Israel : Who's the real terrorists now?

[blink]

Outright attacks on civillians and children by the Israelis on Palestine. And with the US govt keeping silent, I wonder who the real terrorists are?

[stryfe]

i wish i was more educated on the Israeli/Palestinian situation.

I have a feeling the tension would not be abated by giving up a 'little bit of land?'

It's probably a naive thought, but I wish we (the US) didn't get invovled in the Palestinian/Israeli quarrel. It seems as of late that we've tried to ride the fence in the conflict, but have been further enveloped within affairs that should just be left to the principals.

[Edited by stryfe on 12-04-2001 at 09:22 PM]

Stryfe: It is naive of you to think that we (US) shouldn't be involved when we (US) helped create the state of Israel! It behooves you to read and learn up on the region. I've noticed countless Americans who don't know jack shit about that region and think Israel are the good guys...

[stryfe]

Originally posted by Solipsism
Stryfe: It is naive of you to think that we (US) shouldn't be involved when we (US) helped create the state of Israel! It behooves you to read and learn up on the region. I've noticed countless Americans who don't know jack shit about that region and think Israel are the good guys...

thank you for educating and attacking me. like i said, i with i was more educated on the situation. i don't believe anywhere in my statement did i support israel.

[Edited by stryfe on 12-04-2001 at 09:49 PM]

You're very welcome.

[stryfe]

would you indulge me with a little more background?

OK. Since you want me to spell it out, as I have before.

WW2.
Displaced Jews in European concentration camps by Nazi.

Freed by the Allies.

Put into camps again by said Allies.

US sees irony in this.

Zion movement happens where displaced Jews want to found a state in the Middle East.

Britain owns Palestinian lands as colony.

US pressures Britain to open it's doors for DP Jews to enter.

Britain agrees reluctantly.

DP Jews flood Palestine.

Palestinians and DP Jews immediately go into conflict.

Britain gives up colony and hands everything over to the newly formed UN.

DP Jews form state of Israel.

US is the first to recognize state of Israel.

A UN decision establishes to part "Israel-Palestine" into two regions, Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Palestinians cry foul, this is our land and you can't take it.

Israel claims, we paid you for this land through UN compensations.

Palestinians, we don't acknowledge the decision. Jews and Palestinians clash...

2001...still clashing.

[Edited by Solipsism on 12-04-2001 at 10:06 PM]

[stryfe]

thanks.

[stryfe]

In your opinion what would the route to peace in the region be?

In my opinion, the route for peace isn't possible. I'm a cynic.

The United States was formed in a similar manner as Israel, with force and "land compensations." Look where the Natives are now.

I find it utterly offensive that they can have a National Holocaust museum in the US when there isn't a museum devoted exclusively for the elimination of Native American Indians.

I am glad the 500 Sovereign Nations have formed the casinos as a fuck you to the US government, despite causing infighting and corruption amongst the tribes.

[Edited by Solipsism on 12-04-2001 at 10:27 PM]

[vegAsian]

...

[Edited by vegAsian on 12-04-2001 at 10:34 PM]

veg: No no. These Jews that are DP or displaced people (because their property was seized by the NAZIs) are from Europe. There was no Israel to be forced out. Jews simply didn't have a state.

[Edited by Solipsism on 12-04-2001 at 10:38 PM]

[vegAsian]

Originally posted by Solipsism

I find it utterly offensive that they can have a National Holocaust museum in the US when there isn't a museum devoted exclusively for the elimination of Native American Indians.
[Edited by Solipsism on 12-04-2001 at 10:24 PM]

That was quite awesome, your quicky lil run down on Israel history...
about the Holocaust Museum... I think the Holocaust was a lil more recent, and there are several Black History Museums nation wide. And I think there should be a museum dedicated to the information about the Native Losses due to Europeans.
I don't have a solution... all I know is that Jews were forced out of Israel... and then dispersed thoughout Europe... after WWII and some genocide... where would they go? I'm not sayin what happened was right...

Ya know I was dating a Muslim Desi (Indian) girl, and we were talkin about the Holocaust, and she said "Oh that thing, aren't they over it yet!?"

...silence...

[vegAsian]

Originally posted by Solipsism
veg: No no. These Jews that are DP or displaced people (because their property was seized by the NAZIs) are from Europe.

OK, I hear yah... I'm just finishin a term paper that I shoulda done a long time ago that's due tomorrow... I'm on page 4 of 6-8... but I hear yeah, I just don't want peeps bustin out racial shit... don't hate the Race, hate the situation, ya know?

BTW: I wanted to say, I dig your name...
I did some writing on solipsism last year...
but isn't it really silopsism?

Silopsism? I've never heard of it.
Solipsism however is a genuine philosophical theory.

[Sleepy Introvert Ninja]

<font size="3" face="System, Small Fonts" color="#400040">
When my mother sees conflict
in the middle east on TV she
says 'Kill kill kill, die die die'.</font>

[chairmynmeow]

Originally posted by stryfe
i wish i was more educated on the Israeli/Palestinian situation.

I have a feeling the tension would not be abated by giving up a 'little bit of land?'

[Edited by stryfe on 12-04-2001 at 09:22 PM]

At this point the Palestinians don't want a 'little bit of land'. They want the right to return to Israel because they now outnumber the Jews.



Planky Who those kids?

[dragon chic]

this situation has not changed much since the 50's. i have never been to israel, but my husband has in the early 90's..some people have thought about turning isreal into a non religous state..does that make sense? (this idea has come up in many converstions with family/friends)...

i think that the palestinian's have as much 'right' to be there as the israeli's. it's unfair that the israeli's control their shit, like water for instance. how/when they can use it...i disagree with how the us has handled it's involvement, particularly in the last several years.

bill clinton wasted so much time in his last years in office trying to bandage a situation that will probably not change in my lifetime....

i am certainly not an expert in this situation, but plan on going there someday.

[Edited by dragon chic on 12-05-2001 at 11:01 AM]

[angrykitty]

the thing is, both sides of this conflict can justify there violence in their own respective minds. let's not forget the some palestenians bombed and killed a lot of israelies just this past weekend.

i saw an interview with jimmy carter on the charlie rose show last night. and i have to say this ex president really knows whats going on over there in the middle east. having to deal with the iran hostage crisis for 18 months and brokering peace between egypt and israel, he knows his stuff. he convinced me that there is a way to get peace in that region, and i wish there more people like him in power.

anywho, i do have a request for you robots out there, a lot of you seem politically astute, so i was hoping if any of you could recommend a book about the history of israel and its relationships with other arab states. sol gave a good but short synopsis, but there has to be more to it, any books are good pro-isreali, pro-arab, i want to understand the situation more.

[Sleepy Introvert Ninja]

<font size="3" face="System, Small Fonts" color="#400040">
I tend to stay away
from political threads...
But what the hell.
</font>

[blink]

angry, it is true that last weekend there has been three devastating attacks on Israelis but what about Israel's willful attacks on Palestine civillians just the week before? 5 Palestine children were killed in a bomb blast planted by the Israeli army who at first denied respondsibility. And let's not even talk about the delibrate assinaninations or attempts on various Palestinian leaders for the past 12 months.

While the Palestinians are wrong in having suicide bombers rountinely blowing themselves up in the midst of Israeli civillians, but the Israeli army and secret service are launching fullscale attacks on BOTH civillians and the Palestine Authority. The main difference here is that the works of terror are committed towards the Israelis are by extremists but the terror adminstered by the Israelis are by THEIR GOVERNMENT. And isn't the US government having a war against terrorism right now? Well, I'd say bomb the Israelis then since what they're doing amounts to state-sponsored terrorism and breached the Geneva Convention. The US media has been pulling the wool over the eyes of ordinary American citizens for too long and it is best for everyone to educate themselves on the situation and what the US govt is doing lest another tragedy like 9/11 reoccurs.

[Edited by blink on 12-05-2001 at 08:52 PM]

It's a cycle or retaliation. And America has just entered it in a big way.

[kyoppolife]

since the most recent fighting began in israel, about 250 israelis have been killed by palestinian terrorists. in that same time span, about 750 palestinians have been killed by israeli "defense forces".

[angrykitty]

i'm not going to argue with you guys, because i don't know enough about the situation. i really doubt that most of you guys have enough knowledge about the middle east to say anything constructive. i'm gonna do some reading and come back to this subject. i recommend you do the same.

[kyoppolife]

Originally posted by angrykitty
i'm not going to argue with you guys, because i don't know enough about the situation. i really doubt that most of you guys have enough knowledge about the middle east to say anything constructive. i'm gonna do some reading and come back to this subject. i recommend you do the same.


some of us have already done some reading, enough to make informed opinions. i recommend you read edward said and noam chomsky. also recommend you read the history of israel and palestine. or look at an old mapr or globe before 1948. nowhere will you see it identify that piece of land as "israel". it will say "palestine" on that map. the majority of the citizens of israel are european, not middle eastern. they immigrated to a country and then took it over by force from the natives.

check out israel's history of terrorism against the palestinians starting with menecham begin's irgun zvai leumi terrorist organization that he founded who were responsible for the massacre at deir yasin in the late 40's. begin went on to become prime minister of israel and won a nobel peace prize. or what about current prime minister ariel sharon's past as an idf general forced to resign in scandal because of his army's involvement in the civilian refugee massacres at chatila and sabra, killing almost 3,000 people. maybe he'll get a nobel peace prize for his current "fight against terrorism" as well. israel continuously violates the terms of the oslo peace accords. they continue to develop jewish settlements in the occupied territories. yet they are not held accountable. they continue to commit daily war crimes (such as routine torture) against the palestinians, and yet continue their status as the number one recipient of foreign aid from the united states, totalling over $50 billion now not adjusted for inflation.

israel is arguably the most fascist regime on the planet. they learned well from their nazi oppressors.

A Belgium courthouse (the only courts to be able to charge anyone anywhere for crimes internationally) have recently started to review a case against Sharon for that massacre, which th Israeli's say were "indirectly" associated with him...what a load of bollocks...

[kyoppolife]

how they can call idf forces standing guard while mercenaries murdered 3000 refugees "indirect involvement" is sickening.

[angrykitty]

[QUOTE]some of us have already done some reading, enough to make informed opinions. i recommend you read edward said and noam chomsky. also recommend you read the history of israel and palestine. or look at an old mapr or globe before 1948. nowhere will you see it identify that piece of land as "israel". it will say "palestine" on that map. the majority of the citizens of israel are european, not middle eastern. they immigrated to a country and then took it over by force from the natives.

thanks for the tips on the books.

check out israel's history of terrorism against the palestinians starting with menecham begin's irgun zvai leumi terrorist organization that he founded who were responsible for the massacre at deir yasin in the late 40's. begin went on to become prime minister of israel and won a nobel peace prize. or what about current prime minister ariel sharon's past as an idf general forced to resign in scandal because of his army's involvement in the civilian refugee massacres at chatila and sabra, killing almost 3,000 people. maybe he'll get a nobel peace prize for his current "fight against terrorism" as well. israel continuously violates the terms of the oslo peace accords. they continue to develop jewish settlements in the occupied territories. yet they are not held accountable. they continue to commit daily war crimes (such as routine torture) against the palestinians, and yet continue their status as the number one recipient of foreign aid from the united states, totalling over $50 billion now not adjusted for inflation.

ok. so how about arab attacks on israelis?

israel is arguably the most fascist regime on the planet. they learned well from their nazi oppressors.

this could be argued. i don't know if i would compare them to nazis...

