ensure the safety and dignity of return in accordance with international human rights norms.

http://www.nad-plo.org/eye/opeds16.html

(Arafat) In addition, we seek a fair and just solution to the plight of Palestinian refugees who for 54 years have not been permitted to return to their homes. We understand Israel's demographic concerns and understand that the right of return of Palestinian refugees, a right guaranteed under international law and United Nations Resolution 194, must be implemented in a way that takes into account such concerns. However, just as we Palestinians must be realistic with respect to Israel's demographic desires, Israelis too must be realistic in understanding that there can be no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if the legitimate rights of these innocent civilians continue to be ignored. Left unresolved, the refugee issue has the potential to undermine any permanent peace agreement between Palestinians and Israelis. How is a Palestinian refugee to understand that his or her right of return will not be honored but those of Kosovar Albanians, Afghans and East Timorese have been?

I also know he was talking up this issue to the Arab League right after the UNSC resolution. It seems workable through a compensation package of a different sort, but again nowadays I'm viewing everything through the "Death to Israel" mantra. I've no doubt they understand Israel's demographic desires, and that the most vocal of them will keep insisting on the right of return.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by RandySpears
aha ok, i am happy then that i was wrong about that then. But i was not aware of that IDF = "Israeli Defense forces" was common knowledge :)

Now I am not a supporter of Arafat. He's got blood on his hands. But I dp think Sharon would be a better comparison than ObL.

But I have never heard the numbers you are claiming (about 4000 or more?), terrorist act kills for which Arafat is responsible. Are you sure these are not in dispute? I very much doubt it!

For decades, Arafat was in charge of an organization which committed hundreds of terrorist attacks. In Lebanon alone, it is estimated that the PLO killed tens of thousands during the civil war times. That is in addition to numerous attacks against Israelis, of which you cannot be totally unaware.

The "martyrs brigades" have launched a couple of *hundred* seperate terrorist attacks *after* Arafat publicly renounced terrorism - indeed, they have only existed since the start of the "second Intafadah".

So, in terms of numbers, Arafat makes Bin Laden look like a piker. Of course, this was over decades, not in one spectacular operation.

To insist that Bin Laden is the more prolific killer is foolish as it is quite contrary to the facts, which are really not in dispute.

Of course, if Bin Laden was lauded by supporters in the West, and protected from reprisal br Western opinion over a matter of *decades* while still acting as organizer of a terrorist campaign against the US, he could quite possibly top Arafats' score. But the US has much less patience than Israel for enemies of this sort, and I expect that if they find him, they will just kill him - not attempt to make peace with him, and give him the Nobel Prize for offering to stop blowing up Americans.

Now, if I really thought that Arafat had renounced terrorism and was willing to shepard in a peaceful Palistinian state, I'd give him two Nobel Prizes and a round of applause.

But, he has done all he could to *prevent* that from happening, and I think his renunciation of terrorism is a sham. So I have no use for him at all, and I am glad to see that, increasingly, neither do the Palistinians - witness his latest defeat in the matter of a Prime Minister.

In fact, the only people to remain fooled by him are his Western supporters, who have invested so heavily in his legitimacy that they find it difficult to realize it never existed.

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

Malthus, your search would be better if you used the more common spelling 'al-Asqa' (I'm not saying al-Aska is incorrect, it's just a different way from converting it from Arabic) for the al-Asqa matyr's brigade. The al-Asqa Matyrs brigade were formed near the start of the current al-Asqa initfada and has carried out several suicide bombings. Simlair in someways to Hamas, in that it uses religion to further it's aims, but different in that it is working for a secular rather than an Islamic state. Several of al-Asqa's members are also members of PLO affilated groups, including Arafat's Fatah faction, however they ar not under the command of Arafat and recognize him only as the symbolic leader of the Palestinian struggle.

[RandySpears]

Tee:

Arafat would never give up this claim before the Palestinian public until he got a done deal to show for it. Since it will be an extremely unpopular act with the Palestinians. What I've heard is that he has been hinting willingness to give it up in negociations. Maybe I'm wrong... Anyone heard anything about this?

Malthus:

Well, once again it comes down to your inclusive definition of "terrorism" and "responsibility". Osama Bin Ladin is widely believed to have authorized the bombings of the twin towers killing more than 3000 people in what can for obvious reasons be called a "terrorist attack". Not counting the victims of his other obvious terrorists attacks.

When you say that Arafat is his equal in this respect I believe you should back it up by giving credible, impartial accounts of which deliberate and civilian deaths you think he is responsible for. And then a widely acknowledged (by more observers than Israel/US) link for this terrorist act, between Arafat and the perpetraitors in such a way that they are acting on his orders; or because of his encouragement.

