They don’t do it for the same reason that Israel doesn’t kill Iranian officials - because it would lead to an escalation of hostilities between the countries and perhaps even to open warfare, which neither side wants at this time. This is a matter of policy, not morality.
It’s a combination of things: the fact that both British trade unions and academic organizations have boycotted Israel, the fact that threats and attempts have been made to arrest Israeli military officers and even government ministers visiting the UK, the fact that BBC News - which we get here - is perceived as having an anti-Israeli bias (something others have noted as well), as well as various utterances by British politicians. Some of it is certainly being overblown by the Israeli media, but the feeling is definitely there.
Alessan, a pretty straight forward question for you. (based on the assumption that Israel did in fact engineer this event, and did in fact use British passports to do so)
Are you OK that Israel used the passports of a country with which they maintain good diplomatic relations to assasinate somebody. When they have already expressely promised that nation they would not do such a thing?
Further, as a New Zealander I would like your take on how you feel about Israeli intelligence agents attempting to fraudulently obtain New Zealand passports. And further, what, in your opinion, these passports would have been used for?
And then, (I think my train of thought is pretty clear) what sort of fallout there would have been for New Zealand and New Zealanders if a Kiwi passport was found at the scene of an assasination and New Zealand was implicated in that assasination (either directly or indirectly)?
And here we see you resort to shallow, hand-waving, one-liner misrepresentation of another poster’s text. Par for the course, so no surprises there.
The rest of your post is the typical and highly convenient rationalizations I mentioned previously. You and a few others go to great lengths to specify that this incident is *alright *and *good *. Which is not only foolishly false, but also not even the point. This incident is harmful any way you look at it. Split that hair.
I think that, as I said before, that if you accept the premise that nations have the right to engage in espionage, then forging passports is unavoidable. And let’s face it - they have to be from some country or another. If not the UK or NZ, then who? What country would you recommend we offend?
I think the very fact that the Mossad chose to use New Zealand passports is to your country’s credit - because who in their right mind would think that the kiwis are behind an assasination?
I think this is one of those cases when it’s all right if you don’t get caught. That’s why I think apologies actually are in order - not for using the passports, but for revealing their use.
The Daily Mail claims that Israeli spies tipped off MI6 immediately before the assassination and the UK denies advance knowledge of fake UK passports; all the while the Jerusalem post admires the sleuth work of Dubai’s police force.
You either completely misread what was a response to another post, or have simply failed to take into account that it was a reply to something, and not a stand alone comment.
Nobody thinks we would because we actually try to behave with some form of integrity on the world stage.
Do you think that there is anything other than fringe anti-smitism / anti israeli sentiment in NZ? (there is some everywhere I guess, which is why I use fringe)
So its ok to lie and cheat NZ on the basis that we behave with integrity?
Nice line of reasoning buddy.
The more that these sorts of actions are defended, the more respect that I lose for Israel. Not that this is going to make a lot of difference to you.
And on forging passports, why is it that I have never heard such a case of another country doing so, but have now heard of FOUR cases of Israel doing so?
It couldn’t be that Israel is behaving like an international renegade and lawless, self styled vigilante could it? Nah that wouldn’t be it…becuase Israel is always above reproach
How very… interesting of you. People outside the Mossad and the Israeli government make arguments on a message board, and you claim those for justification for “losing respect” for a nation. How convenient.
Because you evidently don’t follow the subject or pay attention unless it’s big, shocking headlines about something that matters not a jot. Israel used fake passports damaging… nobody, nothing, and no nation at all. But but but, spies use disguises! This is unforgivable. Israeli spies must always enter other nations under Israeli passports. It’s just not sportsmanlike otherwise.
You’re being a bit too transparent. Killing valid targets of war is transmuted by your alchemy into “an international renegade” that is “lawless” (except, ya know, for all its laws) and it’s a “self styled” (by which, I assume, you meant not-self-styled) vigilante. And by vigilante you mean a nation that engages in wetwork, like pretty much every other nation that has an intel corp that can project force.
And of course then you finish with the common bit of bluster that Israel is always above reproach. Why not top off that whopper with the cherry of “And nobody can ever criticize Israel ever without being called an anti-semite, ever!!!”
First, please use language properly. One cannot “handwave” another person’s statement. Second, it’s not shallow and certainly not a misrepresentation. The claim was that due to the actions of Israel, Jews (note, not Israelis) would be treated differently and with suspicion. That’s saying that anti-semitism would be caused by Israel. Which, yep, is the classic “Israel causes anti-semitism!” meme.
QED.
Dial the rhetoric back below 11.
Calmly explaining why less collateral damage is preferable to more is hardly “going to great lengths”. But hyperbolic nonsense serves when an actual analysis of what I’ve said does not, eh?
