A lighter topic: Palestine and Israel

[itlnstln]

I'm more disappointed in us not getting the Oil.

What kind of Texan WAS Bush?

That dumbass couldn't even run a baseball team right.  The Texas Rangers still suck.

[wellington1869]

Good observation. Issues of national concern to Iran:

1. Doing everything they can to make their citizens as miserable and oppressed as possible

2. Denial of the Holocaust

3. Planning how to blow Israel off the map

4. Putting more funding into their nuclear program (because having this power is really more important than keeping people happy...or fed.)

excellent points.  

dont forget also:

5. Endless war with the Sunnis and iraq
6. Endless war with liberals
7. Endless war with homosexuals
8. Endless war on dissenters of all kinds
9. Endless war on modern science and teachers
10. Full support, funding, and arming of hezbollah
11. Full belief in theocracy as the only valid form of government
12. Full belief in Islam's inherent superiority
13. Full belief in Islam's destiny to rule the whole world

Dont forget that OJ apparently is for each of these things. You wont hear him utter a peep. Some liberal.

[wellington1869]

People often wonder what would have happened if Hitler had aquired nuclear weapons (the way he had been trying to, during wwII). What would have happened to the outcome of wwii, and to the world.

We're about to find out. Cuz ahmedinijad and other islamists wont rest till they have it.  The pakistanis already have it and they're perpetually at risk of being overthrown by their islamists.

And when they have it, we will know the answer to that historical question of what will happen to the world when hitler gets nukes.

Actually these guys are worse than hitler. At least hitler wanted to live. These guys dont even care if they die so long as they can nuke you in the process. Mutually assured destruction is not even a deterrent here, the way it had been during, say, wwii and the cold war. We cant even play that card anymore.

We're so ****ed. And people like OJ will "rejoice" as they vaporize at the hands of theocrats and fascists.

[keyboardlover]

Dont forget that OJ apparently is for each of these things. You wont hear him utter a peep. Some liberal.

Creepy!



That glove don't fit!

[Lanx]

I'm more disappointed in us not getting the Oil.

What kind of Texan WAS Bush?

The whole iran/iraq/kuwait thing was a jumbled mess to me, we invade iraq to free kuwait, cuz it was called operation freedom... yet oil costs more (not counting inflation) the sense this doesn't make is scary.

We really should just be pointing a few ICBM's at those OPEC ppl and go, "you know what, the US will have a 50% discount"

I mean why do we send our super tanks of awesome (have you see the documentaries on the m1 abrams? on the history channel) only to say, yea this jet engine that moves the tank... we're gonna need to pay an arm and leg to fill it up.

hell just ride a few m1's into those cities and be like "this is the America oil discount"

[maclover]

The whole iran/iraq/kuwait thing was a jumbled mess to me, we invade iraq to free kuwait, cuz it was called operation freedom... yet oil costs more (not counting inflation) the sense this doesn't make is scary.

We really should just be pointing a few ICBM's at those OPEC ppl and go, "you know what, the US will have a 50% discount"

I mean why do we send our super tanks of awesome (have you see the documentaries on the m1 abrams? on the history channel) only to say, yea this jet engine that moves the tank... we're gonna need to pay an arm and leg to fill it up.

hell just ride a few m1's into those cities and be like "this is the America oil discount"

the price of gas doesn't affect the american leadership cus they got it made


dolla dolla bills yall

[keyboardlover]

Damn...ain't no bling like Saudi bling!

[itlnstln]

the price of gas doesn't affect the american leadership cus they got it made

fs=1&hl=en_US">

[quadibloc]

We really should just be pointing a few ICBM's at those OPEC ppl and go, "you know what, the US will have a 50% discount"

Back in October 1973, I would have tended to agree, since this was when the OPEC nations unilaterally broke oil concessions with the foreign countries that invested in developing the oil resources there.

The United States doesn't put up with such behavior from Cuba - or from other Latin American countries.

But at the time, doing so would have risked war with the Soviet Union.

At this time:

a) Even though nobody seems to believe us, the claim that the U.S. is defending itself against terrorism, and not trying to steal anyone's oil, not even Iraq's, just happens to be true. It should be kept that way.

b) Although reducing the price of oil might be a good jolt to the economy, what needs to be done with the money is - build nuclear reactors. And stop using fossil fuels so much. Global warming, eh?

[vils]

Israels neighbours have killed far more palestinians than Israel have done. Remember black september,  Syria 1982 and Nahr el-Bared in Lebanon. Were was the liberals then? It seems like arabas are only worth tears when they fall for israeli or american hands. If arabs do the dirty business no liberals shed a tear.
I donīt praise every israeli step but you have to evaluate them in some broader light.