In Lebanon alone, it is estimated that the PLO killed tens of thousands during the civil war times. That is in addition to numerous attacks against Israelis, of which you cannot be totally unaware.

What is the origin of this estimate? Who were the tens of tousands killed? Are you claiming that the PLO killed tens of thousands in terrorist attacks in Lebanon during the Lebanese civil war? Cite, please.

The "martyrs brigades" have launched a couple of *hundred* seperate terrorist attacks *after* Arafat publicly renounced terrorism - indeed, they have only existed since the start of the "second Intafadah".

This issue was adressed by MC which i think makes my point of your inclusive definition of "responsibility". You're views on this matter seem to be pretty much identical to the IDFs. If terrorist attacks are commited by Palestinians, while Arafat is their leader, then he is personally responsible. This type of reasoning would make the US prez responsible for the actions of Timothy McVei.

But there were terrorist acts with civilian deaths Arafat was responsible for, and I maintain that he in that respect is better compared to Ariel Sharon and his responsibility for the kills of civilians in Lebaneese refugee camps. Or the prime minister of Israel at the time, Menachem Begin, with his history as a member of the terrorist "Etzel" group.

[Tee]

I have no problem with equating Arafat to Sharon.

Not sure what else to say about that. "Resistance" is what you do against a foreign or occupying army, "terrorism" is what you do to another country's civilians. The line blurs there at times. Many in this country dismiss Arafat outright as a terrorist...but I wonder about that and I worry about what his increasing marginalization might mean.

[RandySpears]

Tee:

Splendid! Now let us convince Malthus! ;)

On the serious note: I agree on your analysis. Even though I have a huge understanding why Israeli citizens would have those feelings, I have gotten the feeling that Arafat always were a terrorist toward the cause of a palestine state. Of course that can never justify the targetting of civilians. In recent years i think he has tried trading terrorism for diplomacy as a means to that end.

Still it would be better with another Palestinian leader without Arafats history. But it is hard to see how, as I suspect that the sentiments of the Palestinians will be drifting more in the direction of Hamas if the development of these last years continues....

Just as the sentiments of the Israelis seem to be drifting towards the other extreme. Its a sad thing.

[antechinus]

Originally posted by Malthus
The point is, with so many conflicting interests at stake (even though many are symbolic rather than real), an objective stance based on the same set of moral criteria applied to other situations is, in my opinion, quite rare - and I say this while disagreeing with the moral criteria which evidently motivate your opinions.

Perhaps this would be a good place to ask generally - those who post in this thread, what, in all honesty, motivates your interest?
You asked a good question. It would be interesting to know what moral criteria motivates your opinions, as sought by my previous post.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by MC Master of Cermonies
Malthus, your search would be better if you used the more common spelling 'al-Asqa' (I'm not saying al-Aska is incorrect, it's just a different way from converting it from Arabic) for the al-Asqa matyr's brigade. The al-Asqa Matyrs brigade were formed near the start of the current al-Asqa initfada and has carried out several suicide bombings. Simlair in someways to Hamas, in that it uses religion to further it's aims, but different in that it is working for a secular rather than an Islamic state. Several of al-Asqa's members are also members of PLO affilated groups, including Arafat's Fatah faction, however they ar not under the command of Arafat and recognize him only as the symbolic leader of the Palestinian struggle.

As I said, the topic of the debate is narrow - it is not whether Arafat *has been* a terrorist (he clearly has), but whether hi is one now. Is Arafat, or is he not, in charge of the brigades? Did he have a role in setting them up? Are they an attempt to curry support and inflict damage, while maintaining "plausable deniability"?

In the above links, you will find evidence connecting Arafat directly to the financing of these brigades. It certainly appears that they are controled, or at least facilitated, by him. Intuitively this makes sense - as you point out, the brigades are essentially an offshoot of his own organization (or at least they share members), and Arafats' dictatorial control of Fatah over a long period of time is legendary.

Naturally, this evidence may be forged. Do you have any links to evidence which demonstrates that they are *not* under Arafat control (or, more properly, that discredits the existing evidence that they are?).

[Malthus]

Originally posted by RandySpears

Malthus:

Well, once again it comes down to your inclusive definition of "terrorism" and "responsibility". Osama Bin Ladin is widely believed to have authorized the bombings of the twin towers killing more than 3000 people in what can for obvious reasons be called a "terrorist attack". Not counting the victims of his other obvious terrorists attacks.

When you say that Arafat is his equal in this respect I believe you should back it up by giving credible, impartial accounts of which deliberate and civilian deaths you think he is responsible for. And then a widely acknowledged (by more observers than Israel/US) link for this terrorist act, between Arafat and the perpetraitors in such a way that they are acting on his orders; or because of his encouragement.



