The Wall will play no part at all. It is wishfull thinking that problems can be resolved by shutting yourself off.
The palestineans will always find a way to fight, a
If the said GI hitchhiker has been a member of a US Army that was an Army of Occupation with no international mandate to that role, then I would certainly withdraw my hospitality if he seemed proud to have been a member of such an Army. Oh, hang on now there is a US Army that…
**
Perhaps I should qualify slightly. I meant to include only the Israeli military personel whilst in occupation and Israeli civilians (not only adult males) that are illegal settlers in the occupied territories, or visiting same. They have choices - refuse to serve in the Military, and to refuse to be part of (or associate yourselves with) or expose your family to the consequences of your illegal occupation backed by military force. Legitimate targets IMHO.
So, I may be wrong but I don’t think the Maxim’s bombing passes that test.
Ref the last sentence of my last post - I don’t think the Maxim’s bombing has to pass that test as it did not take place in the occupied territories. Unless it was in East Jerusalem but I think not - Tel Aviv no?
Israel could grab Lebanon if it wanted to. Israel could expand settlements into all the OTs and there is little the neighboring Arab countries could do about it.
Changing gears a bit, how could the Palestinians get a state fairly rapidly. First, the “majority” moderate Palestinians could turn in all the militants. Then, Israel – faced with no terrorism – would quickly lose support for the “occupation” where it matters most: in the United States.
US public opinion on Israel, contrary to some experts in other nations, is quite malleable on this issue. Most Americans fall into the “just want it to stop” category. If I may say something highly contrarian, something that may shock European intellectuals everywhere, Americans get a far less biased picture in our media than the Europeans do. Yes, your state-controlled media are largely anti-Israel. You think that is “objective.”
Without digressing too far, I think “objective” is like the Platonic “form of the good.” You’re dreaming if you think you ever have achieved it. Objective, in the real world, means one-sided.
Haifa, actually. Not in the OT
Sorry, I was unable to understand what your position was from the above - do you justify or condemn the Maxim’s bombing?
(“I don’t think the Maxim’s bombing has to pass that test” reads like “It’s clearly OK - it doesn’t even have to past any test!”, although from the rest of context you appear to condemn the attack)
Dan Abarbanel
Cite for “state-controlled media” ?
Even the BBC (who many Americans think is a “state broadcaster” 'cos the idea of “public service broadcaster” doesn’t really translate into the American experience) has shown itself numerous times not to be under state control (did the Hutton Inquiry get any press in the US?)
I don’t respond to “cite” pretending to be an argument. Not anymore anyway.
If I had to pick one nation in Europe – whatever the status of state control of the media (which is irrelvant to the argument anyway) —containing consistently anti-Israeli bias I would pick France.
England is to Europe what Florida is too the Deep South. I don’t expect English opinion to mirror the French just because there are Euros or state TV stations any time soon.
OK, fine, I’ll spell it out: THE JEWS supposedly control our media. Big conspiracy. Maybe you’ve heard of it?
To be honest - the only time I’ve actually heard this particular conspiracy theory is from American extremists - quoted on European tv as an example of those funny Americans and their ways!
And if just assume I’m English, you think England == Britain, and that England uses Euros, then I can see why you’ve given up providing cites!
Actually, of course, Israel has no civillians. That’s what 100% military recruitment means. Every man or woman in Israel is subject to their 100% draft - which means that if a Palestinian blows up a crowded cafe full of adult Israelis every single one of them is a member of the military.
Israel attempted to pull a Switzerland - by making every single person in their society a member of the military, it would be unprofitable for others to pick fights with them. Indeed, this strategy kept Switzerland out of two world wars in a row. But the flip side of that - the part where having nothing but soldiers in your country means every single person in your country is a valid military target is something that the Israelis have never been willing to accept. But the two go hand in hand - if everyone in your country is supposed to fight for your government - enemies of your government are justified in killing anyone in your country.
The thing is, Switzerland has had its own little Mutually Assured Destruction policy with all of its neighbors - any war that Switzerland would have would definitionally destroy the nation as everyone fights and everyone dies. Like the United States’ nuclear policy - that prevents others from picking a fight with the country. But like the US’ MAD plan - it goes without saying that if Switzerland picked a fight on its own, it would go very badly for everyone involved.