[kyoppolife]

another good author and renowned journalist to check out on the arab-israeli conflict is reporter robert fisk. i can't believe i forgot to mention him.

as far as arab attacks on israel, again, you have to realize that israelis invaded palestine and took it from the native people there. kicked people out of their homes and created an instant refugee crisis. americans have america. swedes have sweden. chinese have china. how is it that there is a nation of people called palestinians, yet there is no country called palestine? the only other groups i can think of that can relate to this dynamic are the kurds and the indigenous people of america and australia.

as far as the comparison to nazis, i think its fair to compare their tactics. curfews, id cards, random stops and harassment from police and military, denial of basic rights, violence, murder, rape, torture, all mostly state sanctioned.

[angrykitty]

Originally posted by kyoppolife
another good author and renowned journalist to check out on the arab-israeli conflict is reporter robert fisk. i can't believe i forgot to mention him.

as far as arab attacks on israel, again, you have to realize that israelis invaded palestine and took it from the native people there. kicked people out of their homes and created an instant refugee crisis. americans have america. swedes have sweden. chinese have china. how is it that there is a nation of people called palestinians, yet there is no country called palestine? the only other groups i can think of that can relate to this dynamic are the kurds and the indigenous people of america and australia.

as far as the comparison to nazis, i think its fair to compare their tactics. curfews, id cards, random stops and harassment from police and military, denial of basic rights, violence, murder, rape, torture, all mostly state sanctioned.

so...your saying it's ok to attack israelis?

Originally posted by angrykitty
[QUOTE]so...your saying it's ok to attack israelis?



Well, consider the self defence line being tossed around in the air like a ball.

[angrykitty]

Originally posted by Solipsism
Originally posted by angrykitty
[QUOTE]so...your saying it's ok to attack israelis?



Well, consider the self defence line being tossed around in the air like a ball.

i'm not asking what there saying, i'm asking what your saying.

[kyoppolife]

ak,

no, i am not saying it is alright to kill israeli civilians. i am saying that the dynamics are different. the attacks on the palestinians are sanctioned by their state government. palestinians don't have an official government. the arafat and the pla are the closest thing they have to a functioning government and in they do not sponsor attacks on israeli citizens. the attacks on israeli citizens come mostly from groups like hamas.

they attack with suicide bombers because they feel they have little choice. israel attacks with cobra attack choppers, organized military troops, tanks, etc (bought with american tax dollars). palestinian resistance forces have nothing comparable. terrorism is their equalizer.

its fucked up, but i understand why.

[kyoppolife]

ak,

you seem very concerned about the loss of life of israeli citizens, which is admirable. but you do not seem as concerned with the loss of arab civilian lives, which far exceeds the losses on the israeli side, or the infringments upon their human rights. why is this? i am not being sardonic or facetious. i'm honestly asking why or asking you to correct me.

[angrykitty]

Originally posted by kyoppolife

ak,

you seem very concerned about the loss of life of israeli citizens, which is admirable. but you do not seem as concerned with the loss of arab civilian lives, which far exceeds the losses on the israeli side, or the infringments upon their human rights. why is this? i am not being sardonic or facetious. i'm honestly asking why or asking you to correct me.


i'm sorry if you feel that way. i'm just curious about this stuff and sometimes i need to ask a lot of questions to fully understand one's point of view. i feel bad about arab deaths as well. there all human.

my thinking is, the only way for there to be an agreement in the middle east, is if a deal is made where both sides feel that they have won and the gains far out weigh the losses. either that or one of the parties has to be beaten into submission and/or eliminated. i prefer the first alternative.

again, thanks for the tips on the books.

[kyoppolife]

no apology required. i'm asking questions too. i appreciate having honest critical dialogs. i am not trying to impugn you in any way. and you are welcome for the tips on authors. i think fisk might be the best one to start with since he is a journalist and gives details about the actual events. said and chomsky are more heavy on the policy critiques.

peace.

[blink]

Originally posted by kyoppolife

ak,

no, i am not saying it is alright to kill israeli civilians. i am saying that the dynamics are different. the attacks on the palestinians are sanctioned by their state government. palestinians don't have an official government. the arafat and the pla are the closest thing they have to a functioning government and in they do not sponsor attacks on israeli citizens. the attacks on israeli citizens come mostly from groups like hamas.

they attack with suicide bombers because they feel they have little choice. israel attacks with cobra attack choppers, organized military troops, tanks, etc (bought with american tax dollars). palestinian resistance forces have nothing comparable. terrorism is their equalizer.

its fucked up, but i understand why.

precisely my sentiments.

while the attacks carried out on Israelis are by extremist groups, the attacks on Palestine are done BY THE ISRAELI GOVERTMENT. I cannot emphasize the difference enough and with the US govt standing on the sideline silently while in the same time continuning to bomb innocent civillians (collateral damage, how quaint for a term on human lives) in Afghanistan, I find it sickening whenever Bush or the US governtment utters rhetoric on "the war against terrorism".

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Den
[QUOTE]Israel didn't invade Palestine. The state of Israel was sanctioned by the United Nations (not guilt ridden Brits).

Israel was a poor pathetic nation of immigrants struggling to survive until 5 arab nations decided to beat down on them.
But what happend was that the fledging Israeli nation kicked their ass. The Arabs kept invading (averaging two invasions of Israel per decade) outnumbering the beleagured Israel 10 to one and they still won gaining more territory along the way.

And if you want to talk about ancestral homelands doesn't Israeli have a 3000 year old stake in that land predating the Palestinians (and Islam as a whole) by a millenia?[QUOTE]

That's right. Israel didn't invade Palestine. There was NO Israel to invade from. It was ALL Palestine. Israel was declared after the Brits moved out. Not by the UN. The European Jews formed independence without UN approval. It was the fact that the US, holding a mighty seat on the UN, in recognizing Israel that Israel as a state even got acknowledgement from the UN.

That fledgling little nation received major military equipment and support from er...the US, perhaps? If it wasn't for the US, do you really think that Israel would have a chance? US involvement is everywhere. Do you think Kuwait would be Kuwait without the US? Do you think Taiwan could hold out against a 5 billion strong Communist nation without US military aid? How naive...

As for ancestral homelands...that is the VERY claim and justification that the Europeans used when they launched the Crusades in the 11th century. What a folly. It is also the same reason that the European Jews formed the "Zionist" movement. They weren't from Palestine. They were from Europe. Looking at someone else's land as theirs.

[Edited by Solipsism on 02-07-2002 at 09:23 AM]

[mobs]

If you want to really go back, weren't the origianl inhabitants of this area known as Cananites and phillistines? People who followed Judaism then followed and have always been trying to set up thier own country based on thier religion at the expense of others who have been there just as long and longer?
This battle has been going on for ages with the last version of Isreal given the old heave ho by the Romans.

[Old_Skool_Yukio_Mishima]

[QUOTE]
I don't have a solution... all I know is that Jews were forced out of Israel... /QUOTE]

Exactly how long ago did this happen?

[Old_Skool_Yukio_Mishima]

Originally posted by Sleepy Introvert Ninja

<font size="3" face="System, Small Fonts" color="#400040">
When my mother sees conflict
in the middle east on TV she
says 'Kill kill kill, die die die'.</font>

Your mom should stop playing Counter Strike...: )

Originally posted by Old_Skool_Yukio_Mishima
[QUOTE]
I don't have a solution... all I know is that Jews were forced out of Israel... /QUOTE]

Exactly how long ago did this happen?

Never.
There was no Israel to speak of before May 14 1948.
Jews in Europe however were forced out of their homes by the Nazis.

To perhaps bruise the situation even more, Palestinian territories declared PLO by the UN are constantly being invaded by Israel. I wonder if any "state" would take having their own territories constantly occupied, civilian homes bull-dozed, and invaded and settled by the invaders.

Maps:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/maps/is-map.jpg http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/maps/M3243r2.gif

To detail Israeli occupation, one just needs merely point out all the peace settlements and withdrawals in its history:

April 25, 1982, Israel withdrew from Sinai as a result of the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty.

October 26, 1994, Israel withdraws and concludes land resolutions with Jordan as part of the 1994 Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace.

May 25, 2000, Israel starts to withdraw from southern Lebanon's Golan Heights, which it had occupied since 1982.

Israel has yet to withdraw from two occupied PLO regions since a 1967 war (the Gaza Strip and the West Bank...take a good look at them on the map); instead putting settlers there (176,000 Israelis in West Bank, about 6,900 in the Gaza Strip, and about 20,000 in the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights)....these areas are the ones being targeted for suicide bombers...Why wouldn't the Palestinians bomb an invader in their own lands?

These mentioned territories are not even acknowledged on a modern political map of Israel.

Free Tibet?
It's absurd there isn't a free Palestine Movement being endorsed by movie stars with the likes of Richard Gere and Tom Hanks.

[Edited by Solipsism on 12-07-2001 at 11:03 AM]

[angrykitty]

Originally posted by Solipsism
Free Tibet?
It's absurd there isn't a free Palestine Movement being endorsed by movie stars with the likes of Richard Gere and Tom Hanks.


well...then again the people from tibet don't have a reputation for hijacking and suicide bombers, at least not that i know of. and besides look at who owns and has the most influence on the media in the US.

you bring up great points solop and the maps help a lot to understand the conflict.

Originally posted by angrykitty
Originally posted by Solipsism
Free Tibet?
It's absurd there isn't a free Palestine Movement being endorsed by movie stars with the likes of Richard Gere and Tom Hanks.


well...then again the people from tibet don't have a reputation for hijacking and suicide bombers, at least not that i know of. and besides look at who owns and has the most influence on the media in the US.

you bring up great points solop and the maps help a lot to understand the conflict.

No, but the Dalai Lama has indirectly ordered the destruction of certain Buddhist sects.

Most visible was this one:
In late spring 1996, the world-wide Tibetan community received a rude jolt when a hitherto-unknown London-based group called the Shugden Supporters Community (SSC) sent out press releases and staged demonstrations outside the Office of Tibet in London protesting the “religious persecution by the Dalai Lama”. The SSC contended that since the Dalai Lama’s injunction earlier this year against the worship of the deity known as Dorje Shugden, propitiators of that god have systematically been eased out of Tibetan government-in-exile jobs and schools and have been denied humanitarian assistance.

The SSC has gone much further than charge the Dalai Lama of “suppressing the individual right to make religious choices”. The religious as well as temporal head of the Tibetans, otherwise enjoying unquestioned popularity for his personal likeability and the Tibetan cause he represents, has been called an “oppressor” and a “ruthless dictator”.

from another source:
Addressing charges of shunning, threats and even physical abuse against Shugdenites, American Dalai Lama adviser John Ackerly admits that "there have been cases of harassment," all condemned by the High Lama. The most tragic sign that the dispute has spun out of control was the apparently ritual 1997 stabbing of three high anti-Shugden monks in the exile capital of Dharamsala, India.....

.....American Tibetan-style Buddhists, however, will have to digest the occultism, interschool feuding and occasional violence that have long marked the culture they thought was their model. Donald S. Lopez Jr., a professor of Buddhist and Tibetan studies and author of an important new book, Prisoners of ShangriLa: Tibetan Buddhism and the West, says the fracas will help Americans realize they "have a bowdlerized version of Tibetan Buddhism."