What is the origin of this estimate? Who were the tens of tousands killed? Are you claiming that the PLO killed tens of thousands in terrorist attacks in Lebanon during the Lebanese civil war? Cite, please.



This issue was adressed by MC which i think makes my point of your inclusive definition of "responsibility". You're views on this matter seem to be pretty much identical to the IDFs. If terrorist attacks are commited by Palestinians, while Arafat is their leader, then he is personally responsible. This type of reasoning would make the US prez responsible for the actions of Timothy McVei.

But there were terrorist acts with civilian deaths Arafat was responsible for, and I maintain that he in that respect is better compared to Ariel Sharon and his responsibility for the kills of civilians in Lebaneese refugee camps. Or the prime minister of Israel at the time, Menachem Begin, with his history as a member of the terrorist "Etzel" group.

The issue in my mind boils down to this: has Arafat actually renounced terrorism, or has he only claimed to do so while in fact encouraging it? And is he responsible for the deaths ordered by him? I think the answer to both questions is "yes".

I have no special insight into Arafat's rule. I just judge the evidence presented. I will not agree to automatically discard any evidence gathered by Americans or Israelis, as you seem to require. I simply factor in the fact of their nationality as creating a potential for bias.

Here is more info on Arafat & the Brigades:

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/alaqsa.html#Q5

"Does Arafat control the brigades?
Arafat’s advisers say he does not; Israeli officials say he does; and different leaders of the group tell different stories about whether they take their orders from Arafat. “Our group is an integral part of Fatah,” Maslama Thabet, one of the group’s leaders in the West Bank town of Tulkarm, told USA Today in March 2002. “We receive our instructions from Fatah. Our commander is Yasir Arafat himself.” But another of the group’s leaders, Naser Badawi, told the New York Times days later that while “we respect our leader,” the decision “to carry out attacks remains with the Aqsa Brigades leadership.” Badawi added that Arafat has never approached the group to ask it to stop its suicide bombings, which Arafat has publicly condemned. Palestinian officials have said that most of the group’s members are on the payroll of the Palestinian Authority, often because they serve in both the brigades and in one of Arafat’s 14 formal security services. In April 2002, Israel captured Marwan Barghouti, the West Bank leader of Arafat’s Fatah and a leading figure in the brigades. In June 2002, President Bush decided to call for Arafat’s removal after receiving Israeli intelligence reports showing that Arafat had approved a $20,000 payment to the brigades."

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/havens/palestine.html

"But Arafat has also repeatedly released suspected terrorists from prison, extolled “martyrdom” in Arabic broadcasts even as he condemned terrorism in English, and withheld the security cooperation mandated by the Oslo accords. With Arafat’s popularity flagging due to the failure of the peace process and widespread public disaffection with PA authoritarianism and corruption, many experts say his Fatah faction resorted to anti-Israel terrorism to compete with the increasingly popular Hamas. In June 2002, the Bush administration called for the replacement of Arafat’s leadership, concluding that the PA was relying on terrorism."

Once again, this is published by an American think-tank. But I think it is most likely correct.

On the Lebanon Civil War, and Arafat's participation:

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/lima/lebanon1975.htm

A Canadian news article, citing massacres of Christians by Palistinians under Arafat's control - and vice versa:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/lebanon/70s.html

The "tens of thousands" estimate comes from the article already cited.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by antechinus
You asked a good question. It would be interesting to know what moral criteria motivates your opinions, as sought by my previous post.

You must have missed my answer, made a while back. For your convenience, I repost in here:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by antechinus
malthus

That is a very good question.

For me, in no particular order:

- my disgust in seeing suffering of people (both sides) for such a long period of time where there could be a solution (I believe), but nothing succesful has been done about it

- the immediacy of the situation - it is not history, it is now

- a sense of fairness - disgusted with people having land taken off them, when they have had contact with the land for ages, and the huge inbalance of power of one side over the other

- the disrepect shown by the Israelis towards the Palestinians - regarding them as sub-human

- that the Israeli government is supposed to be a democracy - this is a slur on democracy


All these things motivate my interest in the situation. Similarities with South Africa prior to 1990s and Timor prior to 2002.

So, malthus, how does your moral framework differ such that you agree to see a continuation of attacks on innocent poeple by a democratic govenment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



First, I thank everyone who answered my question. I would like to point out that I was not trying to be rhetorical, or to score points for one side or the other.

Rather, my question was intended to involve a certain amount of self-examination - for people on both sides of the debate.