[wellington1869]

It seems like arabas are only worth tears when they fall for israeli or american hands. If arabs do the dirty business no liberals shed a tear.

this is such an excellent point vils, and so totally overlooked in the whole 'palestine v israel' discussion out there.
its absolutely true that palestinians have suffered horribly and regularly at arab hands; arab regimes need palestine to remain in an impoverished state so they can deflect all their own domestic problems (and horrifying lack of freedoms) at home onto israel and the west.
Same thing that, by the way, the palestinian authority does regularly, in their own civil war, fatah vs hamas. They dont give a **** about ordinary palestinian people, that much is obvious in the last 40 years of their 'rule'.

I donīt praise every israeli step but you have to evaluate them in some broader light.

exactly. so refreshing to hear common sense like this.

[Oranjoose]

this is such an excellent point vils, and so totally overlooked in the whole 'palestine v israel' discussion out there.
its absolutely true that palestinians have suffered horribly and regularly at arab hands; arab regimes need palestine to remain in an impoverished state so they can deflect all their own domestic problems (and horrifying lack of freedoms) at home onto israel and the west.
Same thing that, by the way, the palestinian authority does regularly, in their own civil war, fatah vs hamas. They dont give a **** about ordinary palestinian people, that much is obvious in the last 40 years of their 'rule'.


exactly. so refreshing to hear common sense like this.

Relativist arguments are "so refreshing" aren't they Welly?
I never took you for one. You know, because you hate them?

[wellington1869]

Relativist arguments are "so refreshing" aren't they Welly?
I never took you for one. You know, because you hate them?

dude, you clearly dont know what that phrase means. What vils is doing is applying a consistent standard to all sides. That is the very opposite of 'relativism'. And this is why his values are consistent. And yes, thats refreshing to see.

you on the other hand, apply your values unequally. One standard for them when they die, another standard for us when we die. Since that makes you a hypocrite, you pretend that there is no single moral standard that can be applied to all sides. And thats what makes you a (moral) relativist.  

It makes you a political opportunist, a hypocrite. And thats stale and tired. Like you.

[keyboardlover]

Welly...

[wellington1869]

Welly...

lol, oh yea.  "Calm blue ocean. Calm blue ocean"

[quadibloc]

If arabs do the dirty business no liberals shed a tear.

Well, if the liberals don't deny the basic premise that the Israelis are the good guy, being a democracy, while the Arab countries are the bad guys, this would make sense. After all, America is supposed to be better than the Taliban - and so is Israel supposed to be better than Jordan or Egypt.

It's only when they go further, and try to paint Israel as the aggressor in the Middle East, that this becomes dishonest.

[maclover]

My basic premise is that countries who commit acts that bad guys would commit are bad guys regardless of if they are democracies or not. If they are democracies then the citizens are even more complicit in the immoral actions of their government.

Well, if the liberals don't deny the basic premise that the Israelis are the good guy, being a democracy, while the Arab countries are the bad guys, this would make sense. After all, America is supposed to be better than the Taliban - and so is Israel supposed to be better than Jordan or Egypt.

It's only when they go further, and try to paint Israel as the aggressor in the Middle East, that this becomes dishonest

I disagree. Israel are not good guys. They bombed another democratic country, Lebanon in 2006, killing civilians. Bombing civilians is bad. Bad guys bomb civilians. Hezbollah are also bad guys because they also target civilians.

Israel is not the aggressor in the middle east. It's one of many aggressors in the middle east. There's more than two sides in the middle east. Most of them kill civilians which makes most of them bad guys.

[keyboardlover]

Israel is not the aggressor in the middle east. It's one of many aggressors in the middle east. There's more than two sides in the middle east. Most of them kill civilians which makes most of them bad guys.

In what way is Israel an aggressor? A country that defends itself from terrorists is not an 'aggressor'. A country like Iran, on the other hand, that believes other countries should be 'erased from the pages of history' is definitely an aggressor.

[wellington1869]

I disagree. Israel are not good guys. They bombed another democratic country, Lebanon in 2006, killing civilians. Bombing civilians is bad. Bad guys bomb civilians. Hezbollah are also bad guys because they also target civilians.

maclover, israel did not target civilians, first of all, and second, if civilians are hit, it is always cause for a ruckus of criticism in israel, where the diversity and freedom of political thought and action ensure these things are aired and investigated. Not so for Hezbollah or hamas or any of the islamist regimes, who deliberately seek to maximize civilian losses for its own sake as a matter of stated and celebrated policy of genocide. For them its a cause for dancing in the streets; for civilized and democratic nations its a cause for introspection and accountability and shame and public airings of grievances. Thats the difference, and its a huge difference.

Israel is not calling for wiping "arabs off the map" as official policy, as hezbollah, hamas, amhedinijad, and others in the arab/muslim world regularly proclaim about israel. Huge difference.