Ever to take advantage of the situation, China took no hesitation in restoring Shugden temples in Tibet.

[Edited by Solipsism on 12-07-2001 at 11:23 AM]

[angrykitty]

ok, correct me if i'm reading this wrong.

there are people who think the dalai lama is an oppressor and ruthless dictator?

Originally posted by angrykitty
ok, correct me if i'm reading this wrong.

there are people who think the dalai lama is an oppressor and ruthless dictator?

Yes. Things are not what they seem.
I am sure you've read my introductions to Christopher Hitchens's unmasking of Mother Teresa as a fraud.

[Edited by Solipsism on 12-07-2001 at 11:30 AM]

[Old_Skool_Yukio_Mishima]

Originally posted by angrykitty
ok, correct me if i'm reading this wrong.

there are people who think the dalai lama is an oppressor and ruthless dictator?

Yes, "they" are called the Chinese Government.

[angrykitty]

i didn't, but i'll look for it.

for me it comes down to this, truths depend on one's point of view.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/12/13/mideast.crisis/story.bulldozers.ap.jpg

[blink]

Palestinian suicide bombers = terrorists acts, which is fair enough

Israeli bombings, shootings of civillians (children too) and gunship attacks = "acts of self defense"

what a warped world we live in.

[stryfe]

Originally posted by blink
Palestinian suicide bombers = terrorists acts, which is fair enough

Israeli bombings, shootings of civillians (children too) and gunship attacks = "acts of self defense"

what a warped world we live in.

in defense of the world, it wasn't very good to begin with.

[Old_Skool_Yukio_Mishima]

My favorite is the U.S media calling Isreali assisinations of Palestinians "targeted killings". WTF is up with that terminology?

[chairmynmeow]

Originally posted by Old_Skool_Yukio_Mishima
My favorite is the U.S media calling Isreali assisinations of Palestinians "targeted killings". WTF is up with that terminology?

My four year old niece could have come up with a better euphemism than that snorts derisively...

Listening to the Israeli foreign ambassador is infuriating...

[stryfe]

does it make you want to strap a bomb on yourself, and run out into a public square?

Originally posted by stryfe
does it make you want to strap a bomb on yourself, and run out into a public square?

No. They haven't started bull dozing America yet.

[stryfe]

things will escalate here soon enough.

we attack them, they attack us. repeat ad nauseam.

[vegAsian]

big ups BLINK...

[perseus]

i personally have very little sympathy for Israel. what do you get with a religious government? a religious dictatorship of nutcases. the zionists are whacked. they had "terrorists" in Palestine in the '30s... f*cked up. there is a reason for the "separation of church and state".

imagine if they made a truly democractic country out of the area, ruled independent of religion, and by majority vote? there are more Arabs than Jews (despite zionist attempts at genocide) so it would be interesting.

i find it particularly odd that the zionists use the jewish fate during ww2 as pr for their occupation of Palestine. now they are the nazi's, and they have the gall to complain about their own treatment as justification for their actions. amazing...

now we have Sharon, the Butcher of Beirut, as prime minister no less. he did Shabra and Shatila massacres, and now he is continuing it.. and we, the US, are helping fund the bastard. we even gave them nukes - this is one of many very good reasons to join your local militia and do what Jefferson said should be done every few years - overthrow the US government.

(watch me get arrested by Ashcroft's brownshirts tomorrow, since they are no doubt scanning all internet traffic with Echelon, the bastards)

ok, so i'm a tad bitter, but who wouldnt - er, make that shouldnt - be...

"The unofficial history of America™, which continues to be written, is not a story of rugged individualism and heroic personal sacrifice in the pursuit of a dream. It is a story of democracy derailed, of a revolutionary spirit suppressed and of a once-proud people reduced to servitude."
- Kalle Lasn

-jb

[stryfe]

Uhm...israel is not the only religious state in the world.

[perseus]

Originally posted by stryfe
Uhm...israel is not the only religious state in the world.

i didnt say they were. but now that i think about i am trying to think of a good example of one... what's another religious state? not Saudi Arabia, they are more of a monarchy, though they do use Islam as justification a lot so i guess they might qaulify - they are hardly an example of "good government"... hmm, i cant really think of another state quite like Israel. maybe if Utah was a country... what other states are there that are quite so ruled and driven by the state religion?

-jb

++ wait i thought of one, Iran maybe? they are pretty religious, though not nearly as oppresive to their neighbors as Israel. but then they didnt have to commite genocide on the locals to get their land either...


[Edited by perseus on 12-16-2001 at 11:48 AM]

[perseus]

Originally posted by Den
ummm...isn't Israel like the only democracy in the region?
I mean they're elected officials and all.....

other religious states: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vatican City (okay maybe this one was cheap...)

well, they are supposedly a democracy, but their main problem is that there is no separation of church and state. the religious side of things becomes government policy, thereby removing choices from the 'citizens'.

yes, the two i mentioned ;) Iran and Saudi Arabia do seem to have a lot of problems as well, also steming somewhat from the too-close ties between religion and government, imho.

Israel was founded as part of the Zionist movement's reactionary fanaticism, from what i have read anyway, so there will always be trouble. the same kind of nutty fundamentalist irrationality we see in al Queda or even many of the wackos in the US. luckily al Queda and the right-to-lifers that bomb clinics dont have nukes though...

i think giving the Zionists the right to take over Palestine was for one not theirs to give (the British), and for another a big mistake. where can it end in Palestine? i dont think they will ever allow two 'separate but equal' states side by side. it seems the Israelites will just keep killing and brutalizing the Palestinians until they can divide them up into little camps or something, and then maybe call that Palestine... and the US is supporting this whole attrocity too, it really bugs me to think of my tax dollars going to that shit. ah well...

-jb

And democratic governments by form, aren't necessarily always democratic in the American way...
Take a look at South Korea for example...
Israel is practically a police state...

We can also add Taiwan to this list.

[perseus]

Originally posted by Solipsism
We can also add Taiwan to this list.

what is the list of? democracies that aren't really?

i would say the US is a pretty poor democracy. most of the decisions that count are not in the hands of the people, and even the things that are up to a vote are only token gestures, like the choice for Gore or Bush - not much difference. of course, even that little choice had to be nullified by legal (illegal really) shenanigans so they could get Gee Dub Ya into office, so i guess there must have have been a difference between them to someone... defense contractors mb.

the US has more people in prisons per capita than almost any other country, some of the worst wealth disparity, and commits the most atrocities on both its own and other countries citizens. the only country convicted by the world court of terrorism, ordered to pay fines, had resolutions passed against it by the UN... all of which we ignored of course. and we hold ourselves up as an example of democracy for others? amazing. i think most americans would be horrified if they realized the blood that's dripping from their own hands.

and funding the butchers running Israel isnt helping our record any either. notice how Sharon and all those bastards say they are "following the Bush Doctrine on terror" now, as an excuse to essentially do whatever the hell they want. even India is ready to invade Pakistan with the same reasoning... nuclear war here we come. thanks Dub-yah.

-jb

[kyoppolife]

another 12 year old boy killed, two palestinian cops killed, and another dude arrested for partying in his celebration of an islamic holiday.

fuck you israel.

--------------------



Three Palestinians Shot and Killed
12/17/2001 11:35 AM EST Email this Story


By GREG MYRE

Israeli troops shot and killed three Palestinians on Monday, and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat accused Israel of stepping up its military actions a day after he made a strong appeal for an end to the Mideast fighting.

Also Monday, Israeli police briefly detained Sari Nusseibeh - the Palestinians' chief envoy in the city they see as their capital and an advocate of peacemaking and nonviolence - while he was holding a Muslim holiday reception in Jerusalem.

Nusseibeh said the event was to mark the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr. But Israeli authorities said it violated peace agreements that prohibit the Palestinians from holding "nationalist" events in the disputed city.

In a shooting in Hebron, the Israeli forces attempted to arrest a member of the Hamas movement, Yacoub Aidkadik, 28, at his home, the army said. Aidkadik tried to flee, and soldiers told him to stop. He kept running and was shot dead, the army added.


"I am sorry to say that still the Israelis are escalating their military activities," Arafat said of the shooting. Asked if he viewed the Israeli action as a response to his speech, Arafat replied, "It looks like that."

In a second shooting, Israeli soldiers at a post fired on two plainclothes Palestinian policemen in an unmarked car near Nablus, killing one policeman and wounding the second, Palestinians said. An Israeli military source said only that the soldiers fired on two armed Palestinians.

In the Gaza Strip city of Khan Younis, Israeli soldiers shot and killed a 12-year-old boy, a Palestinian doctor said, adding that there were no clashes at the time. The Israeli military said it was checking the report.

Faced with repeated Israeli military raids and increasing diplomatic pressure from the West, Arafat delivered a televised address Sunday in which he demanded that Palestinian militants halt suicide bombings and all other "terrorist activity" against Israel. Arafat also said Palestinian police would arrest those who carry out attacks, and called for a quick resumption of peace talks.

"They were constructive words indeed but what's necessary now is for him to act on them," Ari Fleischer, President Bush's spokesman, said Monday in Washington.

The speech marked Arafat's strongest call yet for an end to the nearly 15 months of violence. In the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, militant Palestinian groups did not say whether they would abide by orders they have ignored in the past.

The leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, two groups that have claimed more than 30 suicide bombings during the current fighting, have gone underground in a bid to evade both Israeli and Palestinian security forces.

However, several Palestinian militants in exile in neighboring Lebanon said they rejected Arafat's call for a halt to suicide attacks.

"Nobody has the right to strip the Palestinian people of their natural right to self defense," said Abu Imad Rifai, a Beirut spokesman for Islamic Jihad.

Meanwhile, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said Arafat appeared serious. "We'll wait a few days to see what happens," Peres told army radio.

But Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's spokesman Raanan Gissin said the burden was on Arafat to act. "Don't make declarations. Start making arrests, start doing what you promised," Gissin said. "He has to dismantle the suicide bombers' assembly line."

Militants in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank appeared to challenge Arafat's calls.

A roadside bomb went off Monday near Nablus, but no one was hurt, the Israeli army said. Also, militants fired a mortar shell Sunday night at a Jewish settlement in the Gaza Strip, but no one was injured, Israel's army said.

In Jerusalem, meanwhile, Israeli police detained Nusseibeh, the Palestine Liberation Organization's representative to east Jerusalem, as he was greeting some 150 invited guests, including European diplomats, at the Imperial Hotel.

Nusseibeh, a philosophy professor known of his moderate views, was among six Palestinians detained for about two hours and then released. "It was an open reception and I would have welcomed all Israelis," Nusseibeh said upon his release.

Throughout the latest cycle of violence, Arafat has often been evasive when pressed about attacks by Palestinian militants. But faced with mounting pressure, he made an explicit call for an end to Palestinian attacks.

"I am reiterating my call for a comprehensive cessation to all the armed activities," Arafat said from his office in the West Bank city of Ramallah. "I call for a complete stop to all activities, especially the suicide attacks that we condemn always.

Arafat also noted that the Palestinian Authority had declared illegal groups "which are committing terrorist activities."