When I get a response like that above, it makes it slightly difficult. Statements of this sort:

"- the disrepect shown by the Israelis towards the Palestinians - regarding them as sub-human

- that the Israeli government is supposed to be a democracy - this is a slur on democracy"

"So, malthus, how does your moral framework differ such that you agree to see a continuation of attacks on innocent poeple by a democratic govenment. "

Seem to call for debate over the assumptions (I believe wrong assumptions) which underline the opinion.

This is not what I was after. There is plenty of this sort of debate already, and we all know it tends to go in circles. Naturally, if you (or anyone) thinks that one side is all good, and the other all evil, and the reason you support one side is because you like good and hate evil, the debate is effectively over.

Although I am not sure that it was made in good faith, I will answer the question asked.

In my own moral framework, I believe that people have the right to self-defence. Some of the actions taken by the Israeli government are undertaken to defend the state and the people of that country. Others (such as the settlement policy) are not. The former actions are unfortunate necessities and morally justified - with the proviso that they are perportional. The latter are not.

The suicide bombing campaign is not, I believe, undertaken in self-defence. Indeed, there is no conceivable way that such actions benefit or defend the people of Palistine. On the contrary, they are the cause of increased misery for those people. Therefore, they are not justified, and there is no need to debate whether they are perportional or not.

Now, what actions the right of self-defence justifies varies with the extremity of the danger posed. This is where I undoubtably disagree with McDuff. It is an individual issue whether any particular action taken by the Israeli government crosses the line from being justified to being unjustified, based on the extent of the danger and the severity of the response. So far, as a matter of historical fact, their response has been (in my opinion) reasonably restrained. Compare for example their response to suicide bombing (isolating, but not arresting or killing, Arafat) with that of the US and the al-Queda situation. Would the US agree to isolate bin Laden if they knew where he was? Has the US invasion of Afganistan dispossessed, killed or disrupted the lives of "innocents"? I am afraid it has.

Unfortunately, excercising the right of self-defence tends to have that effect. It cannot be otherwise, particularly given an enemy who uses the innocent civilian population as its cover. To claim that never, under any circumstances, may the right of self defence impinge on innocents is to naively hand victory to the aggressors - as it renders that right essentially meaningless, given that those who engage in attacks are highly unlikely to seperate themselves willingly from the general population so as to enable them to be destroyed with impunity.

As for why I am interested, myself: it mostly has to do with the fact that I lived there for almost a year, working on an archaeological dig (Tel Dor, if any are interested) in the days when I considered becoming an archaeologist. This gave me a certain amount of insight into the place and its history.

The length of occupation of the area, and its seeming centrality over long periods of time, I found very interesting.

So was the attitude of Israelis. I can best sum it up by saying that the events of the 20th century have taught the Israelis the absolute importance of both the right and ability to defend themselves. I can hardly disagree.

[antechinus]

Originally posted by Malthus
In my own moral framework, I believe that people have the right to self-defence. Some of the actions taken by the Israeli government are undertaken to defend the state and the people of that country. Others (such as the settlement policy) are not. The former actions are unfortunate necessities and morally justified - with the proviso that they are perportional. The latter are not.

I asked earlier if you could clarify this post, where you put forward your moral position. Do you subscibe to the morality of proportional reprisal?

Is your idea of "self-defense" meting out punishment after an attack?

I don't think I need to repost my original question.

[RandySpears]

Malthus:

About sources: I fully agree with you that an Israeli or US source may just as unbiased as any other source. Typo. Should have said "Israel/US administrations".

Al-aqsa: That a local Al-asqa town leader claims that Arafat gives them orders does * not * make it so. Him authorizing a payment to al-aqsa of 20 K, has the same meaning as him giving 20 K to al-qaida: it doesnt make him Bin Ladin. Assuming that's verified information.

Lebanon: How about you just cite the place with the estimate of 10 000 terrorist kills instead, and it will spare us both a lot of work?

[Jackmannii]

Originally posted by London_Calling
McDuff - You’re going to have to get used to the “anti-Semitic” crap being thrown at you for even suggesting Israeli wrong-doing. IMHO, the only way to try and address issues and stay on topic in relation to Israel (on this board) is to accept a percentage of posters will always try and make as much distracting noise as possible by turning the attention on you, or your reasons for posting, or distract you by misrepresenting what you say … anything but address the issues. (italics added)
This petulant and disingenuous whine stems from threads like this one (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?&threadid=169415).

[McDuff]

While making no comments about the posters involved, I don't especially see the immediate relationship between the two threads.