And to show how little these regimes care for civilian deaths, they deliberately make it policy to shoot missiles from playgrounds and hospitals and use them for cover as a matter of policy. They indoctrinate little children into wrenching hatred, as policy.
Huge, huge, huge differences. You're washing over all the crucial differences that mark the boundary between civilized government and barbarism.

No civilization is perfect: its what happens when things go wrong that makes the difference, that marks civilization from rank barbarity, all the more so when it comes to political regimes. Did you know a group of Jews recently set sail to gaza to provide assistance? THis is not unusual; jewish groups in israel and elsewhere are extraordinarily self-critical and active when it comes to instrospection and dissent. So here's an obvious question: where are the dissenters in the arab world? that havent been slaughtered by arab regimes themselvs? that get no support from western 'liberals' either? Where are the arab dissenters free to even express themselves? that are throwing themselves in front of arab invasions and arab missiles to criticize arab governmetnal policies and protect jews?  Where are the arab laws protecting jews and christians other minorities on the same terms that israel grants to arabs and others working in israel?

There's no question there are muslims and arabs who dont like what their regimes are doing to israel on a daily basis. But they are not allowed to speak or act or make their thoughts and feelings known freely and widely the way free people can. And that makes all the difference when it comes to comparing political regimes. Thats what marks a democracy.

you boldly said, instead, "acts that bad guys would commit are bad guys regardless of if they are democracies or not. If they are democracies then the citizens are even more complicit in the immoral actions of their government."  

Utterly wrong. It is only in the democracies that dissent is loud and clear, activism is loud and clear, and different experiments towards different solutions, in the face of a difficult situation and facing utterly intransigent ideological and political foes, is not only allowed but is entirely legitimate. That makes all the difference.

Instead you're whitewashing these crucial differences when you equate democracy with fascism.  

I used to be like you. I used to also say, what does it matter to the victim, if the bomb came from a democracy or from a fascism? (Great line, wasnt it?). I was utterly wrong. It makes the most difference to the victim, in fact. Its only when facing a democracy, that a person -- a dissenter -- has a gauranteed set of rights, that they can count on in the long run -- they way the simply do not when opposing a fascist or theocratic regime. It makes all the difference in the world to such a person.

No doubt in war there will be casualties, and these are always regrettable. To jump from there to a rank equation of fascism with democracy is utterly irresponsible. Its a form of political opportunism and moral relativism of the worst kind, and its also pretty stunning historical and political ignorance.

you also said:

If they are democracies then the citizens are even more complicit in the immoral actions of their government.

here you are doing what academics call 'essentialization' to 'the west'. You're treating 'the west' as an undifferentiated mass, much like racists treat a race, or theocrats treat a religion, or communists treat 'class'.
Fact is it is only in democracies that you have a spectrum of opinion and the legitimacy to change the government's path. You do not have that under theocracies and dictatorships that litter the muslim world today. Kind of a huge difference, isnt it?

oh, and lebanon? if it backs hezbollah - as they have - repeatedly,and give hezbollah sanction to fire missiles from their territory, israel has every right to attack those safe havens to protect itself. If you opposed US interventions in latin america, then you must oppose lebanon here. To not do so makes you a hypocrit and a political opportunist of the worst kind. And what of lebanon's complicity with fascism then? and the complicity of its people? If you cant generate the righteous indignation there, it makes you a hypocrite and a political opportunist of the worst kind.

[Oranjoose]

In contrast to your lengthy rant, I'll keep my reply short. Your entire point
would be solid and respectable, so long as what you're basing it on is valid
and true.

maclover, israel did not target civilians, first of all, and second, if civilians are hit, it is always cause for a ruckus of criticism in israel, where the diversity and freedom of political thought and action ensure these things are aired and investigated.

This seems to be where a lot of your point rests on. I can perhaps go into
the thousands of innocent lives of children that Israel deliberately took
another time.
For now, I'll just toss a link that describes Israel's policy on home demolition:
http://www.btselem.org/english/Publications/Summaries/200411_Punitive_House_Demolitions.asp

Tell me how these policies describe a non-aggressor "democracy?"

[wellington1869]

if you think that was a 'rant', (or even 'lengthy'), you havent been around much. Oh yea, you havent.

"valid and true" -- from the guy who thinks 9/11 was a us-israeli conspiracy.

As for israel and children, this is indeed where you and I differ, because you think hamas, hezbollah, islamists, and arab regime's deliberate targeting of their own and others populations is valid, on the one hand, and you think western democracies do the exact same thing on the other. Double Fail. Moral relativism. Political and historical brute ignorance. Stunning hypocrisy.

Congratulations! Now go out there and spread your wacky theories. Lets see how far you get.

[vils]

Speaking about wacky theories, from the charter of Hamas :

Article Twenty-Two:

For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.