It was highly unusual for Arafat to refer to attacks by Palestinian militants as "terrorist activities" - it was believed to be the first time he has employed such language during the current uprising.

[perseus]

http://www.indymedia.org.il/imc/israel/webcast/11392.html
.
The final push to defeat the Palestinians
By Jeff Halper
.
.
The whirlwind unleashed on the Palestinians by the Israeli government following the Ze'evi assassination in October and now, in early December, on the heels of the suicide attacks in Jerusalem, Haifa, Afula and elsewhere, goes far beyond mere retaliation against terrorism. Viewed in the context of Bush's attempts to build a "coalition against terror," it is a last desperate effort to bring "industrial quiet" to what's been called the Second Front, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a precondition for building any sustained coalition that includes Arab and Muslim countries. This can be accomplished in one of two ways. Either a satisfactory political solution can be imposed on the parties with a lot of arm-twisting and sweetening, or the Palestinians can be made to submit to Israeli-American dictates.
.
The first, preferred by the Americans as a resolution of the conflict, have met fundamental obstacles on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. The Israelis steadfastly refuse to dismantle their occupation and relinquish control to a degree that would permit a viable and truly sovereign Palestinian state to emerge. For his part, Arafat has failed to produce a coherent program for negotiations, and has squandered the opportunity given him by the Intifada to reframe the negotiations in a more equitable way. Faced with a unfocused resistance movement with no political program and fueled by ever more violent attacks against Israeli civilian targets, the American government seems to have been persuaded by Sharon and Peres to choose the second option: defeating the Palestinians outright.
.
Given their tight time-line for coalition-building and military actions, the Americans are looking for a quick fix, a reasonable period of industrial quiet in the Middle East. Allowing themselves to be persuaded that Israel can bring the Palestinian Authority to its knees within a matter of weeks, thereby reopening the "peace process" on terms favorable to Israel, has its attractions. It is in keeping with the long-standing American bias strongly in favor of Israel, it avoids conflicts with a solidly pro-Israeli Congress (89 senators issued a letter recently warning Bush against compromising Israel's interests), and it can be "sold" as legitimate retaliation against "Palestinian terrorism" - thus legitimizing Sharon's attempts to link Arafat and the Palestinians integrally with Bin Laden and anti-American/anti-"civilization" world terrorism. Given the weak, almost incoherent, political position of the Palestinians, this option seems the most workable in the short run.
.
Sharon, then, has received a "green light" from Bush to bring quiet to the region through military means, to be followed (no hurry here) by negotiations that will give the Palestinians a mini-state while leaving Israel in control of the area between the Jordan River and the Mediteranean. (It was reported on the Channel One news on Friday night, December 7, that Sharon promised Bush not to kill or harm Arafat, to which Bush replied: "Just promise me you won't kill him.")
.
The strategy of Sharon, Peres and the others of the "National Unity" government has five main elements:
.
1. Massive military actions. Besiegement, military strikes against the fragile Palestinian infrastructure and assassinations of key political and resistance figures - the kind of attacks employing heavy American weapons we are witnessing now (early December) -- are fundamental to browbeating the Palestinians into submissiveness. But overt military actions must be carefully framed in order to maintain Israel's image as a mere peace-seeking "victim" and to avert attention from its ongoing, deepening and ever more brutal Occupation. Following violent acts against Israel, they are cast as part of a "war against terrorism," indeed as part of Israel's "natural right" to defend its people. Having removed the response from its political context - a struggle against an illegal occupation - Israel is then free to unleash its entire arsenal (nuclear aside) against whatever targets it wishes for as prolonged a period as it desires. Whatever we may think of Palestinian terrorism as a legitimate political and military tool, casting its military strikes as "retaliatory," justifying its massive destruction as part of a "war" with the Palestinians and concealing its Occupation allows Israel to engage in both political repression and state terrorism without being held accountable. Indeed, the entire chain of cause-and-effect is lost as Israel presents each Palestinian attack as a new and separate incident, divorced from the Occupation or previous Israel actions. The disproportionality of the attacks in October and December show clearly how specific incidents are used for far-reaching political and military gains.
.
2. A campaign of attrition. Certainly military attacks are part of an Israeli campaign of attrition designed to wear down Palestinian resistance over time. But long-term policies, less visible and less dramatic, are no less effective. House demolitions, land expropriation, permanent closure and prolonged curfews, restrictions on freedom of movement, induced impoverishment, economic warfare of various kinds (such as clearing agricultural fields, uprooting thousands of olive and fruit trees, prohibiting harvests, confiscating livestock and preventing the marketing of produce), "quiet" bureaucratic deportations and a dirty war employing collaborators - all these and more undermine the fabric of Palestinian society and weaken its ability to withstand the Occupation. The campaign is designed not only to break the will of the Palestinian people but to undermine its support for the Palestinian Authority, hopefully giving rise to a more compliant leadership.
.
3. Creating irreversible "facts" on the ground. The grand project of expanding Israel's control over the Occupied Territories, systematically pursued according to the "master plan" presented by Sharon to Begin in 1977, is nearing completion. The Mitchell Commission's recommendations that settlement construction be frozen, which the Palestinians and others seem to think will be effective in halting the Occupation, is already irrelevant. Israel has enough land and settlements already: 60% of the West Bank and another 60% of Gaza are firmly under its control. 400,000 settlers live in some 200 settlements across the "Green Line. Now its efforts are dedicated to completing the infrastructural work needed to consolidate its hold on the Territories. Almost unnoticed is the construction of 450 kilometers of highways and "by-pass" roads which link the settlements but create massive barriers to Palestinian movement. Since these major infrastructure projects have been agreed to - and funded -- by the Americans, they fall outside the Mitchell Committee's "freeze." They constitute the last key element in the Matrix of Control Israel has laid over the Occupied Territories, and bulldozers are working ceaselessly to complete the system.
.
4. Delaying tactics. Sharon's demand for "seven days of quiet" before implementing the Mitchell Report has already delayed the resumption of negotiations by months. Time and again "crises" are manufactured (often following unprovoked assassinations, house demolitions or other acts on the part of Israel), which that provide a pretext for not implementing agreements or restarting negotiations. Broad hints by Israeli political leaders that they will seek only long-term "interim agreements" rather than a final status settlement will leave Israel in de facto control of the Occupied Territories - or at least in control long enough to complete its irreversible Matrix of Control.
.
5. Delegitimizing the Palestinian Authority. Since September 11 the Israeli government has worked tirelessly to cast the Palestinian Authority as an integral part of "world terrorism." Sharon has called Arafat "our Bin Laden," and following the attacks in Jerusalem and Haifa the Israeli government officially labeled the Palestinian Authority as a "terror-sponsoring entity" - obviously hoping to impart to the Palestinians the same international delegitimacy attached to other recognized terrorist organizations.
.
This is the program that unites the broad coalition of Israel's National Unity government, from the Labor party on the "left" through the Likud, the religious and the parties of the extreme right. At its base lies the rock-bottom refusal to truly share the country with the Palestinians, in either one state or in two. Yet - and this is the catch -- Israel needs a Palestinian state to "relieve it" of the three and a half million Palestinians of the Occupied Territories it can neither absorb (giving citizenship to this population would nullify a Jewish-dominated state) nor control forever by force. While the Palestinians strive for political independence in a viable state alongside Israel, Israel is striving for what is calls "autonomy-plus/independence-minus," a kind of occupation-by-consent that leaves in it in control of the entire country yet rids it of the Palestinian population. This, in a nutshell, describes what the Oslo "peace process" was all about.
.
Since occupation-by-consent will not be willingly accepted by the Palestinians, but a just peace based on true Palestinian independence is unacceptable to Israel, Israel must force it upon the Palestinians. For Israel, too, the time-line is tight. Bush's green light is good for a couple weeks - perhaps somewhat longer if "justified" by further attacks on Israeli civilians - but it will eventually run into major obstacles: the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee and CIA chief Tenet which await implementation, General Zinni's mission to achieve a cease-fire, and the overarching need to sustain a coalition including the Arab and Muslim countries. Hence the ferocity of Israel's attacks, the final push to defeat the Palestinians once and for all.
.
It is one minute to midnight. Already Israel has largely completed its physical incorporation of the West Bank into Israel proper, foreclosing any possibility of a viable Palestinian state. If the current campaign of repression succeeds, occupation will be followed by the creation of a dependent Palestinian mini-state - a permanent occupation-by-consent not of the Palestinians, but of the US and a compliant Europe. These are the fateful days of reckoning: a just peace based on two viable and sovereign states, or the emergence of a Palestinian bantustan under Israeli control, a new apartheid.
.
(Jeff Halper is the Coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD). He can be reached at icahd@zahav.net.il)

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/cat/mayday/reedus/pics/prada/coatall.jpg

http://pobox.upenn.edu/~davidtoc/images/ck.first.jpg

http://www.ucad.fr/pubgb/virt/mp/benetton/graphics/benettondia15.jpg

[perseus]

http://www.modaldub.net/images/spoof/coatall_mod.jpg

Hahah...
Yikes. No wonder you haven't responded in a while. How long did it take for you to do that?

You see. The problem is that in order to subvert the ads, you need to use them.

http://www.stateofisrael.com/Israeli%20Flag.gif

http://www.partner.org.il/tzahar/lynn/113_12.jpg

http://learn.union-psce.edu/travelseminar/images/Trip%20Images/May%2019%20Photos/c/A%20tattered%20Israeli%20flag%20at%20Masada.jpg

http://www.charleslipson.com/Images/flag-Israel.jpg

http://image.pathfinder.com/time/daily/2001/0101/flag0108.jpg

[perseus]

http://www.modaldub.net/images/spoof/Israeli-Flag_mod.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9804/29/israel.update/flag.jpg

[perseus]

"Every Israeli town or village once had an Arab name." - Moshe Dayan

http://www.modaldub.net/images/spoof/young-girl2_mod.jpg

http://www.rts.squat.net/interact/diy/vorlagen/progress.jpg

[perseus]

wow, i like that "Progress?" one too! what's going on here? you turning commie pinko anarchist on me sol? hehe ;)

isnt that an adbusters img? i've seen that all over the place, even multiple takes on the sys crash dialogue for all sorts of images...

-jb

puh-lease.

And I don't see any comments asking me why, after posting many arguments against Israel, all of a sudden th Israeli flag popped up...

But I figured you know the answer to this.

As for the image, yes, it is from an Adbuster's source.

[Sleepy Introvert Ninja]

http://www.dskdmskf.com/fdimf.gifhttp://www.dskdmskf.com/fdimf.gifhttp://www.dskdmskf.com/fdimf.gif
http://www.dskdmskf.com/fdimf.gifhttp://www.dskdmskf.com/fdimf.gif
http://www.dskdmskf.com/fdimf.gif

[perseus]

Originally posted by Solipsism
I don't see any comments asking me why, after posting many arguments against Israel, all of a sudden th Israeli flag popped up...

But I figured you know the answer to this.

well, i figure it's one or all of the following reasons:

1.) just to piss me off

2.) irony

3.) to continue your earlier point that you thought i was 'diluting' the Prada store thread with talk of the Society of the Spectacle

or, perhaps

4.) you are answering the question (over and over) posed by the title of this thread

-jb

Indeed.

but "just" is too light a word and suggests a randomness and casualness I assure you is not the case.