:rolleyes:
So you want to claim that it’s harmful and bad, and it’s totally outside of the scope of the argument for someone else to argue that it did no harm and it’s good. Yeah, good luck with defining disagreeing with you as being outside the scope of the debate.
I do find your debating style amusing though. “Your claims, which I won’t bother to address let alone refute, are obviously false. But it’s not the point, because the claims you made which disagree with mine aren’t the point, my claims which disagree with yours are the point, and stop disagreeing with me because that’s not the point!!!”
Fine. I can accept that. Can you accept that under your definition, if we take out the loaded bits about genocide and racial hatred, Ronald Reagan was the head of a terrorist organization when he was POTUS? I mean does it really matter what the goals are, or is it the methods used to try and achieve those goals that makes someone a terrorist?
If you don’t think so, please explain why the US support, training and funding of the Contras did not fit the definition of terrorism that you ascribe to Iran? Or how the continued existence of the School of the Americas (now the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) was not a terrorist enterprise?
I don’t have any “strange ideas” about state’s engagine in terrorism, and I don’t “believe” you’ve somehow contradicted yourself. I said you “seemed” to be, and so I sought clarification through further discussion and direct questions.
I haven’t really expressed any sentiment in this thread at all, other than I think the topic under discussion is a murder, and that I think murder is wrong. You are, of course, free to think that that is a strange idea, if you wish.
And remind me - how exactly did they get the passports? They were given to the agents, and the UK govt said here, go to it? Maybe even gave them a temporary 00 monikor?
If forging another country’s passports isn’t lawless I don’t know what is.
Engaging in wet work is one thing, but doing it on forged passports in a third party country (incidentaly a country that is NOT at war with Israel) is another matter altogether. Why does this need to be pointed out to you?
Just because you want the guy offed doesn’t make it right. Most people I know would prefer that he was put before a court - not that you unilaterally make the decision. If its within the “theatre of war” then maybe defensible. But how is entering Dubai on forged passports ok? Either for Dubai or the UK? Good for you maybe, but for everybody else?
If its ok because Israel doesn’t like him, then by that reasoning pretty much anything your enemies do to you is also ok. If you want to cheat this way, why should anyone else respect international conventions - they should just do what they believe will get the job done.
Yes, the BBC has certainly been ticked off since the Israelis shot up their marked vehicle in Lebanon.
Another bit of grit in Israeli’s international relations.
Now, this may come as a surprise to you, but your subjective (and not particularly cogent) opinion is not gospel truth, and repeating it at me does not count as “pointing out” some sort of fact.
We’ve already established that it’s not actually bad for the Brits. Duabi wasn’t hurt at all. And the funny thing about Hamas thugs is that they don’t exactly put on uniforms and go segregate themselves from the general populace so they can be picked off at leisure. They had an opportunity to bag a mad dog, so they did. Good.
I’ll also note that it’s an extremely disingenuous demand that folks like the former terrorist be brought before courts. You know full well that they’re not in Israel’s jurisdiction and/or that Israel can’t just send a police squad over to politely invite him into custody. Your demand that things are either done through a court of law or not at all ignores the fact that it’s impossible to go through a court of law and, thus, sets up a silly set of demands that really translate to a demand that nothing at all be done.
Yes, that’s why. Because he wore the wrong color tie and Israel just doesn’t like him any more. Thank you for your clear and comeplling analysis of the situation.
Israel is automatically beyond reproach for you and some other posters. This is not really in question because, well, of your own rhetoric, which is regularly and consistently pro-Israeli and anti-Arab / anti-Muslim (as the case may be) no matter what the specific topic is. That’s a problem with your bias, not with what bengangmo (quite correctly) pointed out.
Mocking this observable fact does not make it less real, though (of course) you try.
Excuse my lingustic deficiencies - third language here. You were hand-waving in order to dismiss and discredit statements to which you could not otherwise reply. So yes, you can very much hand-wave a statement away. You are observed doing this on a regular basis.
It is the shallowest possible misrepresentation. You routinely isolate one snippet of text that suits your needs while ignoring all other points and arguments. In this case you even tried to twist the discussion so as to portray the opposite camps as anti-semitic. Wonderful rhetorical style there.
But yes, Israel certainly contributes to anti-semitism with policies that are counter-productive because they unnecessarily create negative perceptions about Israel. Like this assassination, or literally hundreds of other examples in recent history. Foolish. That is not to say that the problem lies entirely with Israel, which is what you tried to imply that I meant (even though I said nothing of the sort).
The latter conclusion is your own interpretation, if it is honest at all. I made it clear that I consider the picture rather more complex than the simplistic summaries and morality wrap-ups you seem to favour.
Thanks for demonstrating beyond all question your habit of misrepresenting the words of other posters - something that you do so commonly I doubt you even notice it.
Let me ask you this rather than have you produce more of your meandering tergiversations: once you move beyond this immature need to justify every action taken by Israel, does it become conceivable (even if only potentially) that this sort of incident is NOT good for Israel or in fact anyone?
