A lighter topic: Palestine and Israel

[wellington1869]

regardless of what happened in one incident, it changes nothing in the overall equation of the history of palestinian/israeli relationship. Palestinians are not fighting israel because of that incident, tahts a fact. Arabs/muslim nations sorrounding israel did not walk away from peace talks (and even the initial offer of a one state solution, offered by israelis before '48 and declined by the arabs) because of that incident. Arab/muslim nations did not three times try to invade isreal because of that incident.

No doubt tensions exist on all sides and no doubt mistakes are made on all sides from time to time. That does nothing to change the fact that isreal is a functioning democracy that overwhelmingly respects human rights, particularly in comparison to the incredible brutality and calls for genocide from the sorroudning nations which long-preceded any such single incident.

We cannot lose sight of the bigger picture here. If we do, we're playing into the rhetoric of the dictators of these brutal regimes. There is nothing 'defensive' - on any level - about either the islamist claim to world domination, or the arab regime scapegoating of israel to maintain their own monopolies of power within their regimes.

[wellington1869]

to use an analogy, even the fact that My Lai happened, changed nothing as far as the nature of communist dictatorship that the north vietnamese were implementing. On their side, such brutality was just another day at work. On our side its cause for 30 years of soul searching. Huge difference, meaningful difference, in the way the two societies function and work and what they value.

More to the point: if you are aghast that the US or isreal occasionally slips up, then I'm astonished that you are not aghast that these regimes (communist or islamist etc) do it as celebrated policy on a daily basis.  Hypocrisy, deep.

[Oranjoose]

Define armed. We had bags of groceries.


Define threat. They were Palestinians.

They were showing no threat that would cause a police man in a US city to open fire.



This is because you have not sufficient background in the issue to understand the truth of the Israeli/Palestinian relationship.

Wow man, I'm really sorry to hear that you've had to
witness that. May peace be on your mind. No one should
have to see that.

Wellington, seriously, your insensitivity is really telling of
your character. You pretend like this is one incident. This
crap happens all the freaking time, and that is exactly
the point. That is the bigger picture.
You've time and time demonstrated your ignorance, and
you show absolutely no objectivity. I've given you many
opportunities to verify that you care about all lives equally
and that bad is bad, no matter where it is. No sign of it.

ricercar, you've done right to answer keyboardlover and
other non-welly users. For someone who actually has
more personal experience with this conflict than anyone
on this forum, it's a waste of nerves and effort reading
the haughty ignorance being spewed.

[maclover]

Only questioning one side of a conflict seriously limits your ability to understand the conflict. That people believe that one side can do no wrong is unfortunate but is not really peoples fault since we are subject to propaganda through mass media all the time.

Let's take a look at the Nuremberg Principles which describes what constitutes a war crime.

Principle VI

Principle VI states,

"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

    (a) Crimes against peace:

        (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

        (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

    (b) War crimes:

    Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

    (c) Crimes against humanity:

    Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime."

After looking at them and reading about the history of the Middle East you can conclude that most of the participants(I say participants instead of nations because that includes foreign influence from outside the Middle East) in the Middle East are basically Hitler.

[wellington1869]

Only questioning one side of a conflict seriously limits your ability to understand the conflict.

i certainly agree with that. thats what i have against people like OJ.

After looking at them and reading about the history of the Middle East you can conclude that most of the participants(I say participants instead of nations because that includes foreign influence from outside the Middle East) in the Middle East are basically Hitler.

thats simply not true; either you dont know what hitler was and did, or you're generalizing and reducing what he did to a degree where it is meaningless.

Did hitler gaurantee a free press, free judiciary, freedom of conscience, etc, not only for his citizens but even for non-citizens living in germany? As israel does? in a constitutional format? He didnt? THen he's not like israel.

The other side, on the other hand, yea, it doesnt look good at all.

its important to question both sides, as you said. Super-important, for this reason.

[maclover]

thats simply not true; either you dont know what hitler was and did, or you're generalizing and reducing what he did to a degree where it is meaningless.

Did hitler gaurantee a free press, free judiciary, freedom of conscience, etc, not only for his citizens but even for non-citizens living in germany? As israel does? in a constitutional format? He didnt? THen he's not like israel.

The other side, on the other hand, yea, it doesnt look good at all.

its important to question both sides, as you said. Super-important, for this reason.

I am going to quote Robert Jackson, the US prosecutor at the Nuremburg trial.

The central crime in this pattern of crimes, the kingpin which holds them all together, is the plot for aggressive wars. The chief reason for international cognizance of these crimes lies in this fact.

Israel is one among many who are guilty of aggression in the Middle East and their civil rights while worthy of praise does not somehow entitle them to commit aggression against other countries. I'm sure you would agree that just because Hezbollah provides social services such as schools and hospitals it does not give them the right to fire rockets at Israeli civilians.

[quadibloc]

Having first hand knowledge of the conditions in Palestine from decades of missionary work with Palestinian Christians, and having seen Christian Palestinian civilian friends gunned down by Israeli soldiers seeking Muslim terrorists, I suggest with a certain level of expertise that Israeli soldiers generally do not care what kind of Palestinian is between them and an enemy.

Obviously, people will be deeply affected by what they've seen in person with their own eyes.

But there are Israelis who have witnessed terrorist attacks, or whose families have been killed in them. If personal experience alone were enough to "prove" right and wrong in a conflict like this, we would be left with a contradiction.