It is my experience that the "ad hominem" attack is the easiest of all to get drawn into using. Making a claim that holding a view is is racist or anti-semitic or whatever is easy, but if people spend the time flinging these accusations, the result is that X goes away convinced that Y is anti-semitic, and Y is convinced that X is a knee-jerk pro-Israeli-type who responds to every criticism, however justified, with the "anti-semitic" cry. The upshot, of course, being that no matter if one, or both, of these accusations is true, nothing is actually advanced, no opinions are changed or influenced, and no real information is exchanged. Positions are entrenched, rather than opened. As I said before, that type of argument is less than appealing to me.

On the other hand, the last couple of pages have been a joy to read. I'm not yet in a position where I feel able to weigh back in on the thread, having spent the whole weekend in London, but I'm learning a lot from the recent exchange.

[RandySpears]

By the way Malthus: Arafat paying 20k to Al Aqsa - verified by sources outside US/Israeli administrations?

[Jackmannii]

Originally posted by McDuff
While making no comments about the posters involved, I don't especially see the immediate relationship between the two threads.

It is my experience that the "ad hominem" attack is the easiest of all to get drawn into using. Making a claim that holding a view is is racist or anti-semitic or whatever is easy, but if people spend the time flinging these accusations, the result is that X goes away convinced that Y is anti-semitic, and Y is convinced that X is a knee-jerk pro-Israeli-type who responds to every criticism, however justified, with the "anti-semitic" cry.
If you go through the linked thread and click on the links within, you'll see what's involved.

Most critics of Israeli policy (including on occasion, me) discuss the subject without resort to anti-Semitic jibes and innuendo. In the linked thread (in response to the complaint that foes of Israel are falsely charged with anti-Semitism) I pointed out several cases of SDMB posters who've been vitriolically anti-Israel and also revealed themselves to be bigots (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?&threadid=171069).

Anti-Semitism is one of the ultimate "ad hominem" attacks.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by antechinus
I asked earlier if you could clarify this post, where you put forward your moral position. Do you subscibe to the morality of proportional reprisal?

Is your idea of "self-defense" meting out punishment after an attack?

I don't think I need to repost my original question.

I am not sure what exactly you want here.

I thought my position, as quoted, was clear enough.

If by "meting punishment after an attack" you mean randomly targeting one Palistinian for execution for each Israeli killed, obviously I am against it. Such an act would not fall within the definition of "self defence" at all. It would not even be sensible vengence - and I don't approve of vengence for its own sake, anyway.

If you mean hunting down the perpitrators - those who ordered and arranged for an attack, those who made the bombs, those who sheltered the bombers for their one-way mission - I think it entirely sensible and necessary. Don't you?

[Malthus]

Originally posted by RandySpears
Malthus:

About sources: I fully agree with you that an Israeli or US source may just as unbiased as any other source. Typo. Should have said "Israel/US administrations".

Al-aqsa: That a local Al-asqa town leader claims that Arafat gives them orders does * not * make it so. Him authorizing a payment to al-aqsa of 20 K, has the same meaning as him giving 20 K to al-qaida: it doesnt make him Bin Ladin. Assuming that's verified information.

Lebanon: How about you just cite the place with the estimate of 10 000 terrorist kills instead, and it will spare us both a lot of work?

The correction is clearly better, but I would still use the same principles regarding information coming from official Israeli and US government sources - the information may in fact *only* be available from those sources, so I would not automatically discard it. Just factor in the possibility that they reflect the prevailing bias of their governments, and observe their information critically.

However, this talk of examing sources seems somewhat futile, given that you appear to be saying that, *even if totally verified*, the information *still* is not sufficient to conclude that Arafat is indeed behind the attacks.

If I am reading the above post correctly, you are saying that even if people in the al-Asqua movement *say* Arafat ordered them to do it, even if Arafat *pays* them to do it, Arafat still has no responsibility - the al-Asqua guys could be lying, and financing is not the same as ordering.

Unfortunately, in my opinion this raises the burden of proof so high that it cannot be fulfilled. Unless and until Arafat and his whole organization are arrested, searched, and interrogated, there will *never* be conclusive and definite proof that Arafat is behind it. Neither, I might add, is there definite and conclusive proof that Bin Laden is behind 9/11. And who would do the arresting and interrogating? The only ones likely to are the Israelis or Americans - whom you don't trust.

In both cases, the case for responsibility is based on reasonable inferences from the available information. On a balance of probabilities, I contend that both Arafat and Bin Laden are responsible for their followers' attacks.