[Edited by Solipsism on 12-17-2001 at 11:36 PM]

[perseus]

Originally posted by Solipsism
Indeed.

but "just" is too light a word and suggests a randomness and casualness I assure you is not the case.

[Edited by Solipsism on 12-17-2001 at 11:36 PM]

i meant the "just" to suggest a shallow pettiness, if that was indeed your only motive for that particular image. you will note that the images i posted, while partially, and in somewhat good humor i thought, intended to piss You off, were not solely designed for that effect, or even substantially, but rather to express an opinion i had about the issue.

-jb

[Asharak]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/211.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/isr11.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/Israeli_soldier1.jpg

[angrykitty]

it occured to me the other day, that it's ironic that out of all the middle eastern countries, the US gives the most support to the only country with no oil.

[djbadmonkey]

Originally posted by Den
Originally posted by kyoppolife
another good author and renowned journalist to check out on the arab-israeli conflict is reporter robert fisk. i can't believe i forgot to mention him.

as far as arab attacks on israel, again, you have to realize that israelis invaded palestine and took it from the native people there. kicked people out of their homes and created an instant refugee crisis. americans have america. swedes have sweden. chinese have china. how is it that there is a nation of people called palestinians, yet there is no country called palestine? the only other groups i can think of that can relate to this dynamic are the kurds and the indigenous people of america and australia.

as far as the comparison to nazis, i think its fair to compare their tactics. curfews, id cards, random stops and harassment from police and military, denial of basic rights, violence, murder, rape, torture, all mostly state sanctioned.


Israel didn't invade Palestine. The state of Israel was sanctioned by the United Nations (not guilt ridden Brits).
Israel was a poor pathetic nation of immigrants struggling to survive until 5 arab nations decided to beat down on them.
But what happend was that the fledging Israeli nation kicked their ass. The Arabs kept invading (averaging two invasions of Israel per decade) outnumbering the beleagured Israel 10 to one and they still won gaining more territory along the way.

And if you want to talk about ancestral homelands doesn't Israeli have a 3000 year old stake in that land predating the Palestinians (and Islam as a whole) by a millenia?



[Edited by Den on 12-07-2001 at 12:29 AM]

israel did overcome some crazy odds in the early days. that's fine. but that doesn't mean they can blow up whoever they want and have the support of the world community for doing it. "fighting terrorism" my ass. it's a military campaign, either for vengeance or dominance or annexation purposes, and it should be now called a war.

israel has no more claim to the land than the palestinians. isaac and ishmael were brothers, and ishmael actually the senior. so in terms of primogeniture, it's ishmael's land. but that's besides the point because there will be no peace in that region, ever.

until one side is dead, or both, there will always be war, thanks to asshole warhawk fuckers like ariel sharon, and crackpots like hamas. i say we give em ALL guns (not just israel) and watch em slaughter each other.

i really want to have faith in the human spirit, and hope for the human condition. but we're a stupid animal, and i think we're doomed. jesus is a comin' jesus is a comin.

there is no right and wrong in this. it's all fucked up. but being me, israel can kiss my ass because they don't fight the fair fight--at least suicide bombers put their own lives on the line, israeli retaliations are, how do you say, ah yes, cowardly. this latest series of events has caused me to lose all respect for israel--almost to the level of loathing and detest.

djbm

Originally posted by Solipsism
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Den
[QUOTE]Israel didn't invade Palestine. The state of Israel was sanctioned by the United Nations (not guilt ridden Brits).

Israel was a poor pathetic nation of immigrants struggling to survive until 5 arab nations decided to beat down on them.
But what happend was that the fledging Israeli nation kicked their ass. The Arabs kept invading (averaging two invasions of Israel per decade) outnumbering the beleagured Israel 10 to one and they still won gaining more territory along the way.

And if you want to talk about ancestral homelands doesn't Israeli have a 3000 year old stake in that land predating the Palestinians (and Islam as a whole) by a millenia?[QUOTE]

That's right. Israel didn't invade Palestine. There was NO Israel to invade from. It was ALL Palestine. Israel was declared after the Brits moved out. Not by the UN. The European Jews formed independence without UN agreement. It was the fact that the US, holding a mighty seat on the UN, in recognizing Israel that Israel as a state even got acknowledgement from the UN.

That fledgling little nation received major military equipment and support from er...the US, perhaps? If it wasn't for the US, do you really think that Israel would have a chance? US involvement is everywhere. Do you think Kuwait would be Kuwait without the US? Do you think Taiwan could hold out against a 5 billion strong Communist nation without US military aid? How naive...

As for ancestral homelands...that is the VERY claim and justification that the Europeans used when they launched the Crusades in the 11th century. What a folly. It is also the same reason that the European Jews formed the "Zionist" movement. They weren't from Palestine. They were from Europe. Looking at someone else's land as theirs.



I thought this was settled.

[ocd]

I don't rememberÐ
Did you correct "Who's the Real Terrorists Now"
to be "Who are the Real Terrorists Now"?

[neku74]

Originally posted by ocd
I don't rememberÐ
Did you correct "Who's the Real Terrorists Now"
to be "Who are the Real Terrorists Now"?

LOL
actually, your sentence should read, "Did you correct "Who's the Real Terrorists Now" to "Who are the Real Terrorists Now"?" (no need for the infinitive "to be").

[ocd]

Originally posted by neku74
Originally posted by ocd
I don't rememberÐ
Did you correct "Who's the Real Terrorists Now"
to be "Who are the Real Terrorists Now"?

LOL
actually, your sentence should read, "Did you correct "Who's the Real Terrorists Now" to "Who are the Real Terrorists Now"?" (no need for the infinitive "to be").
Damn. Sorry.

[djbadmonkey]

Originally posted by Den
Originally posted by djbadmonkey

but being me, israel can kiss my ass because they don't fight the fair fight--at least suicide bombers put their own lives on the line, israeli retaliations are, how do you say, ah yes, cowardly.
djbm


Fair Fight. Yes I agree. I propose a Mortal Kombat Tournament.

The ten greatest fighters of Israel fight the ten greatest fighters of Palestine. Each one w/ have their own fighting style and special moves and combos.

We could even hire that old Chinese guy in Big Trouble in Little China to play Shang Tsung. At the end of each match Shang Tsung would yell "Finish him!" and the fighter would have to perform a fatality.

The last "Hamas" or "Israeli Commando" standing wouldn't be the winner either.
He would have to face Goro, Kintauro, an unnamed hidden character, Shang Tsung, and finally Shao Khan in sequential order.

The winner would be given a championship belt and their respective people will get to hold Israel w/ Jerusalem as its capitol.



or we can do this without death and have arafat and sharon play "mook jee ppah" to settle this one.

no mortal kombat format...use streetfighter 2. it's more fluid gameplay.

djbm

Originally posted by djbadmonkey

but being me, israel can kiss my ass because they don't fight the fair fight--at least suicide bombers put their own lives on the line, israeli retaliations are, how do you say, ah yes, cowardly.
djbm


Susan Sontag made a similar remark in her New Yorker response about the Sept 11th attack. It outraged a lot of people and sparked a controversy.

I admire her opinions, but I am apt to agree with Hitchens on this particular topic. As the New York Observer noted recently: "Hitchens...by challenging the Left to recognize the terrorists not as somewhat misguided spokesmen for the wretched of the earth, but as 'Islamo-fascists'—theocratic oppressors of the wretched of the earth." In that he challenges directly the Chomskyites that would say otherwise.

I present the article for your consideration:

Susan Sontag, The New Yorker, September 24, 2001


The disconnect between last Tuesday's monstrous dose of reality and the self-righteous drivel and outright deceptions being peddled by public figures and TV commentators is startling, depressing.. The voices licensed to follow the event seem to have joined together in a campaign to infantilize the public.. Where is the acknowledgement that this was not a "cowardly" attack on "civilization" or "liberty" or "humanity" or "the free world" but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed super-power, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions?. How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq?. And if the word "cowardly" is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others.. In the matter of courage (a morally neutralvirtue): whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards. ...

Our leaders are bent on convincing us that everything is O.K. America is not afraid.. Our spirit is unbroken, although this was a day that will live in infamy and America is now at war.. But everything is not O.K.. And this was not Pearl Harbor.. We have a robotic president who assures us that America stands tall.. A wide spectrum of public figures, in and out of office, who are strongly opposed to the policies being pursued abroad by this Administration apparently feel free to say nothing more than that they stand united behind President Bush.. A lot of thinking needs to be done, and perhaps is being done in Washington and elsewhere, about the ineptitude of American intelligence and counter-intelligence, about options available to American foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, and about what constitutes a smart program of military defense.. But the public is not being asked to bear much of the burden of reality.. The unanimously applauded, self-congratulatory bromides of a Soviet Party Congress seemed contemptible.. The unanimity of the sanctimonious, reality-concealing rhetoric spouted by American officials and media commentators in recent days seems, well, unworthy of a mature democracy. ...

Those in public office have let us know that they consider their task to be a manipulative one: confidence-building and grief management.. Politics, the politics of a democracy--which entails disagreement, which promotes candor--has been replaced by psychotherapy.. Let's by all means grieve together.. But let's not be stupid together.. A few shreds of historical awareness might help us to understand what has just happened, and what may continue to happen.. "Our country is strong", we are told again and again. I for one don't find this entirely consoling.. Who doubts that America is strong?. But that's not all America has to be.


[Edited by Solipsism on 01-18-2002 at 02:54 AM]

[djbadmonkey]

Originally posted by Solipsism
Originally posted by djbadmonkey

but being me, israel can kiss my ass because they don't fight the fair fight--at least suicide bombers put their own lives on the line, israeli retaliations are, how do you say, ah yes, cowardly.
djbm


Susan Sontag made a similar remark in her New Yorker response about the Sept 11th attack. It outraged a lot of people and sparked a controversy.

I admire her opinions, but I am apt to agree with Hitchens on this particular topic. As the New York Observer noted recently: "Hitchens...by challenging the Left to recognize the terrorists not as somewhat misguided spokesmen for the wretched of the earth, but as 'Islamo-fascists'—theocratic oppressors of the wretched of the earth." In that he challenges directly the Chomskyites that would say otherwise.

I present the article for your consideration:

Susan Sontag, The New Yorker, September 24, 2001


The disconnect between last Tuesday's monstrous dose of reality and the self-righteous drivel and outright deceptions being peddled by public figures and TV commentators is startling, depressing.. The voices licensed to follow the event seem to have joined together in a campaign to infantilize the public.. Where is the acknowledgement that this was not a "cowardly" attack on "civilization" or "liberty" or "humanity" or "the free world" but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed super-power, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions?. How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq?. And if the word "cowardly" is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others.. In the matter of courage (a morally neutralvirtue): whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards. ...

Our leaders are bent on convincing us that everything is O.K. America is not afraid.. Our spirit is unbroken, although this was a day that will live in infamy and America is now at war.. But everything is not O.K.. And this was not Pearl Harbor.. We have a robotic president who assures us that America stands tall.. A wide spectrum of public figures, in and out of office, who are strongly opposed to the policies being pursued abroad by this Administration apparently feel free to say nothing more than that they stand united behind President Bush.. A lot of thinking needs to be done, and perhaps is being done in Washington and elsewhere, about the ineptitude of American intelligence and counter-intelligence, about options available to American foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, and about what constitutes a smart program of military defense.. But the public is not being asked to bear much of the burden of reality.. The unanimously applauded, self-congratulatory bromides of a Soviet Party Congress seemed contemptible.. The unanimity of the sanctimonious, reality-concealing rhetoric spouted by American officials and media commentators in recent days seems, well, unworthy of a mature democracy. ...

