Attention Israel: Enough is Enough.

[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?