On Lebanon, the "tens of thousands" estimate came from the open-source encyclopedia. The other Lebanon links add context and history, including the information that massacres occured attributed to the PLO, but do not seperate out the deaths attributable to the PLO from the general casualties of the civil war. A precise number of those killed in reciprocal massacres of civilians caused by the various factions will never be known; those caused by the PLO certainly amount to many thousands. Only those caused by the Christians, for which Sharon takes ultimate responsibility, recieve publicity and analysis. Many are in fact unaware that similar massacres were committed by the PLO against the Christians, over a period of several years.

A search on the web discloses mainly pro-Christian militia sites, such as this:

http://lforces.freeyellow.com/Damur1975.html

More reliably, testamony before the US Senate:

http://www.wlo-usa.org/Opinion/Barakat/Testimony.htm

"I - My experience:

Throughout my young years, I was raised in the fear of massacres, as our village's population was butchered in 1920 by Muslims. At the end of 1958, and before the US Marines intervention to put an end to the Islamic uprising, backed by Abdel Nasser of Egypt, I lost my eldest brother, a young Lebanese officer. When Benoit was killed, I was six years old.. In the seventies, the PLO systematically brutalized the youth and elders of Ain Ebel, and other villages, installing terror check points, arresting, kidnapping, and killing some of the villagers. On many occasions graffiti were written on the walls such as "there is no place for Christians in this land."

Since 1977, our village was encircled by PLO and other radical groups. Our world shrunk to less than three square miles. We were in a collective prison, more like a Christian ghetto surrounded by Jibad forces. On new year's eve of 1979, the day my wife gave birth to my older son her two parents were kidnapped by the elements of Abu Nidal for three months. On Christmas day of 1991, my brother-in-law, a middle school teacher, was kidnapped to the Ain El Helweh Camp and tortured for a whole month by the armed elements of Abul Abbas.

In 1984, a new organization, Hizbollah, took over from the PLO. Manipulated by the Iranians, protected by the Syrians, legitimized after 1990 by the current Lebanese regime, the terrorists of Hizbollah were bolder in their designs. They openly called for the establishment of an Islamic republic. For six years, we had to use fishing boats to exit Ain Ebel's region in order to reach Beirut, before it fell to the Syrians in 1990. Children, women, and the elderly were packed like cattle, under Hizbollah's fire. In 1985 a ship carrying 200 Christians sunk off Beirut's shores. I personally was on many of these horror trips. Life was forbidden to us, so was freedom. During the time we were oppressed by the fundamentalists, other Christians suffered as well: the Western and American hostages, held by the same Hizbollah ia Lebanon.

In the wake of the Syrian invasion of the Christian areas of Beirut and Mount Lebanon in October 1990, three civilians from my village were kidnapped by Hizbollah. Marun Nassff Attach was killed and his body was left in the valley of Wadi el-Sluki for fifteen days. The United Nations soldiers found him defaced and maimed. We were able to recognize him with the help of X-rays taken of his leg few weeks prior. Burros Nassif Atmeh died months after his release as a result of severe beating to his head during his kidnapping. The third Christian who is the nephew of a bishop and still alive, was reduced to a living martyr. I cannot bring his name for safety reasons. This environment of extreme violence against my village and the Christians of this area caused us to live m constant fear. We even considered emigrating, emptying the villages; however, we remained on our land.

Since 1979, under Syrian pressures, our wages from the Lebanese Army were suspended by Beirut's government. Furthermore, a great number of us is denied passports. More recently I worked hard to establish a Christian radio station to broadcast to the local community. As I made the first broadcast, Hizbollah threatened to shell the station. Later, Hizbollah's rockets were fired into the area, and we were forced to close it dogma to spare lives.


II - The experience of my community:

The pattern of suppression is an old one. The Christian community in that area was submitted to number of massacres throughout this century. Since the massacre of 1920 incidents occurred frequently.

Mr Chairman, the present speaker of the house m Lebanon, Mr Nabih Berri, who is considered as a moderate Shiite, publicly threatened by reminding us of this 1920 massacre three times. Targeting Christians is not specific to South Lebanon. The Lebanese Christians has been resisting the tide of Islamism since the seventh century. Our ancestors have paid the price for their faith. Lebanon is the only country ia the Middle East, where Christians from all denominations have been able to form a safe haven for over thirteen centuries.

In modern times, attempts were made to create a co-existence between Lebanon's religious communities. The Christians extended their hands to the Muslim leadership. Successful for a short period of time, this peaceful coexistence fell under the terrorism of the PLO, the Syrian occupation, and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

For an insight on this history I recommend the comprehensive book of Professor Walid Phares, "Lebanese Christian Nationalism: The Rise and Fall of an Ethnic Resistance." (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1995). In Phares' terms, the "Christians of Lebanon were and are still targeted because of their Christian identity and their determination to remain Christian."