Those in public office have let us know that they consider their task to be a manipulative one: confidence-building and grief management.. Politics, the politics of a democracy--which entails disagreement, which promotes candor--has been replaced by psychotherapy.. Let's by all means grieve together.. But let's not be stupid together.. A few shreds of historical awareness might help us to understand what has just happened, and what may continue to happen.. "Our country is strong", we are told again and again. I for one don't find this entirely consoling.. Who doubts that America is strong?. But that's not all America has to be.


[Edited by Solipsism on 01-18-2002 at 02:54 AM]

thank you for posting that article. it expresses a very important point that i would like to here emphasize:

what happened on 9-11 was terrible. that's a given. and somehting like that should never happen--but it does. but instead of considering the tragedy an unprovoked attack, it ought to be considered a consequence of american foriegn policy in the middle east. granted, it's hard to keep one's hands clean in the arena of int'l politics, that i understand...but it's also possible to not get them so damn bloody. i understand our interests in the middle east are important, from an energy standpoint, and being that i drive a car, and use a variety of petroleum products every single day, i know that it's necessary to do so. but where i get confused is when we feign neutraility and attempt to "broker peace" in the region when we know that israel is our little underboss out there, and judging by the amount of weaponry we give them, there is no way we can claim to be neutral in all of this.

and all of our work in attempting to influence the region, in so far as the CIA's work to destabilize governments, not only in the middle east, but around the world, esp in latin america (that whole monroe-truman doctrine concept) which isn't as prevalent anymore now that the cold war has ended, but the effects which we see every day, it's no wonder that people hate the US. that sentence is a grammatical nightmare.

i'm still drunk.

djbm

[vegAsian]

How bout they have a Bust A Groove or DDR challenge?

And the loser could dance their way off to another nation?

I must admit, Street Fighter has wayyyyyy more fluidity.
But you'd have to stick with SSF2 or SSF2T.

Susan Sontag doing a flaming Dragon Punch?
What's the joystick/buttong combo again?

[djbadmonkey]

Originally posted by Solipsism
Susan Sontag doing a flaming Dragon Punch?
What's the joystick/buttong combo again?

down, right, punch.

haryuken!
djbm

[kyoppolife]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/01/19/mideast/

how is it that there is not widespread u.s. condemnation of such blatantly fascist attacks against the palestinians by suppressing a free and critical media? i mean come on, blowing up their radio station for criticizing israel's oppression of the palestinians?

hitler would be proud. fuck you israel.

[Asharak]

Originally posted by kyoppolife
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/01/19/mideast/

how is it that there is not widespread u.s. condemnation of such blatantly fascist attacks against the palestinians by suppressing a free and critical media? i mean come on, blowing up their radio station for criticizing israel's oppression of the palestinians?

hitler would be proud. fuck you israel.

What's to be expected from a country which backed South Africa's apartheid regime?

Here's some more URL's...

http://www.counterpunch.org/rafah1.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/saidtruths.html

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/16/110443.shtml


[Edited by Waco Jesus on 01-19-2002 at 11:05 PM]

[vegAsian]

Originally posted by kyoppolife
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/01/19/mideast/

how is it that there is not widespread u.s. condemnation of such blatantly fascist attacks against the palestinians by suppressing a free and critical media? i mean come on, blowing up their radio station for criticizing israel's oppression of the palestinians?

hitler would be proud. fuck you israel.

I know what you're saying too.

and a big fuck to the U.

****Graphic Image. WARNING****











































Lebanon-Qana 1996, sources indicate that this was a photo taken of an infant casualty as a result of indiscriminate bombing Israeli campaigns.

http://www.soundofegypt.com/palestinian/adult/images/IS9.jpg

[whiteywillpay]

Anyone find it pretty damn fookin' hypocritical that the US and Israel call arms shipments to the PLA an act of terrorism, while the US subsidies that go into arming the Israelies with F-15s and and Tomahawk cruise missiles are benignly labeled strategic cooperation?

Pretty fookin' bullshit.

As far as I'm concerned, terrorism really is the only real weapon that the PLA has. Without it, they would have had to endure a permenant diasporora into the middle east just like the Jews 2000 years ago. At least this way they have a bargaining chip on the board.

I mean, if Goliath wants to stop fighting with David, it's Goliath who should disarm first - as the strategic balance of power is obviously on the side of Goliath, and therefore the burden of any peace initiative automatically falls on his shoulders.

[Asharak]

It's amusing how the Bible-toting dispensationalists on the Christian Right believe that Israel should be able to do what it wants with impunity because the Jews are God's chosen people and the establishment the state of Israel supposedly fulfills Biblical prophecy. Perhaps they overlooked the sections in the Bible which tell how Israel has had its proverbial ups and downs throughout history. When the country became corrupt, it was cursed and its people went into captivity and/or were scattered. When it acted righteously, it prospered and was blessed. Central to these blessings and curses was how Israel interacted with its citizens and other nations. God has always held His chosen people to a higher degree of scrutiny than the Gentiles. Presently, Israel has not been acting righteously in how it treats its own citizens and those of other nations, and now they are being met with turmoil as a result. The U.S. should not be taking any sides in a conflict like this. If they are truly "God's chosen", then let the people of Israel pray to God to help them overcome their enemies.

[Edited by Waco Jesus on 01-26-2002 at 05:45 PM]

[Asharak]

Yes, but I also remember a lot of what I learned in Sunday School. Not to mention that I believe one's own bad karma will eventually destroy them.

[perseus]

*** death to Israel's Zionist terrorists!

[Asharak]

Originally posted by whiteywillpay
Anyone find it pretty damn fookin' hypocritical that the US and Israel call arms shipments to the PLA an act of terrorism, while the US subsidies that go into arming the Israelies with F-15s and and Tomahawk cruise missiles are benignly labeled strategic cooperation?

Pretty fookin' bullshit.

As far as I'm concerned, terrorism really is the only real weapon that the PLA has. Without it, they would have had to endure a permenant diasporora into the middle east just like the Jews 2000 years ago. At least this way they have a bargaining chip on the board.

I mean, if Goliath wants to stop fighting with David, it's Goliath who should disarm first - as the strategic balance of power is obviously on the side of Goliath, and therefore the burden of any peace initiative automatically falls on his shoulders.



Agreed, but nonviolent resistance isn't always a bad thing either. As deplorable as the Israeli government's human rights abuses are, the Palestinians are not going to win much sympathy when Hamas terrorists continue to blow themselves up along several other Israeli cilivians. Take the Northern Ireland situation, for example. I sympathize with the Irish Republican cause, but I still believe there's no excuse for an IRA splinter group to set off a car comb on a busy Omagh street. I know it's probably not the same thing, but I hope you see my point. Maybe we will see a Palestinian version of Martin Luther King some day, I don't know.

[Edited by Waco Jesus on 01-29-2002 at 12:44 PM]

[chairmynmeow]

Originally posted by Waco Jesus
Originally posted by whiteywillpay
Anyone find it pretty damn fookin' hypocritical that the US and Israel call arms shipments to the PLA an act of terrorism, while the US subsidies that go into arming the Israelies with F-15s and and Tomahawk cruise missiles are benignly labeled strategic cooperation?

Pretty fookin' bullshit.

As far as I'm concerned, terrorism really is the only real weapon that the PLA has. Without it, they would have had to endure a permenant diasporora into the middle east just like the Jews 2000 years ago. At least this way they have a bargaining chip on the board.

I mean, if Goliath wants to stop fighting with David, it's Goliath who should disarm first - as the strategic balance of power is obviously on the side of Goliath, and therefore the burden of any peace initiative automatically falls on his shoulders.



I mostly agree, but nonviolent resistance isn't always a bad thing either. As deplorable as the Israeli government's human rights abuses are, the Palestinians are not going to win much sympathy when Hamas terrorists continue to blow themselves up along several other Israeli cilivians. Take the Northern Ireland situation, for example. I sympathize with the Irish Republican cause, but I still believe there's no excuse for an IRA splinter group to set off a car comb on a busy Omagh street. I know it's probably not the same thing, but I hope you see my point. Maybe we will see a Palestinian version of Martin Luther King some day, I don't know.

The Palestinians won't get anywhere with this until they perfect the technique of cloning suicide bompbers.

[Old_Skool_Yukio_Mishima]

This thread is up for possible investigation by the ADL.

[chairmynmeow]

"I'm surfing the net!" Homer Simpson.

[Asharak]

Originally posted by Old_Skool_Yukio_Mishima
This thread is up for possible investigation by the ADL.

http://www.adlwatch.org/

[perseus]

Originally posted by Waco Jesus
Originally posted by Old_Skool_Yukio_Mishima
This thread is up for possible investigation by the ADL.

http://www.adlwatch.org/


excellent link on the ADL. what a bunch of Zionist jerks they sound like.

how come there are a ton of right-wing militia-type groups, death-squads, etc., all over the world, but almost no left-wing or socialist ones? in Brazil there is one that just assinated some mayors for going more centrist i guess... when i worked in NYC in 1990 stuffing envelopes for the Union for Progressive Judaism, they had tight security all over the place - not to guard against Palestinians, but against right-wing Jewish (Zionist) groups. the biggest dangers to liberal Jews come from other, more conservative, Jews. i thought that was pretty revealing of a police state. i think America is going that way too actually - look at the threats people get for criticizing "America's New War" as the news/propaganda stations call it. frankly, being an American leftist, i am more scared of violence from other Americans than Al Queda or any foreign "terrorist".

they have some great communist/socialist traditions in Jewish history (i.e, kibbutzes), i just hope the thinking people in Israel can rise up and get behind those traditions and overcome the Zionist/fascist pressures facing them.

[angrykitty]

Originally posted by perseus
how come there are a ton of right-wing militia-type groups, death-squads, etc., all over the world, but almost no left-wing or socialist ones

Islamic Jihad

Greece, Revolutionary Cells

Algeria, Islamic militants

Columbia, Left-wing rebels

Lebanon, Hezbollah

Anarchists

Israel, Hamas

USA, Earth Liberation Front

India, People's War Group

South Africa, Muslims Against Global Oppression

Colombia, Popular Liberation Forces







[Edited by angrykitty on 01-29-2002 at 10:42 PM]

[Asharak]

You forgot about The Weathermen.

[Asharak]

Originally posted by perseus
Originally posted by Waco Jesus
Originally posted by Old_Skool_Yukio_Mishima
This thread is up for possible investigation by the ADL.

http://www.adlwatch.org/


excellent link on the ADL. what a bunch of Zionist jerks they sound like.

how come there are a ton of right-wing militia-type groups, death-squads, etc., all over the world, but almost no left-wing or socialist ones? in Brazil there is one that just assinated some mayors for going more centrist i guess... when i worked in NYC in 1990 stuffing envelopes for the Union for Progressive Judaism, they had tight security all over the place - not to guard against Palestinians, but against right-wing Jewish (Zionist) groups. the biggest dangers to liberal Jews come from other, more conservative, Jews. i thought that was pretty revealing of a police state. i think America is going that way too actually - look at the threats people get for criticizing "America's New War" as the news/propaganda stations call it. frankly, being an American leftist, i am more scared of violence from other Americans than Al Queda or any foreign "terrorist".

they have some great communist/socialist traditions in Jewish history (i.e, kibbutzes), i just hope the thinking people in Israel can rise up and get behind those traditions and overcome the Zionist/fascist pressures facing them.