You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.

    "So often as they shall kindle a fire for war, Allah shall extinguish it; and they shall set their minds to act corruptly in the earth, but Allah loveth not the corrupt doers." (The Table - verse 64).

The imperialistic forces in the Capitalist West and Communist East, support the enemy with all their might, in money and in men. These forces take turns in doing that. The day Islam appears, the forces of infidelity would unite to challenge it, for the infidels are of one nation.

[wellington1869]

Can you imagine if either israel or the US had an offical charter like that?
Can you just imagine the outcry? The righteous indignation?

So oranjoos basically wants to hold arabs and muslims to a lower moral standard than everyone else. So what a low opinion he must have of arabs and muslims! How condescending is that?
He would raise an outcry if a christian or western group or any other group did this, let alone a group currently actually holding political power like hamas.

shame on you, oranjoos. You dont care about the palestinians any more than Hamas does, and you dont care about peace anymore than Hamas does. You have the same double standards, the same political opportunism, the same hypocrisy, the same low opinion of muslims and arabs, the same condescending and simplistic attitude towards Islam. As far as you're concerned, islam and arabs arent capable of anything more than simple minded conspiracy theories and genocidal dreams and dictatorship and brute violence.

which explains why you attack just as violently any arabs and muslims who try to fight for their own rights and freedoms within the muslim world. Let alone people elsewhere who are trying to support them. Let me guess: they're traitors and spies, respectively, right?  Spoken like a Hamas spokesman, which you are.

[Oranjoose]

if you think that was a 'rant', (or even 'lengthy'), you havent been around much. Oh yea, you havent.

"valid and true" -- from the guy who thinks 9/11 was a us-israeli conspiracy.

As for israel and children, this is indeed where you and I differ, because you think hamas, hezbollah, islamists, and arab regime's deliberate targeting of their own and others populations is valid, on the one hand, and you think western democracies do the exact same thing on the other. Double Fail. Moral relativism. Political and historical brute ignorance. Stunning hypocrisy.

Congratulations! Now go out there and spread your wacky theories. Lets see how far you get.

Aww... out of his desperate furor, Welly doesn't refute the argument. How
surprising.

All right, Mr. Black Pot, let's play a "moral relativism" game.
I have no trouble admitting that Palestinians firing rockets into Israel is wrong.
I have no problem with saying that "Arab regimes" that oppress their own
people is atrocious.
However --on topic of "Palestine and Israel"-- I want you to tell me outright
that ethnic cleansing done by Israel is wrong. Can you do it? It'll mark the first time you
have placed blame on all sides, unlike maclover, myself, and others (noticing
a trend).

We actually "differ" a lot. I actually care about any human life for one.
Second, staying on topic, I recognize that the amount of hardship Israel puts
on Palestine far outweighs the amount of hardship Palestine puts on Israel, or
itself for that matter, and that's a fact-- a fact I doubt you'd ever admit to.

[wellington1869]

lol! "desperate furor"? You mean like in the hamas charter that you adore?

[vils]

More from the charter:

Article Twenty-Eight:

The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion.

Oranjoose, for the sake of argument, how do you think that Israel should have responded to the rockets fired from Gaza?

[quadibloc]

Second, staying on topic, I recognize that the amount of hardship Israel puts on Palestine far outweighs the amount of hardship Palestine puts on Israel, or itself for that matter, and that's a fact-- a fact I doubt you'd ever admit to.

I don't agree with that "fact" either.

I am concerned with the hardships the Palestinian people are now suffering, but all the destruction in Gaza could have been averted if the Hamas members in Gaza surrendered to the Israeli forces. They're the ones who chose to continue fighting in a populated area.

In 1948, the Arab nations surrounding Israel could have chosen not to attack it.

In 1967, Egypt could have chosen not to prepare for a devastating attack that could have wiped Israel off the map.

In 1978, the Camp David peace accords could have been accepted by the people who would later form Hamas, so that a Palestinian state could have been achieved in an orderly manner, instead of Israel needing to continue to take various repressive measures to respond first to suicide bombers and then rocket attacks.

Israel keeps offering peace - and the offer of peace keeps getting thrown away by the other side, which prefers to try, once again, to drive Israel into the sea. Trying to drive Israel into the sea gets you a bloody nose. Isn't it about time that the Arab world learned that?

After September 11, 2001, people not directly connected with al-Qaeda in the Muslim world have raised their hands in violence against non-Muslims.

Thus, there were the murderous riots in Nigeria because of an editorial about the Miss World pageant.

What is wrong with those people?

Basically, any Muslim who hasn't been prompted by the events of September 11, 2001 to engage in intense soul-searching, and to root out any habits of thought that promote thinking of non-Muslims as inferior, that promote a willingness to engage in unjust violence against non-Muslims, will naturally be regarded by people in the Western world as some kind of moral monster (unless, of course, he is someone who never had such tendencies to root out in the first place, and confidently knows it).