Since 1975, about 150,000 Christians were killed during the war. Thousands of Lebanese Muslims died as well. Entire Christian villages were erased and their populations were ethnically cleansed.

In Damur (south of Beirut), for example, a thousand Christian civilians were killed while the armed bands shouted "Allahu Akbar" and "Jihad" (Holy war slogans) Churches were burned down by dozens. An account of the horrors is too long to include in this testimony.

Here are few examples of massacres:

1975: Belt Mellat, Deir Eshash Tall Abbas (north Lebanon), Damur (Mount Lebanon)
1976: Chekka (north Lebanon), Qaa, Terbol (Bekaa valley)
1977: Aishye (south Lebanon), Maaser el-Shuf (Shuf Mountain)
1978: Ras Baalbeck, Shleefa (Bekaa valley)
1983: Major massacres in Aley, and the Shuf mountains. Ia addition to the 241 U.S. Marines and 78 French paratroopers savagely assassinated by Hizbollah
1984: Iqlim el-Kharrub (Mourn Lebanon)
1985: East Sidon (South Lebanon)
1990: Matn district"

But you don't have to believe the Christians or their sympathizers - the folks at "Indict Sharon" reference these massacres, as well, and they are hardly likely to reference something that never happened and is contrary to their sympathies:

http://www.geocities.com/indictsharon/article2.html

"There is a highly trained group of Phalangist soldiers, known as the Damuri Brigade, which has been in Damur, just south of Beirut, ever since the Israelis took the town. The brigade is made up of many of the sons of Christian families massacred by Palestinians in Damur in February 1976 in retaliation for the Christian massacre of Palestinian civilians at the Tel Zaatar refugee camp. The Damuri Brigade has long vowed to be at the forefront of any effort to rid Lebanon of Palestinians and there are some here who believe that its members may have been the Phalangists who took part, wearing Phalangist uniforms."

I wonder, where was the pressure to "indict Arafat" for ordering the previous massacre, for which the infamous Sabra massacre was a retaliation - apparently carried out by "...the sons of Christian families massacred by Palestinians in Damur..." (at least according to "indictSharon", admittedly not the most objective observer)? Or is Arafat also "not responsible" for massacres carried out by the PLO in Lebanon?

No, I am afraid challenging the fact that the PLO carried out massacres in Lebanon is a bit of a non-starter, frankly.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by McDuff
While making no comments about the posters involved, I don't especially see the immediate relationship between the two threads.

It is my experience that the "ad hominem" attack is the easiest of all to get drawn into using. Making a claim that holding a view is is racist or anti-semitic or whatever is easy, but if people spend the time flinging these accusations, the result is that X goes away convinced that Y is anti-semitic, and Y is convinced that X is a knee-jerk pro-Israeli-type who responds to every criticism, however justified, with the "anti-semitic" cry. The upshot, of course, being that no matter if one, or both, of these accusations is true, nothing is actually advanced, no opinions are changed or influenced, and no real information is exchanged. Positions are entrenched, rather than opened. As I said before, that type of argument is less than appealing to me.

On the other hand, the last couple of pages have been a joy to read. I'm not yet in a position where I feel able to weigh back in on the thread, having spent the whole weekend in London, but I'm learning a lot from the recent exchange.

I'm with you on this one. Frankly, I have no complaints about ad hominums being used for a long time in this thread - I may disagree with other posters, but I think the disagreement is honest. why bring the topic up now?

[RandySpears]

Malthus:

I only got a few minutes now before I have to catch a train and that seems to be nowhere near enough to adress your post, judging by the size of it. I'll get back to you.

But here's a preliminary:

However, this talk of examing sources seems somewhat futile, given that you appear to be saying that, *even if totally verified*, the information *still* is not sufficient to conclude that Arafat is indeed behind the attacks.

Yes, you are quite correct. Usually in a factual debate a claim must be verified *and* pertinent to your thesis.

F. e. you have claimed that Arafat is responsible for 10 000 terrorist murders during the lebanese civil war. Assume you provide a cite that says that 10 000 killings (note: unspecified if they were civilians or casualties of war) in the lebanese war, at the hands of PLO members.

Then I don't have to worry about checking if these figures are verified, since they are not pertinent to your claim! Which was 10 000 terrorist murders.

Are you now finally with me?

[Malthus]

Originally posted by RandySpears
Malthus:

I only got a few minutes now before I have to catch a train and that seems to be nowhere near enough to adress your post, judging by the size of it. I'll get back to you.

But here's a preliminary:



Yes, you are quite correct. Usually in a factual debate a claim must be verified *and* pertinent to your thesis.

