I don’t mean to be facetious but what peace movement headquartered in the territories are you referring to?
Then I don’t understand your plan.
Your idea is that aid to the Israelis constitutes pressure on the terrorists. But you propose putting pressure on the Israelis by reducing their aid. How can this be seen as other than reducing pressure on terrorists?
In your plan, any increase in pressure on Israel is inextricably linked to a decrease in pressure on the terrorists. This is bilateral?
Regards,
Shodan
A bilateral plan might involve giving equal military aid to the Palestinian Authority as we give to the GOI. That is not what I am proposing. My plan remains unilaterally in favor of Israel; it is only unilaterally in favor of Palestine inasmuch as it decreases the unilateral pro-Israel status quo.
What I AM proposing is that, yes, we link our continued unilateral support of Israel to Israel’s immediate compliance with some basic human rights concerns. Yes, we’ll reduce pressure on terrorists if it’s the only way we can get Israel to reduce pressure on civilians. If the GOI is going to misuse the aid we give it, it won’t get the aid any more.
That’s hardly a call for Israel’s demise; that’s basic foreign aid policy. Why Israel has gotten a free pass so long, I don’t understand.
Daniel
Left hand of Dorkness [may I call you Daniel?] “basic human rights concerns” ?
Could you answer post# 100, please?
Sorry I didn’t answer this post before; it got lost in the flurry of posts.
Have you ever heard of a comic book called Milk and Cheese? In one wonderful strip, these dairy products gone bad went on yet another violent rampage, maiming and killing innocent people. Only this time, after stabbing, shooting, or bludgeoning someone, they shouted, “Sorry!” Panel after panel, full of blood and mayhem, overshadowed by, “Sorry! Sorry! Sorry!”
It was pretty funny, in a sick way. Because it was a cartoon.
In real life, a public apology does little good, especially not when the same behavior has occurred over and over. Only specific changes to behavior do any good. Let’s see those before we go forgiving the army for the massacre.
Again, if you think that I am in any way supporting Arafat’s horrific behavior, you’re very mistaken. I neither know nor care whether Arafat apologized for the death of those kids and their mom: an apology won’t bring them back, nor will it absolve in any way his role in letting this happen.
Daniel
Israel has done something like this “over and over”?
No offense, but can I get a cite for that?
(and by that I mean a cite that shows Israeli troops firing on crowds of peaceful protestors)
But…
it is an important distinction. (and not only did Arafat not apologize, he praised the murders)
While ‘sorries’ may not bring back the dead, it goes to motive. I honestly believe that Israel does not intend to kill as many Palestinian civilians as possible. I also honestly believe that Palestinian governmental and paramilitary forces are trying to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible.
In that situation, hamstringing the Israelis in any way, shape, or form amounts to suicide.
Yes, it’s not pretty. Yes, it’s bad. But until Palestinian society, as a whole, is geared up for peace instead of genocide, Israel has to be allowed to protect itself.
I don’t think this addresses the point.
Your plan, by increasing pressure on Israel, automatically and unavoidably reduces pressure on the terrorists. IOW, you are acting only on one side, and, insofar as you affecting the other, you are benefitting it. And it encourages the terrorists to increase their atrocities by reducing the cost (Israel cannot respond) and increasing the benefit (if they can provoke or fake some atrocities to blame on Israel, they can get the US to reduce aid).
One side, with some shameful exceptions, has a pretty good record on human rights. The other has a record that is almost unrelievedly appalling. Why do you believe increased pressure on the first and relieved pressure on the second is going to improve the situation vis-a-vis human rights?
And it is simply untrue that Israel has gotten a free pass. By your own admission, Arafat has gotten a free pass. But the one you want to punish is Israel.
And yet you are giving him a pass on any consequence for his role.
Arafat has partial responsibility; he suffers not at all. Israel has partial responsibility, and suffers all the consequence.
The terrorists have done stuff like this “over and over”. But you don’t want to do anything about that.
Why?
Regards,
Shodan
Yesterday, LHOD stated that it was because his tax dollars funded Israel. Ergo, His money was supporting the IDF in something that he does not support. Since he does not support their actions, and funds those actions with his tax dollars and naively thinks he has some sort of control over how his money is used, he reserves the right to hold Israel to a higher standard.
Right Daniel?
Sam
Wrong, Sam. And I could explain myself over and over, but consistently you and Shodan are distorting my position. So why bother?
Daniel
Here is a suggestion for a way forward written by an Israeli Sociology Professor
http://www.jerusalemites.org/articles/english/mar2004/30.htm
*In the absence of a Palestinian Authority and a Palestinian force to defend it against Israel, the only solution is international intervention and the dispatch of a UN (and not US!) peace force to protect first of all the Palestinians, and, indirectly, the Israelis as well. As long the Palestinians are in danger, we too are unprotected, because they react in terrorist acts. I have no doubt that such an intervention would be construed as a Palestinian victory, and that the government of Israel will not like it, to say the least. But without a sense of substantial political achievement on the Palestinian side, there is no chance that the conflict will ever ebb. It is only then that we can begin, under an international umbrella, to finally talk about a permanent solution. Without first breaking the circle of bloodshed and violence and the cycle of tribal revenge, there is no chance of that ever happening. *
Unfortunately a ‘solution’ like that really is madness.
To begin with, think of the legal prescident:
- Your country is attacked, your civilians are targeted and your enemy purposefully engages in crimes against humanity with state sponsorship.
- Then the UN occupies your country and sets up martial law.