Israel should just be a totally safe place to be - with no one attempting any violent attacks on it.

Once that happens, and it's clearly not just a temporary cease-fire or a trick, if Israel doesn't move quickly to normalize life for the people of the occupied territories, yes, we should ask why loudly.

But that hasn't happened yet.

The current sufferings of the Palestinian people are Hamas' fault, because they're the reason for everything else. It is their completely unjustified acts of murderous terrorism that make it impossible for Israel to safely let the Palestinians lead normal lives without obstruction.

[Oranjoose]

Oranjoose, for the sake of argument, how do you think that Israel should have responded to the rockets fired from Gaza?

I respect that you ask me directly a question. To return that respect,
despite the question being a difficult one, I choose to attempt to answer it.

It is likened to the bully who picks on, beats up, and takes the lunch money
from the same target over and over, when one day the victim throws a punch
at the bully.

The situation is difficult to navigate, and the word "should" in your question
carries some hefty baggage.
Even if Israel somehow was overcome with a revelation that how they were
treating Palestinians was inhumane, illegal, and flat-out wrong, it wouldn't be
as simple as just stopping.
For one, obviously, they do not want to send the message to the rag-tag
militant force that their rocket shots were "working." That would clearly
create worse problems in the future.
So Israel has to accomplish two tasks to do what they "should" do. 1) They
have to de-motivate the militant Palestinians. 2) They have to abandon the
occupation.
It's hard to achieve both at once, but it's doable.
In order to "punish" the group responsible for the stray rocket fire, they have
to convince the peaceful Palestinians that firing rockets is only making "it"
worse. This can only be done in a non-violent fashion. To get the peaceful
Palestinians to turn on the aggressive ones, they can demand the ones
responsible for the rocket-fire be turned in or else, the Israeli Defense
intelligence has no choice but to increase security for their own safety.
If the words are chosen right, it should be a pretty solid sounding diplomacy.
When the rocketeers are not turned in, then Israel would make their policies
of "family unification" more strict (there are already hundreds of thousands
that are not allowed to see each other's direct family members, and haven't
for years), and the visa policies more difficult. This would hit deep with the
Palestinian civilians.
Then in order to withdraw from Palestinian land, Israel would need to
continue to overturn the public opinion of Israeli civilians so that the regime
responsible for the oppression would capsize and be forced to give innocent
civilians their land back, whether or not there are settlements there. To do
this, the media would have to be heavily involved. Also, there needs to be
a personality to embody the ideology of change as the Israelis would want
to encourage.
For example, with respect to the Indian independence revolution, the West
iconized Gandhi. Despite political figures like Chandra Bose being national
heroes in India as we see with the large statues of them erected in various
places, the West has hardly heard of these figures or the movement they
led. If Britain recognized influential militant groups as part of the revolution,
then it would paint an unfavorable image. The fact of the matter is that
most people don't have a clue about what happened in India in the early 20th
Century. The common idea in the West is something like "British colonialism
bad, Gandhi good, India gets independence."
Israel has a legal (as dictated by the UN) responsibility to give back
Palestinian land, but it has to be done delicately to preserve public opinion
and to not encourage aggression.

Oh, and Wellington, I'm still waiting.

I want you to tell me outright
that ethnic cleansing done by Israel is wrong. Can you do it?

Rockets shot into Israel is bad, I don't have to say it again, but can you
admit, without pointing your fingers here and there, that stand-alone,
Israel's ethnic cleansing is bad?

[wellington1869]

oranjoos, you're giving the mistaken impression that you're against bullies. Thats not true, you're for bullies, obviously.
Its the jews in the middle east who are vastly outnumbered and who have been attacked relentlessly by multiple arab/muslim regimes time and again.
Its those same regimes that bully their own citizens time and again.
And that bullied and abandoned the palestinians time and again.
And that turned into two competing palestinian regimes who are in a civil war while simultaneously bullying their palestinian subjects time and again.
Who refuse to engage in state building in palestine and reject the peace process time and again.
Who promise to wipe israel off the map time and again.
Who attack their dissidents, women, homosexuals, and minority religions in their areas time and again, usually with extremely brutal violence.

You're for all that, dont forget.  So please be clear when you write a rant like the above. You're misrepresenting yourself.

[wellington1869]

NYC alone has more people in it than the entire population of the state of Israel. About 7 million. NYC has 10 million.
And that tiny, tiny state of israel faces a billion muslim arabs who are largely controlled by brutal, intolerant, war-mongering regimes who regularly assault israel and eliminate minorities in their own lands and promise daily to eradicate the jews and all others around the world wherever they may live.

you want to talk about bullying?