Glad you liked the link. Here's some more good columns on Israel:

http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h-col.html

Hell's Angels

[l-train8]

Well now, it sucks that Israel is killing Palestinian civilians, but just how else exactly are they supposed to fight a war when the Palestinian terrorists are hiding behind the civilians.

Their children are getting blown up in the streets, but they shouldn't shoot back, because the Palestinians are hiding behind their own children? That is a hard choice, but in the end, I'd opt for protecting myself.

Israel just intercepted a huge shipment of weapons that appears to have been ordered by the supposedly-working-for-peace Palastinian Authority. There can be no doubt that Israel is at war, and with a fairly cowardly enemy. Now, as has been said in this thread, this kind of terrorist/guerilla warfare is the only option for the Palastinians, as they are horribly oppressed and can't exactly roll into Jerusalum in tanks. But by choosing to attack in this way, they are inviting the kind of retaliation they are getting.

Where is the Palastinian Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr.? The Palastinian population in Israel is about equal in numbers to the Jewish population, and it's growing. Civil disobediance could be a peaceful alternative to terrorism, and it could be very effective.

Just a different view on the subject.

[perseus]

Originally posted by angrykitty
Originally posted by perseus
how come there are a ton of right-wing militia-type groups, death-squads, etc., all over the world, but almost no left-wing or socialist ones

Islamic Jihad

Greece, Revolutionary Cells

Algeria, Islamic militants

Columbia, Left-wing rebels

Lebanon, Hezbollah

Anarchists

Israel, Hamas

USA, Earth Liberation Front

India, People's War Group

South Africa, Muslims Against Global Oppression

Colombia, Popular Liberation Forces

[Edited by angrykitty on 01-29-2002 at 10:42 PM]

well, i take your point with this list, but i dont think these are all left-wing/socialist groups...

[perseus]

Originally posted by l-train8
Well now, it sucks that Israel is killing Palestinian civilians, but just how else exactly are they supposed to fight a war when the Palestinian terrorists are hiding behind the civilians.

Their children are getting blown up in the streets, but they shouldn't shoot back, because the Palestinians are hiding behind their own children? That is a hard choice, but in the end, I'd opt for protecting myself.

Israel just intercepted a huge shipment of weapons that appears to have been ordered by the supposedly-working-for-peace Palastinian Authority. There can be no doubt that Israel is at war, and with a fairly cowardly enemy. Now, as has been said in this thread, this kind of terrorist/guerilla warfare is the only option for the Palastinians, as they are horribly oppressed and can't exactly roll into Jerusalum in tanks. But by choosing to attack in this way, they are inviting the kind of retaliation they are getting.

Where is the Palastinian Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr.? The Palastinian population in Israel is about equal in numbers to the Jewish population, and it's growing. Civil disobediance could be a peaceful alternative to terrorism, and it could be very effective.

Just a different view on the subject.


when foreigners invade your country and go house-to-house murdering everyone barbarically (Night of the Long Knives i think they called it later, and that's just one of many such events), then proceed to rename all your towns with Jewish names and force your friends and families onto smaller and smaller plots of land, i think nicities like civil disobedience cant really be expected to work. in more recent times, Jewish Israeli citizens DO use civil disobedience sometimes to make their views known, but it isnt reported much in the US media. from what i have seen the US media is much worse than even the Israeli media for showing a spectrum of what people are actually feeling about the situation. thus, we end up with the sad situation of ignorant, militant Zionists in the US, who have never even been to Israel and have no conception of the areas history or how people, Israelis and Palestinians, living there today actually feel.

personally, i think Israel is a great example of why religion and government should not be mixed. admitedly, most of the nearby countries have similar theocracies, but at least they didnt invade 50 years ago and forcibly displace the locals. Israel has always been a nexus for Christianity, Judaism and Islam, so it seems a natural place for a non-religious democratic government, with equal participation from everyone living within the borders. the current situation is espescially shocking i think given the persecution of the Jews during WWII and the subsequent PR bonaza made out of such discrimination - now the Israelis are taking their turn practicing a horrible form of apartheid and fatal discrimination. how can they not see the similarities? some Zionists want to "relocate" the Palestinians out of the area altogether! i wonder if they will use cattle trains similar to the ones the Nazis used?

[vegAsian]

Originally posted by perseus
[QUOTE]Originally posted by l-train8
[B]...personally, i think Israel is a great example of why religion and government should not be mixed.

but thier religion also defines their culture...
Judaism is not just a religion, its an ethnicty.

If they did use nazi tactics... I would be saddened...
and i do not think that will happen.

[djbadmonkey]

Originally posted by l-train8
Well now, it sucks that Israel is killing Palestinian civilians, but just how else exactly are they supposed to fight a war when the Palestinian terrorists are hiding behind the civilians.

Their children are getting blown up in the streets, but they shouldn't shoot back, because the Palestinians are hiding behind their own children? That is a hard choice, but in the end, I'd opt for protecting myself.

Israel just intercepted a huge shipment of weapons that appears to have been ordered by the supposedly-working-for-peace Palastinian Authority. There can be no doubt that Israel is at war, and with a fairly cowardly enemy. Now, as has been said in this thread, this kind of terrorist/guerilla warfare is the only option for the Palastinians, as they are horribly oppressed and can't exactly roll into Jerusalum in tanks. But by choosing to attack in this way, they are inviting the kind of retaliation they are getting.

Where is the Palastinian Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr.? The Palastinian population in Israel is about equal in numbers to the Jewish population, and it's growing. Civil disobediance could be a peaceful alternative to terrorism, and it could be very effective.

Just a different view on the subject.

somehow i think civil disobedience on the part of the palestinians would result in easier targets for israeli machine guns.

djbm

[perseus]

Originally posted by vegAsian
Originally posted by perseus
[QUOTE]Originally posted by l-train8
[B]...personally, i think Israel is a great example of why religion and government should not be mixed.

but thier religion also defines their culture...
Judaism is not just a religion, its an ethnicty.

If they did use nazi tactics... I would be saddened...
and i do not think that will happen.

i think they are much more advanced than the nazis were in many ways... also, i think their ethnicity is semitic, and Judaism is a religion and not an ethnicity.

[Asharak]

Originally posted by djbadmonkey


somehow i think civil disobedience on the part of the palestinians would result in easier targets for israeli machine guns.

djbm

Perhaps, but I don't think so. In fact, it might force the Israeli military/government apparatus to be pretty damned cautious, especially in the presence of international news cameras. One thing Israel has always counted on in its favor is retaliatory violence from the Palestinians, and shooting at unarmed, nonviolent protesters could definitely change people's minds if they saw it on CNN. Remember the outcry that resulted from the unarmed Palestinian man and his son who were riddled with bullets while trying to hide from a gun battle? I seriously doubt that Ariel Sharon could write off mowing down peaceful marchers as necessary for Israel's security.

[Edited by Waco Jesus on 02-04-2002 at 01:16 AM]

[Asharak]

Um, wait, on second thought, maybe they could. The British government sure as hell were able to do it. Oh well.

[djbadmonkey]

Originally posted by Waco Jesus
Originally posted by djbadmonkey


somehow i think civil disobedience on the part of the palestinians would result in easier targets for israeli machine guns.

djbm

Perhaps, but I don't think so. In fact, it might force the Israeli military/government apparatus to be pretty damned cautious, especially in the presence of international news cameras. One thing Israel has always counted on in its favor is retaliatory violence from the Palestinians, and shooting at unarmed, nonviolent protesters could definitely change people's minds if they saw it on CNN. Remember the outcry that resulted from the unarmed Palestinian man and his son who were riddled with bullets while trying to hide from a gun battle? I seriously doubt that Ariel Sharon could write off mowing down peaceful marchers as necessary for Israel's security.

[Edited by Waco Jesus on 02-04-2002 at 01:16 AM]

it is a good point, and i like the idea of non-violent demonstration--but it has it's limitations. and i also think that sharon isn't afraid of the blowback. i read a quote of his, maybe on this thread i can't remember that was something like "america? don't worry about america, the jews control america."

and i'm sure england and france and the rest of europe already finds israeli "counter-terrorism" despicable.

i think sharon is right: israeli troops could slaughter palestinians, make 90' monuments with the dismembered limbs, and dance around it burning books, and the US news media would probably condemn palestinians for making such a mess with their blood and guts.

djbm

[l-train8]

Originally posted by djbadmonkey
[QUOTE]i read a quote of his, maybe on this thread i can't remember that was something like "america? don't worry about america, the jews control america."

i think sharon is right: israeli troops could slaughter palestinians, make 90' monuments with the dismembered limbs, and dance around it burning books, and the US news media would probably condemn palestinians for making such a mess with their blood and guts.

djbm

That's an interesting quote, but it makes some wrong assumptions. It would be more accurate to say "In America, the Jews control US/Israeli foreign policy." And, this thread notwithstanding, is because most americans don't care about Israel or Palestine.

It's like the whole Elian Gonzales thing. 99% of americans thought it was a no-brainer that Elian should be returned to his father in Cuba. But a small, militant Cuban minority in Florida has enormous power over US/Cuban foreign policy. Mainly because no one else cares.

But when these obscure issues are somehow brought into daylight, I think it's a different story. If Israel were to pursue it's violent policies when there were no suicide bombers killing Israeli civilians, and no massive arms shipments of mortars and sniper rifles being intercepted, and there were some galvanizing incident that drummed up publicity, I think that most people in america would take notice, and policy would change. As it is, Israel can justify its excesses by pointing to the violence of Palestinians, and non-Jews in the US throw up there hands and say, "the Middle East is just a quagmire. It can never be fixed."

[angrykitty]

i read an article in the LA sunday times about a group of isreali soldiers, about a hundred of them, that were going on protest because they thought what they were doing in palestine was immoral.

the isreali government wants to persecute these guys for treason.

it made me think, these are some brave guys...

[djbadmonkey]

Originally posted by l-train8
Originally posted by djbadmonkey
[QUOTE]i read a quote of his, maybe on this thread i can't remember that was something like "america? don't worry about america, the jews control america."

i think sharon is right: israeli troops could slaughter palestinians, make 90' monuments with the dismembered limbs, and dance around it burning books, and the US news media would probably condemn palestinians for making such a mess with their blood and guts.

djbm

That's an interesting quote, but it makes some wrong assumptions. It would be more accurate to say "In America, the Jews control US/Israeli foreign policy." And, this thread notwithstanding, is because most americans don't care about Israel or Palestine.

It's like the whole Elian Gonzales thing. 99% of americans thought it was a no-brainer that Elian should be returned to his father in Cuba. But a small, militant Cuban minority in Florida has enormous power over US/Cuban foreign policy. Mainly because no one else cares.