- Rinse.
- Repeat.
There is also the fact that a great many folks in the UN aren’t exactly objective. Want to give the Lebanese, or the Saudis, or the Iranians, or the Syrians, etc, control over areas of Israel? Would it really matter if they had nice blue helmets?
And, I would remind folks that during the British occupation of the ME, Jewish civilians were routinely and deliberately left to the mercy of the Arabs while they were supposed to have military protection…
Add to this the fact that, even if the UN were to occupy Palestinian territories, they wouldn’t act to root out terrorism and would only prevent Israel from replying with millitary force.
So, no. No UN intervention.
Actually, I will try once more, only I won’t waste much time on it.
Bull fucking shit. I want to give Israel 1.fucking.8 billion fucking dollars a year to spend on military equipment to fight the terrorists with. And you call that nothing? Only I want to attach one teeny tiny proviso to this 1.fucking.8 billion fucking dollars: no massacring kids or uninvolved civilians with it.
You, on behalf of the Israel government, are crying like a stuck pig that I want to set such an unreasonable proviso on my hugely generous aid. Why?
Zombies, I would support an international force in the Gaza Strip 100%.
Daniel
How objective is the USA - considering its record of vetos in the UN against action being taken in Israel? How objective, for that matter, is the Israeli government?
I know that at the height of the terrorism here there were a lot of people, on both sides of the conflict, who wouldn’t have minded UN peacekeeping troops here!! I think the problems of my country might have been sorted a lot quicker if the UN had intervened.
Allow me to point something out, if you will.
If your provision is that the IDF can’t respond with any attacks that cause collateral damage, then you’ve effectively said they cannot respond at all.
This is why others in this thread have asked why you seem to, at least tacitly, be supporting, or at least not condemning, the Palestinian terrorism machine.
I ask you honestly: What action can the IDF take to hunt down terrorists who have the support of 80 percent of the Palestinians, who make their bases in the middle of residential areas, and who wear no uniforms and allow no distinction between millitary and civilian targets? What actions can they take that would enable them to receive the cash from the U.S. ?
To begin with I have a problem with “objective reality”.
Ontology aside, I’ve never claimed that the US was the ultimate arbiter, simply that Israel is a sovereign nation and shouldn’t be ordered around by the other nations of the world. (especially when they’d be ordered to not defend themselves from a genocidal terrorist regime)
Further.
If you were to check out the resolutions condemning Israel, you will generally see that they completely eliminate any calls for sanctions on the Palestinians. The same anti-Semitic double standard that is at work in threads like this is also at work in the UN.
(remember the UN conference on racism, where the Arab nations hijacked it and
claimed that Zionism itself was tautologically equivalent to racism? This is the UN you expect to protect Jews?)
Some info: Google Searches:
Results about 87,500 for UN condemns Israel
Results about 29,300 for UN condemns Palestinian Authority
Results about 9,980 for UN condemns PLO
Results about 24,300 for UN condemns Hamas
(even then, you’ll notice that most hits on the other searches still deal with the UN condemning Israel for responding to the PLO, PA, Hamas, etc…)
You are conflating two situations I’m afraid.
Did the ‘problems in your country’ include an opponent which was on record as wanting your genocide?
(hint: the genocidal party is the ‘underdog’ ‘freedom fighting’ ‘victim’.)
Please provide data on ANY war in ANY time in ANY country where collateral damage on both sides has never occured. Yes, it is an unreasonable provision. War is ugly, shit happens, people die. To withhold their funding for collateral damage is stupid.
Hell, America can’t even keep collateral damage to a minimum, why do you hold Israel to a much higher standard? Please don’t tell me something like “because my tax dollars pay for it”, or that I’m mis-stating your argument because I’m still not.
Sam
Have a look at Northern Ireland’s history yourself - there have been a lot of parallels with Israel/Palestine - especially in the 70’s. I have been bombed and shot at, just because I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But I doubt if you’d call me objective - seeing that this is my home and I actually live here.
Plantations, Cromwell, Famine, repression, To Hell or to Connaught, slavery, crop failure…
With all due respect, that’s ridiculous.
I ask: Are the British dedicate to the genocide of the Irish people?
(or rather, was 20th century Britain?)
Did every European nation unite behind the British, blaming all their problems on the Irish and wage war after war against the Irish in an attempt to drive them into the sea?
Were the British waging Jihad against the Irish?
Did the British regularly target civilians and attempt to slaughter as many as possible?
Did the British blow up school busses and kill pregnant women at point blank while calling such actions “glorious resistance efforts?”
With respect, I will also point out that many things you brought up happened quite a while ago, and weren’t ongoing (eg. Cromwell, famine, etc…) Heck, you could’ve mentioned the Viking raids…
No, I’m afraid the not only has Arab culture, for centuries now, been homicidal and genocidal in respect to Israel, they continue such practices to this very day.
I’m somewhat aware of the history of English imperialism, and yeah, it sucks. But honestly, look at things in perspective.
Every Arab neighbor and some that didn’t border Israel sent troops to destroy the fledgling nation in '48. They did the same thing in '67, etc…
The entire ME is committed to the genocide , not relocation, not colonization, not taxation, not conscription… to the genocide of the entire Jewish ‘race’ and the state of Israel in specific .
Goddamn it…
My apologies. The first quote was
zombies ate my brain the second after the snip was twisted fate , although I do think they were saying essentially the same thing. Sorry 'bout that.
(damn mornings without caffeine)