How about these bullies stop projecting their problems onto a scapegoat like the jews and start doing the hard work of nation building and institution building, and the infrastructure for law and order and economic growth in their home countries?

you know, like the jews did in israel, against all the odds?

[quadibloc]

To get the peaceful Palestinians to turn on the aggressive ones,

Israel can't do that. Trying to do so - as it is doing to some extent - would be a cruel hoax under current circumstances. The peaceful Palestinians have their bare hands, the aggressive ones have the guns. So removing the aggressive ones is something Israel has to do itself.

[maclover]

if civilians are hit, it is always cause for a ruckus of criticism in israel

Killing 1300 lebanon citizens, mostly civilians is not something good guys would do. Using artillery fire and massive airstrikes on civilian buildings is not something good guys do.

Israel are bad guys.

In what way is Israel an aggressor? A country that defends itself from terrorists is not an 'aggressor'. A country like Iran, on the other hand, that believes other countries should be 'erased from the pages of history' is definitely an aggressor.

Israel continues to occupy land that is not theirs. They are aggressors.

"A country that defends itself from terrorists is not an 'aggressor'." Your logic is faulty. You can both be an aggressor and defend yourself from terrorism. Iran also defends themselves from terrorism but that does not justify their subversive actions in Afghanistan and Iraq just like it does not justify what Israel are doing. Iran is populated by 90% Shi'a Muslims while Al'Qaeda are Sunni Muslims so Al'Qaeda is a threat to both Iran and Israel.

[wellington1869]

maclover, why did israel fight lebanon? do you even know?

[maclover]

maclover, why did israel fight lebanon? do you even know?

Because Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah. Yes I know.

If a paramilitary organization such as the IRA fired rockets at British soldiers and kidnapped British soldiers would Britain bomb Belfast? Would a British General threaten to push life back 20 years in Ireland?


Maybe.

[wellington1869]

Because Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah. Yes I know.

Nope. Try attacks on israel since 1968.

Cross-border attacks from southern Lebanon into Israel by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) date as far back as 1968, and followed Israel's capture of additional Arab territory the previous year; the area became a significant base for attacks following the arrival of the PLO leadership and its Fatah brigade following their 1971 expulsion from Jordan. Starting about this time, increasing demographic tensions related to the Lebanese National Pact, which had divided governmental powers among religious groups throughout the country 30 years previously, began running high and led in part to the Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990).

how about that, middle easterners killing middle easterners for 15 years. where's your outrage? Gone in 60 seconds. double standard. hypocrisy.

Concurrently, Syria began a 29 year military occupation in 1976.

how about that, syria invaded, occupied, and held lebanon for 29 years. Wheres your outrage? gone in 60 seconds. double standard. hypocrisy.

 Israel's 1978 invasion of Lebanon failed to stem the Palestinian attacks, but Israel invaded Lebanon again in 1982 and forcibly expelled the PLO.[50] Israel withdrew to a borderland buffer zone in southern Lebanon, held with the aid of proxy militants in the South Lebanon Army (SLA).[51] The invasion however, also led to the conception of a new Shi'a militant group, which in 1985, established itself politically under the name Hezbollah, and declared an armed struggle to end the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory.[52][53] When the Lebanese civil war ended and other warring factions agreed to disarm, both Hezbollah and the SLA refused. Ten years later, Israel withdrew from South Lebanon to the UN-designated and internationally recognized Blue Line border in 2000.[54]
 The withdrawal also led to the immediate collapse of the SLA, and Hezbollah took control of the area in rapid succession. Later citing continued Israeli control of the disputed Shebaa farms region and the internment of Lebanese prisoners in Israel, Hezbollah intensified its cross-border attacks, and used the tactic of seizing soldiers from Israel as leverage for a prisoner exchange in 2004.

yea, 40 years of attacks and abductions while the lebanese govt looked the other way.
so its not so simple anymore, is it maclover?

history is a wonderful thing to know.

[maclover]

Just because I am against Israel using lethal force against civilians does not mean I am arguing for Syria. I can see why you made that mistake though, stereotypes make life easier and I accept your apology.

It's still fairly simple. People and countries who kill civilians or torture people are bad and that includes Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, US, UK.

[wellington1869]

Just because I am against Israel using lethal force against civilians does not mean I am arguing for Syria. I can see why you made that mistake though, stereotypes make life easier and I accept your apology.

new topic: syria's 29 year occupation of lebanon; and iran's funding of hezbollah in lebanon which has destabilized lebanon's democratic govt since 1985. Discuss.

...waiting to hear maclover's outrage, which is surely forthcoming, since he claims to be even-handed about these things.