Assassination targets are typically easily replaceable, especially if (as alleged) the target is a terrorist. Perceptions, reputations and diplomatic ties, on the other hand, cannot be replaced.
Sorry, nope, you’ve invented that, evidently reality gets in the way of your argument. Try again. This time, really go hog wild. I don’t just find Israel beyond reproach, I’m an arch traitor and I sacrifice Christian babies for dark Zionist blood rituals. I mean, really go hog wild as long as you’re going to kick loose.
You’ve also invented that. I have not ever posted anything “anti-Muslim” nor have I posted anything that was anti-Arab as a group although I have focused on certain arab governments, actions, alliances, etc…
It’s telling that you feel the need to divert into ad hominem fallacies, and to support them by simply crafting a story and claiming it’s me.
Again your argument is grounded firmly in The Land of Make Believe. Well, that and equal parts ad hom fallacy. Of course, you’re evidently using an alternate reality to try to claim that I said anybody was anti-semitic, and you still can’t rebut the clear fact that the statements says that Israel’s actions cause anti-semitism. Because, well, that’s what the statement said, people would tread Jews differently and with discriminatory suspicion due to Israel’s actions. I can see how you’d rather launch ad hominem nonsense at me rather than address the actual quote.
So I was totally wrong… except yep, that’s exactly what you’re saying. Of course, your claims are still the worst kind of hollow nonsense. Do you really think that nobody will catch you conflating “Israel” with “Jews”? You’re, what, a linguistic ninja? Rhetorical smoke bombs conceal your cunning switcheroo?
You switch in mid sentence from ‘sure it creates anti-semitism’ to ‘because of something that only has to do with Israel and not the Jews as a group at all.’
Like I said, charming meme.
You might want to avoid trying to see implications in my text. At least until you can get them right.
Like I said, you failed at interpretation and now you dodged simple comprehension. I misrepresented nothing. Your claimed that in a discussion about certain topics, that by discussing them but disagreeing with you, I was off topic, because I disagreed. You claimed that certain things, which were being discussed all thread, were besides the point. I disagreed. You didn’t even bother to attempt to engage, but did try to change the subject and demand that I stop all this disagreeing with you about what matters and why. It’s all there, right in the thread. Deny it all you want.
I will answer that as soon as you tell me whether you have stopped beating your wife. Poor woman, bruises all over her body. So, have you stopped beating her yet?
Actually, your statement, here, is rather directly in error in regards to Finn’s posts.
While he does rise up in high dudgeon to challenge statements that he believes are incorrect regarding Israel’s actions, he has no history of posting anti-Arab or anti-Muslim comments and he has, as he has noted, criticized Israel for some of its actions.
Even if true, your comments would be doing nothing to further this discussion, and since they are in error, they are out of line in this thread (or any related thread).
Knock it off.
= = =
Finn, you need to cool the rhetoric implying that other posters are actually engaged in accusations of Jewish conspiracies until such an actual post is made.
= = =
[ /Moderating ]
This statement, which is absolutely false, shows your bias so clearly it’s ridiculous.
Just by the way, and I am sorry to pollute the noise with signal…
The New York Times story on this on Friday says that in the past, a fake passport was not connected to a real person. But with the growth of computers and stuff, an out-and-out fake passport will no longer pass muster at customs. So the Israelis used fake passports with real numbers that were connected to real people. So it was a case of identity theft.
Except that rightly or wrongly, many see Israel as a Jewish state. That’s how it was founded, and to many a layman it is seen as the “Jewish homeland”.
To equate a rise in displeasure with Israel with a rise in anti-semitism is not much of a jump at all.,
Whether he deserved to die or not doesn’t matter.
The whole point is, that for every person that Israel believes should be dead, I am sure you would find an Israeli that many countries believe deserves to die. Is it then ok for them to kill him?
How many around the world do you think believe that Bush deserves to die? If any nation dared to sponsor an operation to kill him in Germany using English passports, how do you think each of the three nations would react? How would nato react?
Yes I suspect that the guy probably did deserve to die, but that still doesn’t make it right. What has consistently been the biggest complaint about gitmo? From what I have seen its that the internees have been detained without trial.
Once you start this process of killing people that you think deserve to die, where does it end? It diminishes you, and your argument to legitimacy. If you use it, why can’t the other side use it? They believe no less fervrently in their cause than you do in the “rightness” of yours.
I would also like to see you cite anywhere in international laws, the Geneva Convention or anywhere similar that says its ok for people of country A to forge passports of a country B, and kill an enemy on country C’s soil when countries A, B and C are not at war.
An no, because you can get away with it, or might makes right don’t quite cut it.
If you come back with “its real politik” then please tell me why Hamas or anyone else should adhere to any sort of moral standard when “might makes right” and its ok to do whatever you believe will get the job done.