F. e. you have claimed that Arafat is responsible for 10 000 terrorist murders during the lebanese civil war. Assume you provide a cite that says that 10 000 killings (note: unspecified if they were civilians or casualties of war) in the lebanese war, at the hands of PLO members.

Then I don't have to worry about checking if these figures are verified, since they are not pertinent to your claim! Which was 10 000 terrorist murders.

Are you now finally with me?

Certainly, although if you read my post (when you have more leasure), you will see that the part of my argument you quoted was directed at the Martyr's Brigades issues. I don't think anyone would argue that evidence indicating Martyr's Brigades officials are *saying* that Arafat is in command, or that indicates that Arafat's faction *payed* for such attacks, is "not pertinant to the thesis" - the "thesis" being that Arafat is *responsible* for those attacks.

On the Lebanon issue, I think you will find sufficient additional information concerning PLO activities in Lebanon to convince you that they did indeed commit terrorist attacks. I think most people would agree that randomly slaughtering people in order to inspire terror counts as "terrorism".

Although I will grant you this - there are no precise figures as to how many died in these massacres. Just that many occurred. The "tens of thousands" estimate undoubtably includes both victims of terrorist murders *and* non-terrorist fatalities. However, the total of terrorist murders was clearly quite large, given that the victims of only *one* such massacre of the sixteen or so listed in the Senate testimony- at Damur - yeilded enough surviving sons of parents massacred to form an entire brigade, which committed the massacre of Palistinians at Sabra - according to Indict Sharon.

Given that fact, I have no hesitation in saying that the numbers of victims of Palistinian terrorism, for which Arafat is responsible, exceeds the number for which Bin Laden is responsible, given that the former number = (1)Israeli victims of terrorism before Arafat renounced it, (2)victims of the Martyr's Brigades *after* Arafat renounced terrorism, and (3)victims of massacres of Christian civilians in Lebanon caused by the PLO.

The last number is probably the highest, and least known. The total number will probably *never* be known. In any event, it is difficult to seperate out terrorist victims from those casualties caused by warfare, on the one hand, and terrorist victims of the PLO and those of other groups not under Arafat's control on the other.

But these difficulties do not obscure the fact that Arafat is directly responsible for thousands of deaths by massacre and terrorism.

[McDuff]

Malthus> I brought it up now in response to a post a long, long time ago :) I haven't got a problem with the last few pages, as far as Ad Homs go.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by McDuff
Malthus> I brought it up now in response to a post a long, long time ago :) I haven't got a problem with the last few pages, as far as Ad Homs go.

Ooops. My fault, I wasn't clear enough - I was agreeing with you. My "why bring it up now?" comment was directed at Jackmannii, not you. :)

[Jackmannii]

Awhile back, we had a poster in the Pit who'd missed his pitting some months previously, just noticed it, and was now responding. The advisability of bringing the matter up at that point was debatable.

Noting and responding succinctly to a piece of self-serving tripe posted a couple of pages back in an active thread seemed justified to me. Your view on the statute of limitations may differ. ;)

[Malthus]

Originally posted by Jackmannii
Awhile back, we had a poster in the Pit who'd missed his pitting some months previously, just noticed it, and was now responding. The advisability of bringing the matter up at that point was debatable.

Noting and responding succinctly to a piece of self-serving tripe posted a couple of pages back in an active thread seemed justified to me. Your view on the statute of limitations may differ. ;)

Maybe so. I just thought that, generally, such a notation ought to be directed at the tactics of someone participating in the current debate.

The risk of bringing it up in the middle of a factual debate, is that the debate will get sidetracked away from the current (relatively reasonable) track into a mutual bashing match, in which nothing of interest will be discussed or learned. There was some of that earlier, and it wasn't much fun really.

Personally, I welcome those who challenge my views - even forcefully - so long as that challenge is based in argument and fact. The best revenge on those claiming, as the linked comment claims, that all those opposed to his or her viewpoint always use tactics of ad hominum, intimidation and distraction, is to prove them totally and utterly wrong by your own behaviour. :)

Not that this should prevent you or anyone else from pointing out prejudice - where it occurs. I fully agree that *claiming* your opponents use ad hominum arguments, when they do not, is really just a form of ad hominum itself. Ditto using such a claim to pull the sting from accusations of prejudice, when those accusations are accurate.

The best way to avoid this mess is to frankly say, "here is where I am coming from. This is what I base it on. Here are the facts, and this is why I believe them to be accurate". In that way, your opponents will be forced to either: (1) accept what you have to say as accurate; (2) respond in kind with facts and arguments; or (3) reveal themselves to be hopelessly biased.

Excuse this ramble - I am somewhat bored. ;)