What would Israeli troops do if Palestinians did the same thing?
I don’t even have Fox News on my cable system.
Killing babies in their beds because they are Jewish is racial, not political.
It doesn’t. Why are you trying to excuse Palestinian racism?
Can they get a contiguous state out of that? I notice there’s Israeli Arab towns in that area anyway.
And is there any chance of any of the settlements being annexed by the PA. Maybe not now, this minute, but if security concerns are worked out…like did anyone ever have a contingency plan in place “just in case we’re part of Palestine next year…?”
At least rightspeak has the advantage of being correct 99% of time, rather than leftspeak weasel words.
Such as:
Illegal Aliens = undocumented workers
Decreasing the rate of spending on a social program = cutting Welfare
Reducing the tax rate in every bracket = tax cuts for the rich
[quote]
It is a good dealer easier to drum up sympathy for the side that doesn’t target buses and pizza cafes. (For me, at least.)
[quote]
Yeah, well I have little sympathy for someone who willfully breaks the law and then cries about the consequences. This isn’t civil disobedience. This is stupidity.
Knowing you, Brutus, I don’t think you’d feel sorry for someone who decides to plant their ass in the middle of an interstate highway. I don’t think you’d feel sorry for an illegal alien who got shot trying to cross the border. Why should anyone feel sorry for thieves who get punished for their continual and intentional thievery? I say if they want to be matyrs, let them. Same goes for the crazy-ass bombers. They deserve each other’s company in matyrdom.
The only people I feel sorry for are the children who have no choices in the matter. They are suffering because of their parents’ bullheadedness and stupidity.
Yeah, well I have little sympathy for someone who willfully breaks the law and then cries about the consequences. This isn’t civil disobedience. This is stupidity.
Knowing you, Brutus, I don’t think you’d feel sorry for someone who decides to plant their ass in the middle of an interstate highway. I don’t think you’d feel sorry for an illegal alien who got shot trying to cross the border. Why should anyone feel sorry for thieves who get punished for their continual and intentional thievery? I say if they want to be matyrs, let them. Same goes for the crazy-ass bombers. They deserve each other’s company in matyrdom.
The only people I feel sorry for are the children who have no choices in the matter. They are suffering because of their parents’ bullheadedness and stupidity.
My political posturing is better than YOUR political posturing! So THERE!
Depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
Okay. Time to interject against the Big Lie. There was very little antisemitism against Jews under Arab rule befor Zionism? Pure unadultered crap of a statement. A myth without basis.
True enough that there were periods during Jews were tolerated under Islamic rule. And that some Islamic rules allowed Jews to achieve to high positions. And that Islamic rule was generally better than Christian rule. But that is a far cry from stating that Islamic rule was a period of hugs and kisses.
Jews in Arab lands were humilated second class citizens for the vast majority of Arab rule. The Pact of Umar imposed upon Jews a very specific status by law. As dhimmis they were allowed to live without having to choose between conversion and death, but their status was just above dirt. Jim Crow in the South was better than dhimmi. Rise when a Muslim enters; get off the walkway when one approaches; not allowed to ride horses or mules, only unsaddled donkeys; required to wear humilating clothing to identify their status; and so on.
The Damascus Blood libel of 1840 resulted in the murder of many and the imprisonment of more, including children.
1839 a whole Jewish community in Persia was forced to convert or die.
In Morocco Jews were kept in ghettos (except that they were called mellahs).
Keep going back and there is just more and more. In Yemen Jews were expelled in 1676 and temples destroyed. Want more? There is plenty.
Jews were not a new presence in Arab lands and I am not refering to 2000 years ago: in 1800 1,000,000 Jews, 40% of world Jewery, lived in “the Near East” (mainly under Islamic rule). Arab persecution of Jews predates Jewish re-emigration to Palestine. There were periods of freedoms and tolerance, but it was at the pleasure of the ruling administration and the law mandated second class status.
As to the settlements being dismantled over the demonstrations and protests of settlers … Sharon has proven that he will do it. Even the fairly small moves made so far are impressive. We still have to see if Abbas will progress past his Policing by Pretty Please Peace Policy. Will he take actual action or only blame Israeli moves against Hammas for the failure for the PA to even attempt to live up to its roadmap obligations?
(Sources for the historical information include “The Timetable of Jewish History” by Gribetz, Greenstein and Stein, and “Jewish Literacy” by J. Telushkin. I am sure that a savvy Goggler can find some sources online as well)
Yes Dseid, there were periods of persecution, but the Dhimmi laws are a poor example of antisemtism as a) they gave protections (though of course the requirement to wear a colour coded turban lead religious minorties to be identified in times of persecution) to the practicers of the other relgions and only these relgions were allowed to be practiced (if you were a Pagan the choice would be convert or die) b) they were not directed at Jews specifically, but at Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and even Hindus. The particular harsh laws that you describe were not always the norm under the Dhimmi system.
Eli,
A final agreement will likely leave intact some large border settlemnets in return for land exchange and perhaps some concessions of substance on water rights and shared tax revenues of Palestinians working inside Israel. Still. Settlers will protest. But not every settler is a fanatic. Most are law abiding citizens who will willingly move along if given another place to stay. Many just wanted an affordable home. Despite their inordinate power, the ultra-Orthodox and those others with dreams of a Greater Israel are outnumbered by those with more reasonable views. Some will choose to resist and some may even resort to force. There will be arrests. But Israel will not have its actions decided by militant extremists whether they be Arab or Jew.