It's still fairly simple. People and countries who kill civilians or torture people are bad and that includes Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, US, UK.

these are not the same. you are claiming in effect that rule of law is no different from tribal barbarism. Explain and justify that outrgeously bold claim.
Are you expecting democracies to never defend themselves? Or never make mistakes? What is it, in your view, that differentiates a society that successfully follows the rule of law despite having diverse societies competing for power within the state, versus barbaric tribalism (whether theocratic or other) where the concept of rule of law and democracy are either actively disparaged, or simply not sustainable in a reliable way?

If you cant articulate the difference, you are a relativist, which is to say, a political opportunist and a hypocrite.

If they are the same, why dont you go live in saudi arabia or pakistan or Iran?

[maclover]

I am claiming that killing and/or torturing people is wrong. How is that hypocritical?

[wellington1869]

I am claiming that killing and/or torturing people is wrong. How is that hypocritical?

its hypocritical because you are not differentiating different situations, and thus you are equating them as equally valid. This by itself is moral relativism. But then you are not outraged by other people murdering, you reserve a special outrage for israel and the west. This adds hypocrisy on top of your moral relativism, which is itself quite shocking on its own.

Examples:
Do you recognize self defense as a legitimate context in whcih one might be forced to kill? Is stealing a loaf of bread because you're dying of starvation the same as inciting a riot at the mall because you want to upgrade your television set?  Is torturing a suspect who has information about a nuclear device hidden in a major city that is about to go off, the same as torturing an individual because he does not believe in the same god you believe in? Or because he criticized you? or because he wants to vote for a different party than the one you belong to?

If you say these are different contexts, then you've entered the messy world of morality.

Thats what you are assiduously avoiding in your talk about the middle east.

This is ultimately a question of which values do you want to defend.

And that is what you are avoiding talking about. Which values, in what contexts.

You are, in effect, saying there is no difference between killing in self defense and killing because someone disagreed with you.  THis makes you a relativist and a hypocrite.

A relativist: because you're saying all contexts are equally valid. Thus you never have to get into the values debate at all. You can make utterly bland statements like 'killing is bad' and then walk away with your head held high, having just blamed the israelies for their own 50 year victimization in the middle east.

A hypocrite because you also dont do that for the other side, after all. despite claiming that you disapprove of killing everywhere, when push comes to shove, you do not disapprove of it, elsewhere, with the same righteous indignance with which you are attacking israel or the west. Thus you're also contradicting your own stated values, making you a hypocrite.

Its bad enough that you are a relativist, which is an utterly indefensible position, especially in today's world where more is on the line than ever in global politics. But on top of that you're also a hypocrite because you cynically use relativism to blame the west while letting the east off the hook.

=Cynical political opportunism. Using the same rhetorical methods that, surprise, hamas uses.

[wellington1869]

cynically use relativism to blame the west while letting the east off the hook.

and it gets worse. The standard that you apply to the east is a lower moral standard than what you apply to the west. Implying how little you think of the east, of middle easterners, of arabs and muslims. You basically think of them as children or animals, incapable of controlling their reason, their rage, their lust, their violence.

really? do you honestly have such a poor opinion of arabs and muslims? If you hold them to a lower standard than you'd hold israelis and the west, then yes, you DO have such a poor opinion of arabs and muslims.

So lets add condescension to your list of problems.

If an arab muslim seeks peace, seeks democracy or human rights, within a middle eastern context, you would have to see him or her as a traitor to the 'resistance' and a western stooge. (exactly like hamas would).

So lets also add anti-liberalism to your list of problems. You're not a liberal; you are against liberalism in the arab-muslim world.

[Oranjoose]

That fiery tantrum was even more insecure than usual, Mr. Black Pot, I'm impressed.
The tickling thing about it, though, is that you were spouting out "moral
relativism" this and "political opportunism" that, when you still have not been
able to demonstrate that you're not guilty of your own allegations.
Let me remind you again:

I want you to tell me outright
that ethnic cleansing done by Israel is wrong. Can you do it?

I'm still waiting. Either take or reject the challenge.

Oh, and:

new topic: syria's 29 year occupation of lebanon; and iran's funding of hezbollah in lebanon which has destabilized lebanon's democratic govt since 1985. Discuss.

I don't know if you're aware, but the proper way to do "new topic:" is to
click the "new topic" button. Read the forum guidelines, they should help you
find your way around.

[wellington1869]

That fiery tantrum

lol! you mean like your beloved hamas charter?

[ricercar]

its hypocritical because you are not differentiating different situations, and thus you are equating them as equally valid. This by itself is moral relativism..

Bzzt. You have that reversed, Welly. If one argues that intentional killing another human is always wrong, invariably, no matter the surrounding circumstances, then that's an absolute, not a relative statement. To say it's wrong to bomb civilians regardless of the nations involved, this is likewise an absolute, not relative statement. Given Maclover argues that it's wrong to bomb civilians, Maclover is arguing that Israel is wrong to bomb Palestinian civilians, PLUS Syria was wrong to bomb Israeli civilians, and includes any example of bombing civilians.