This is a news article I saw today which has some relevance:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/11/jonathan-kay-an-anti-jewish-pathology-reaching-back-1400-years/

[wellington1869]

If personal experience alone were enough to "prove" right and wrong in a conflict like this, we would be left with a contradiction.

well said bro.

I find that, generally on the left, when our 'allies' are being held accountable for something, we have a very strong tendency to resort to the "but you dont know how they feel!!!" argument, as if that is an argument, as if that negates either accountability or perspective, and as if only our side ever feels anything.  I dont like that tendency on my side.

[Oranjoose]

Obviously, people will be deeply affected by what they've seen in person with their own eyes.

But there are Israelis who have witnessed terrorist attacks, or whose families have been killed in them. If personal experience alone were enough to "prove" right and wrong in a conflict like this, we would be left with a contradiction.

This is a news article I saw today which has some relevance:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/11/jonathan-kay-an-anti-jewish-pathology-reaching-back-1400-years/

You do make a point that people are affected by what they've seen. You say that there are people who have been killed by terrorist attacks in Israel. This is true too, and that is truly terrible. Let's put this in perspective though: nearly one hundred times more children were killed in Palestine than Israel in
the last four years. That means that to be fair, for every time someone says  "it's terrible that that child was killed by Palestinian terrorists," that someone
should say "it's terrible that that child was killed by Israeli terrorists" around
a hundred times.
Here's a slightly more relevant article:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/10/12
As you can see, it's not just a one time thing. Ricercar is definitely not alone
in witnessing these kinds of attacks.

On a side note, Arabs are semites too. Since you sound interested in the
subject of Islam's beginnings, which I find very admirable when someone is
interested in history, listen to this recent interview:
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kuer/news.newsmain/article/184/0/1699528/RadioWest
The one being interviewed is Fred Donner, a non-biased non-Muslim Historian
who is certainly more qualified than Jonathan Kay to speak on the matter.
If you don't have time to listen to it (which would be a shame), he basically
speaks of a community of believers, Christians, Jews, and what-have-you,
with Muhammad as their leader. The funny thing is that a caller buzzed in
and asked about the very Banu Qurayza incident that the article you posted
cites. The Historian gives a very good response to it (spoiler: he thinks it
never happened).

Of course, all of that is off topic from the Israel Palestine discussion. If we
wanted to talk about racism or intolerance with respect to these two
candidates, then the champion is Israel hands down... Talk about ethnic
cleansing. Sheesh.

Thank you for considering my words.

[wellington1869]

lol! The only ethnic cleansing going on in the middle east right now is Islamist elimination of all other religions and ways of life. And thats been going on for 1500 years, now empowered by postmodern jargon, global economy, and internet/nukes. Nothing's changed except the type of rhetoric used by fascistic-apologists like Oranjoos.

[mr_a500]

I think we should hold our ally Canada accountable for clubbing those baby seals.

There's nothing finer than spending an evening clubbing baby seals. In most countries, "going clubbing" means going from bar to bar "cruising chicks", but in Canada it means grabbing a baseball bat and going after "legless puppies".

I'm kidding of course. It is pretty cruel clubbing those helpless little guys, but it's really no more cruel than putting a bolt through a cow's brain. Have you seen trucks transporting pigs? The pigs are packed into trucks open to the wind and driven on the highway in any weather. I've seen open animal trucks in -20°C temperatures. In comparison, the baby seals have it pretty good. (and if they all survived and multiplied, the remaining fish stocks would eventually get wiped out - thanks to humans ****ing up the balance of fish in the first place)

Edit:  And then there's Korea and Kimchee.  That was TOTALLY unnecessary.

Kimchee is pretty damn dangerous. If you're not careful, it'll explode - seriously - it expands when fermenting. I've been a victim of many Kimchee explosions. (imagine camera slowly panning, my face in twisted agony covered in Kimchee as tragic "Platoon" music plays in the background)

[wellington1869]

I hate korean food. But I like koreans. Well, South koreans.

[mr_a500]

I hate korean food.

You hate Korean food? No! I know what it is! You just hate freedom. That's right, isn't it?? Freedom hater! You just can't stand that some people have the democratic right to eat Korean food. You hate freedom and you hate democracy. Don't try to steal my democracy! You're either for us or against us. You either like Korean food or you're an enemy of humanity. Go take your hate crimes back to Afghanistan, you pinko commie.


(PS. I am aware that the above post makes no sense whatsoever.)

[mr_a500]

I suppose I went a little too far there. He's free to hate freedom if he wants. He has the democratic right to hate democracy.

Can you imagine living in a fascist state where you're forced to love democracy even if you hated it? (oh wait... skip that)

[keyboardlover]

I suppose I went a little too far there. He's free to hate freedom if he wants. He has the democratic right to hate democracy.

Can you imagine living in a fascist state where you're forced to love democracy even if you hated it? (oh wait... skip that)

[quadibloc]

Can you imagine living in a fascist state where you're forced to love democracy even if you hated it?

Usually, one thinks in terms of the authoritarian state trying to make itself loved, and one of the stratagems it uses is to call itself a democracy when it is not.

However, "democracy" includes more than just majority rule. Most popular definitions of the term also include respect for the equality rights of minorities.

So, imagine in the past an occupied Deep South where the white people are forced to pretend they love racial equality and integration.

Or, to use the example you're probably thinking of, an occupied Islamic country where the Muslims are forced to pretend they love equality for non-Muslim minority group members (Coptic Christians in Egypt, Baha'is in Iran, Yezidis in Iraq, Maronite Christians in Lebanon) and women?

Frankly, I think that living under that sort of "facism" just serves them right, but your mileage may vary.