Israel embaced Switzerland’s policy of mutually assured destruction with its neighbors. Then it launched attacks and set up internment camps for its own Arab population. The results are predictable - they lose a lot of people all the time and it’s their own damn fault.
You cannot simultaneously defend a policy of mutually assured destruction and aggression at the same time - the results are too obvious to bother mentioning.
As a human and as a Jew - I have to say that Israel’s policies have been insane and self destructive since its inception as a terrorist state in the forties.
-Frank
But you will admit, it’s a handy bookmark to indicate from whence the speaker gets their news/viewpoint, n’est-ce-pas?
No, “homicide bomber” is a political word designed to avoid any huminization of suicide bombers (of whatever persuasion).
Zev Steinhardt
Ooooookay. So you have issues with some Europeans. Fair enough. A lot of Europeans are a bit OTT but no more so than any other population IMO.
Well I was going to lay a big CITE? on your ass but
Darn. Well how about throwing me a bone? Just tell me some sources you have knowledge of to have reached this opinion. Names of papers, tv channels etc.
Ok. Again without going to the hassle of specific instances and patterns how about even organisation names and your experience with them? You’re obviously familiar with at least one of the major French news sources.
European news that I’ve seen (mostly Irish and UK, but I look at a pan-euro news channel quite a bit and used to get subtitled French news) does report on Palestinian deaths and does specials from inside Jenin, Gaza etc. but they also do exactly the same from the other side of this tragedy.
I seen people here saying that the BBC was bias just because all the ever looked at were stories they were pointed to about the deaths of innocent Palestinians and stories that painted Israel in a bad light. They were never pointed to the numerous stories about innocent Israelis who were killed, as these didn’t cause offence to people.
Yes I have, from fuckwits from Ireland, UK, France, Australia, Malaysia and Thailand. Also quite a lot from your country along with other who believe the Jews are running the world never mind the media. What I have never heard is any reputable European news source saying so.
what the FUCK does “the Jews control the media” have to do with this discussion?
presumabley (and I’m not making this argument, just trying to help you understand what was being implied, I believe) if the Jews (sound effect of your choice here) control the media, then it follows, of course, that everything you think you know about the ME conflict is filtered through a pro-jewish rose colored lens.
clear now??
The endless cycle of murder, retaliation and revenge is so stupid and futile that it is beyond mind-boggling. Neither side has the courage or vision to stop it. And that, in my opinion, is the only “equivalence” - certainly the only one that really matters.
Of course, it’s good to see the assembled moralists from various Western nations decry the inflicting of civilian casualties in the course of warfare, based on the immaculate history of nations (Britain and the U.S., for starters) which have been able to completely avoid civilian deaths in all recent wars.
Dresden.
Tokyo.
Hiroshima.
Gaza.
Equivalent?
Right.
That’s just the point. It is senseless. It is murder. It is not becoming of a supposedly civilized government. Neither side can control its extremists and (you will pardon the expression) zealots. Neither side has the will to stop because the reins of power, on both sides, are held by the zealots. This thing will spiral into atrocity after atrocity and outrage following outrage until the zealots of one side wipe out the zealots of the other side. Unless some outside power steps in we are on a path to genocide. We all know that there is only one outside power that can act. It will not. The ultimate catastrophe is inevitable. Of course the area has a long history of this sort of thing. Remember the starving Armenians?
‘Thou shalt not kill’–pretty freakin hard to understand isn’t it?
And, unfortunately, I think gelding has accurately predicted where this thing is heading.
What I am saying if the state of Israel really wanted victory they could have it. But it would be too ugly. So they live with terrorism.
S.D. - I still have to say that I didn’t care much for your original satirical post, but I’m glad to see at least that it WAS tongue in cheek! (AND I retract my original barfing reaction to that post).
You probably should have indicated that your original post WAS a satire/parody/whatever - you sure had me (and I think, at least MC as well) fooled!
Also, just a small point - it is not only that “It would be too ugly”. Genocide - or even “merely” wholesale slaughter of civilians as a goal - is unacceptable not only on merely “pragmatic” grounds. It is wrong, and we wouldn’t go that route even if it were politically and “pragmatically” “possible”.
Dan Abarbanel