However, Maclover appears to be arguing that it's wrong to bomb civilians, not arguing for or against Israel. This makes you two arguing apples against oranges. iIt is absurd to think Maclover's failure to raise the Syrian issue was significant during an argument entitled Palestine and Israel. You're indeed starting a separate conversation due another thread. EDIT: or you must link the logical arguments together more robustly. I fail to see why it's relevant UNLESS we can get Maclover to say Syria wasn't wrong to bomb civilians, and you haven't done that, and there's no sign Maclover will say it.

-
Welly, you also haven't addressed Maclover's question about Britain bombing Irish civilians. That's a significant sidestep, and needs to be addressed or you'll lose credibility. Normally you argue better than this, your methods are rational and logically thorough. Are you feeling OK today?


Yes, I truly am a Devil's Advocate. I prefer to see proper argument, regardless of the issues.

[wellington1869]

no bro, i have it right. There's a great deal of confusion of terms when it comes to moral relativism, which is a bad term to use to describe the underlying phenomenon. The basic confusion has to do with confusing effects with methods. Will explain soon as I get a few minutes... but the phenomenon (whatever its name) is recognizeable regardless for its political and social destructiveness and nihilism and cynicism and hypocrisy (internal contradiction, external destruction).

what we call moral relativism is a form of nativism. Its when people argue, for instance, that we cannot judge an Other -- like amhedinijad for instance - using our "western" standards, because the "east" is just different.  You'll see this of course from defenders of fascism (and from ahmedinijad himself, who argues the exact same thing in his rejection of democracy and human rights).
Its complete bull**** on so many levels, of course, and is merely a rhetorical cover by fascists to save their fascistic selfish regimes, and of course, wide-eyed, ignorant leftists pick up on this rhetoric with a great deal of righteous indignation as well.

So moral relativists say: there's one standard for them, another for us, and never can the two ever meet. No judgement is allowed, no intervention is allowed, etc.

The confusion arises because, in order to rhetorically uphold such deep nativism ("essentialization"), they have to obliterate context in the name of saving it. This is the heart of the rhetorical ploy, and is what gives rise to the confusion of terms.  Will explain this key aspect further soon as a i get a moment. But you can always recognize a moral relativist by their (lop-sided - hence the hypocrisy) defense of extreme violence and extreme fascism.

[ricercar]

Cool. I'm looking forward to your response.

Moral relativism suggests that morality is relative to (determined by) the culture or society. However, a stance of "killing civilians is ALWAYS wrong, regardless of accompanying circumstances," then that's not a stance of moral relativism.

[keyboardlover]

The problem with the war on terror is that 'civilians' are constantly confused for 'terrorists' and vice-versa. So whenever I hear people complain about Israel killing 'civilians' I always take it with a grain of salt. Until you've actually BEEN in the conflict and seen what the Israeli's are dealing with, you can't say that you can tell the difference between a Lebanon civilian and a terrorist. Hamas is so ingrained into the fabric of Lebanon that it's been argued that Hamas is technically Lebanon's police force.

[ricercar]

This was much longer. However I took the time to make a short reply.

Having BEEN in the conflict and seen what the Israeli's are dealing with, I can say that the Israeli soldier GENERALLY does not try to discern a difference between a Palestinian civilian and a terrorist.

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.

[keyboardlover]

Were the civilians armed? Did they in any way show a threat? I find it hard to believe that Israeli soldiers would simply gun down innocent Palestinians.

[wellington1869]

there's a bigger point here though: is it representative?
in israels case, obviously not. This is a working democracy with a robust left wing and peacenik wing which holds the govt accountable both thru the legal system and in the public eye.
Thats the real difference between the israelis and the palestinian authorities right now: when the palestinians do it, they celebrate it, dance in the streets,and threaten to do more of it.
THATS the diference, and it is huge. It makes all the difference in the values fight that is at the heart of this conflict.
If palestinians criticize their regime for such things, they get slaughtered.
THATS the difference, and it is huge.
Its a matter of POLICY on the palestinian regimes side right now TO do these things: They PROMISE it: they promise genocide itself.
THATS the difference, and it is huge.

We're not talking about mistakes, or one commander who finally lost his mind, or accidents. We're talking about a POLICY on the palestinian side, remorseless and promised and unopposed because if palestinians oppose it they get slaughtered as "traitors".

THATS the difference, and it is huge.

[ricercar]

Were the civilians armed?

Define armed. We had bags of groceries.

Did they in any way show a threat?

Define threat. They were Palestinians.

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

I find it hard to believe that Israeli soldiers would simply gun down innocent Palestinians.

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