[hijack]
Even if, for the purposes of debate, I was to assume your assertion was somewhat true, the quite bizarrely artificial term ‘Homicide Bomber’ is at best an aberration and partially constitutes the other 1% (along with perhaps that beau ideal of Orwellian jargon ‘Collateral Damage’ which was, I believe. coined by a Republican)
Nearly all bombings are ‘Homicide Bombings’ because they tend to kill people, right? The type of attacks carried out by Hamas and the PLO differ greatly in terms of tactics from typical bombings because the attackers deliberately martyr themselves in the process of carrying out their attack. This tactical deviation deserves its own special designation and ‘Suicide Bombing’ is the most obvious and logical choice. It really is that simple.
While the commonly parrotted justification for the propagation of the ludicrous ‘Homicide Bomber’ classification is that it expunges the martyrdom aspect from the attacks, that does not change the fact that accuracy wise it is not as appropriate a label as ‘Suicide Bomber’.
Here endeth the [hijack]
Sorry MC but you begin to sound like an apologist. And the schools in the South were seperate and equal. And lynchings weren’t always the norm. So prejudice against Blacks did not really exist in the Jim Crow South. Uh huh.
You made a statement that Arab anti-semitism did not really exist much before Zionism and that anti-Jewish actions were a political response. It just aint so. Wearing dunce caps and bells on shoes and one black and one red shoe were not injuctions designed to protect. Before Israel existed the Grand Mufti was calling for actions against Jews across the world and went to help the Nazis. Now I’m not saying that the roots of the conflict are all antisemitic; on the contrary: I believe that it is complex and multifactorial. But long time antisemitic practices and beliefs helped fuel it and probably played a role in the decision by Arab leadership to not accept the original partition. These damn Jews just don’t want to keep to their place.
And deliberately “martyring” themselves justifies what? The fact that they are “racist animals”?
Actually, I think if the the settlements were withdrawn and the Israelis pulled back on the occupation that that any will or support mong Palestinians for suicide bombings would drop significantly. There would still be an extreme faction but the mainstream would have less to be angry about.
I might also add that there is a significant faction of Israelis who never want the Palestinians have any sovereignty, or indeed even a presence in the territories. They want to expand out until they can fill all of what they believe is the Biblical “promised land.”
In any case, those settlements are illegal. As long as Israel is supporting illegal encroachment on Palestinian land they are guaranteeing that they won’t have peace and they are exhausting the sympathies of the rest of the world.
[quote]
originally posted by milroyj
Killing babies in their beds because they are Jewish is racial, not political.
What is called when Palestinian children are bombed in their apartment buildings?
I’m not. I’m criticizing thhe racism of the settlers. Saying that terrorists are racist too is a non-sequitor.
Who said it 'justified" anything. “Suicide bomber” is simply an accurate and objective descriptor of the phenomenon. Changing “suicide” to “homicide” is an an attempt to withhold information out of fear that the word “suicide” will engender sympathy for the bombers. It is significant that people are willing to kill themselevs in these attacks because it speaks to certain level of desperation and committment on the part of the bombers. Whether they are “evil” or not is for the audience to decide not the news outlets which report it. When news outlets witthold information they cease to be news outlets and they become propagandists.
Furthermore, “homicide bomber” is redundant. Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber were not called “homicide bombers,” just bombers. The “homicide” part is superfluous. “Homicide bomber” just sounds stupid and everybody knows what it really means anyway.
I’m pretty left-wing, both in terms of US and Israeli political philosophy. I think that Israel would be far better off with a full withdrawal of settlements, a big border, and a defense pact with the EU or the US. I have said so many times around here. But even I doubt that full withdrawal would be anything but a unilateral move by Israel. The PA has really made no move to reform, even in things that would be very easy to do. This doesn’t justify the lack of movement from the Israeli side: they should take proactive measures to seize control of the situation and show the world that a democratic state can bring peace and security to themselves and their neighbors, even while under attack from fanatics. It would be a great example. But the PA still refers to attacks in “occupied Afula,” they still take no measures in security, even if they are token measures like cooperation with Israeli forces, and countless other minor points (like changing the constitution on paper).
Unilateral withdrawal would mean the ability to hermetically seal the borders. It would mean that the territories would no longer be Israel’s problem. It would mean that the onus of law and order would fall squarely on the shoulders of the PA, whether they could handle it or not. It would not end attacks: attacks continue on the UN-recognized Lebanon border. What it would end is the massive loss of life, both on the Palestinian and Israeli sides as a the targets in the territories would be removed much greater percentage of attacks in Israel proper would be foiled. Just like there are no Israeli soldiers being killed in the Lebanon buffer zone anymore.
With all probability, it would probably cut the rug out from under Abu Mazen and Arafat. Hamas would take power in no time, as Palestine would find itself more and more isolated from any contact. The Arab states wouldn’t help because they like the Palestinians as scapegoats. The EU, World Bank, and UN would want some rule of law before aid would flow in. So the PA would flounder like a worm on a hook and collapse, leading to an Islamic fundamentalist state. I’ll bet that this is the reason Israel hasn’t done it. In fact, I remember Barak threatening to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state and Arafat refusing. I’ll look up a cite.
Seriously, how does using the term “homicide” attempt to “withhold” information?
It withholds the fact that it was deliberate suicide. It withholds a significant fact about the method of the bombing. You can say that the suicide part is irrelevant to you, but the fact is it’s still information and it’s being withheld.
Ye, but DSeid, the incidents aren’t that many and in Palestine were virtually nil (even your example, the Damascus Blood Libel, was orchestrated by the French Consul). The Grand Mufti did a deal with Hitler to remove the Jews from Palestine this was a direct result of the zionist settlement. The Dhimmi treatment you describe was not the norm and comparing them to the Jim Crow laws is disingenous as they were not orginally designed to discrimnate but to protect other religions.
What I dislike is the re-writing of history for modern day political purposes and the invoking of antisemtism to devalue the other man’s cause.
That’s a bit of a backpedal. From “all suicide bombings will stop” to “support for suicide bombings will drop significantly”.