But when these obscure issues are somehow brought into daylight, I think it's a different story. If Israel were to pursue it's violent policies when there were no suicide bombers killing Israeli civilians, and no massive arms shipments of mortars and sniper rifles being intercepted, and there were some galvanizing incident that drummed up publicity, I think that most people in america would take notice, and policy would change. As it is, Israel can justify its excesses by pointing to the violence of Palestinians, and non-Jews in the US throw up there hands and say, "the Middle East is just a quagmire. It can never be fixed."

you are right in one respect. i kind of don't care. rather i do throw up my hands in disgust and say that this will never be resolved. and yeah, palestinians have bad apples amongst them too.

my contention though, is that i'm not sure arafat is one of those bad apples. i could be wrong, and he could be the mastermind of all of this, but i think he wants peace on some level, and that's better than sharon can come up with. sharon's actions conjure up thoughts of the second coming of slobodan milosevic. and sharon is the democratically elected leader of the israeli gvt. that either means he's not representing the will of his people, or that the will of the israeli people is bloodthirsty, vengeful, and ruthless.

after those pictures that someone had posted of an israeli mob attacking palestinian women and children in the street, i don't know what to think.

the whole situation makes me terribly ill with sadness on how mean-spirited and stupid we human beings are.

djbm

[Asharak]

Here's a great column (http://www.counterpunch.org/hass1.html) on nonviolent Palestinian demonstrations. No one got killed, but they did get hit with stun grenades. You'll probably never see the mainstream U.S. media cover these protests, but that's of no surprise.

PARIS, France -- A senior French government minister has attacked the U.S. approach to fighting terrorism as "simplistic."

Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine told France Inter radio on Wednesday: "We are friends of the United States, we are friends of that people and we will remain so.

"But we are threatened today by a new simplism which consists in reducing everything to the war on terrorism.

Vedrine said the U.S. was showing signs of acting "unilaterally, without consulting others, taking decisions based on its own view of the world and its own interests ... refusing any multilateral negotiation that could limit their decision-making, sovereignty and freedom of action."

Vedrine also criticised U.S. support for Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians.

He said that Europeans opposed it and that the American vision of globalisation was not one France shared.

"Europeans are unanimous in not supporting the Middle East policy of the White House," Vedrine said.

"We think it is a mistake blindly to accept the policy of pure repression conducted by Ariel Sharon ... we are saying this and we are making a number of other proposals."


Extractions from:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/02/07/france.bush/index.html

[angrykitty]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAQS1FAGYC.html

[SARGENTBLOCK]

WHO CARES WHAT THE FRENCH THINK.
BUNCH OF FUNKY DIRTYASS B.O. SMELLING TROLLS.

[perseus]

Neturei Karta

http://www.netureikarta.org/index.html

excerpt:

One of the basics of Judaism is that we are a people in exile due to Divine decree..

Accordingly, we are opposed to the ideology of Zionism, a recent innovation, which seeks to force the end of exile. Our banishment from the Holy Land will end miraculously at a time when all mankind will unite in the brotherly service of the Creator..

In addition to condemning the central heresy of Zionism, we also reject its policy of aggression against all peoples. Today this cruelty manifests itself primarily in the brutal treatment of the Palestinian people. We proclaim that this inhuman policy is in violation of the Torah..

NKI seeks peace and reconciliation with all peoples and nations. This is especially needed in our relations towards the Islamic world where Zionism has for 53 years done so much to ruin Jewish - Muslim understanding..

[Three Breasted Frog]

i would like it very much if Europe superseeded America as the dominant super power of the world. Maybe that way we might get some more intelligent foriegn policies. The Europeans seem more cosmopolitian - or am i overestimating there intelligence??

[angrykitty]

Originally posted by Three Breasted Frog
i would like it very much if Europe superseeded America as the dominant super power of the world. Maybe that way we might get some more intelligent foriegn policies. The Europeans seem more cosmopolitian - or am i overestimating there intelligence??

you might be over estimating them, the decisions they made in the early and mid 20th century has caused havoc in that region.

i dunno, maybe they learned their lesson.

[Ricky]

Maybe one day we'll be spending our euros at Pret-A-Manger and drink warm cokes and laugh at how silly we americans were.

Originally posted by Three Breasted Frog
i would like it very much if Europe superseeded America as the dominant super power of the world. Maybe that way we might get some more intelligent foriegn policies. The Europeans seem more cosmopolitian - or am i overestimating there intelligence??

Originally posted by Three Breasted Frog
i would like it very much if Europe superseeded America as the dominant super power of the world. Maybe that way we might get some more intelligent foriegn policies. The Europeans seem more cosmopolitian - or am i overestimating there intelligence??

By Europe, I presume you mean to exclude the Eastern Bloc, and the Balkans entirely.

The Europeans were the dominant super powers in the whole of the 19th Century. Although one can percieve a complacency and a more quasi-civilized living now, the civilty is betrayed by hundrds of years of utter barbarism. Europe was not the region it is today; it still regularly bares its historic fangs here and there. One can point to Tartan, Irish, and Basque rebel separtist to know that all is not completely well in Europe.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is actually a legacy of European colonization and ill guided Modern events such as WW2 (a sequel to WW1 caused by the mere assassination of an Archduke in the Balkans) and the formation of an industrial America who percieved itself on the level of worldly policeman.

Cosmopolitan debonaire European perceptions now, years of barbaric "white-man's-burden," colonization, and slave trade previously.

May I also remind you that civil liberties in USA for women is a mere 100 years old. Black rights? 50 at most. I do wonder when other former European controlled areas finally engaged equality...*ahem* South Africa *ahem*.

[Edited by Solipsism on 03-05-2002 at 06:48 PM]

[Three Breasted Frog]

Yes, i am only really refering to Western European countries, such as france, germany, belgian and sweden in their current manifestations. Europe has changed a lot.

i'm not saying that they would be perfect leaders of the world, but the way America is running things is pretty fucked up.

American politics is too effected by populism and is too far to the right. While in countries like France you actually get some pretty mainstream intellectual debates.

Europeans seem to have a stronger belief in Human Rights and recognise that alot of problems can't be solved by force. The American "zero tolerance" approach to everything often makes things worse.

but i am not suggesting they are perfect.



[Edited by Three Breasted Frog on 03-05-2002 at 08:21 PM]

France and debates are like Frosted Flakes and milk.

[trigonometry_vs_velvet]

oh man.. did you see that scary interview with Benjamin Netanyahu on fox i think it was??

that guy is out for blood!!!

he sounded even more scarier than bush.. if that is possible...

[trigonometry_vs_velvet]

at least hes out of office..................

but then.................

[kyoppolife]

http://electronicintifada.net/diaries/index.html

[perseus]

Originally posted by kyoppolife
http://electronicintifada.net/diaries/index.html

very interesting... thnx for the link

[perseus]

Originally posted by Den
This thread has been virtually silent as a grave.
I guess people are just tired of this...
I find that odd in light of recent events.
Where you at perseus?

well, by way of quick return to form -

http://www.giantrobot.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=7331

[Asharak]

http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h040102.html

[whiteywillpay]

Errr...you should ask what in the world the Israelis are doing in the West Bank in the first place.

2nd. of all the Israelis themselves also hide behind Palestinian civilians.

3rd. of all, you forget, the whole West Bank is basically a stomping ground for Israeli frustration - and has pretty much been turned into a large prison...prison, refugee camp, prison, refugee camp, what's the difference.

4th. There's no Palestinian Gandhi because because in order for there to be a Gandhi, you need to be able to shut down a colony politically and economically. The West Bank is not an Israeli colony, and the neither is Israel dependent economically on the West Bank. Gandhi's success was based on the reasoning that colonialism will end, once it costs the colonizer more money to keep the colony than what he can exploit out of it. By the time that Gandhi led the peace movement, Britain had pretty much stripped the country of all its wealth.

5th. If it wasn't for the Palestinian freedom fighters, the Palestinians wouldn't even have the West Bank - they probably would have been forcefully pushed out into Syria or Saudi Arabia as refugees.

6th. The kill ratio is about 25 to 1, way in favor of the Israelis - so you tell me who is the aggressor.

7th. Why don't you try dying to get your homeland back, there's nothing cowardly about that.

8th. The Israelis aren't at war. You fail to understand that this is not a war, this is an occupation. The reason why you don't see a Palestinian army fighting an Israeli army is because due to Israeli and US influence in the UN, the Palestinians don't have the right to statehood - let alone the right to mobilize an army. How are you supposed to fight some civilized style blow-em-up war with tanks and airplanes when you don't even have the right to fight? The word "terrorism" is just plain hypocrisy. If you want to use this sham of a concept to analyze history, the American Revolutionary War was a history changing "Terrorist Campaign"!

9th. Stop watching the Fox Network, it's a vile peice of propaganda trash.



Originally posted by l-train8
Well now, it sucks that Israel is killing Palestinian civilians, but just how else exactly are they supposed to fight a war when the Palestinian terrorists are hiding behind the civilians.

Their children are getting blown up in the streets, but they shouldn't shoot back, because the Palestinians are hiding behind their own children? That is a hard choice, but in the end, I'd opt for protecting myself.

Israel just intercepted a huge shipment of weapons that appears to have been ordered by the supposedly-working-for-peace Palastinian Authority. There can be no doubt that Israel is at war, and with a fairly cowardly enemy. Now, as has been said in this thread, this kind of terrorist/guerilla warfare is the only option for the Palastinians, as they are horribly oppressed and can't exactly roll into Jerusalum in tanks. But by choosing to attack in this way, they are inviting the kind of retaliation they are getting.

Where is the Palastinian Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr.? The Palastinian population in Israel is about equal in numbers to the Jewish population, and it's growing. Civil disobediance could be a peaceful alternative to terrorism, and it could be very effective.

Just a different view on the subject.

[warspirit]

Originally posted by whiteywillpay

9th. Stop watching the Fox Network, it's a vile peice of propaganda trash.



Stop watching any American news, if that's your criteria.

[Asharak]

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j040302.html

[Kosmopolite]

This conflict has been getting increasingly insane since it started when Arafat left the negotiating table. And these last 41/2 months have really made me both depressed and and pissed of to the point I dread watching the news to see more stupidity and more suicide bombings, Arafats Cronies and Sharon and his henchmen making excuses and blaming the other while innocents are torn apart by teenagers strapped
with c-4 dynamite and nailbombs running into pizza parlors and cafes.

Arafat is getting what I think he wanted he seems the happiest at times like these. And it's during these times
he get's most of the support from his people and and foriegners who support the freedom of Palestinians(and some
who just want the destruction of Israel.

And Sharon.... I think He likes this too because his hatred
and contempt for the Arabs is obvious. They are taking both
there peoples hope for a better life to hell with them.

Excuse me but I'm so sick of this BS.

[kamenriderv3]

i think both sides have problems. the aggression is starting to pick up even now. i hate to say it but its probably going to explode even bigger in the next few months.

I am going to make a dangerous assertion.

Consider Sharon's willingness to immediately withdraw tanks & troops from the Occupied regions as the Arab states, the US, the European Union and the UN are suggesting in varying degrees of severity and decide to commit Israel now after so much bloodshed to negotiate on a path of diplomacy.

Would it not then appear that suicide bombs do indeed work? What incentive would that give other would be "terrorists" "freedom fighters" what have you in other nations to strap on bombs to negotiate terms? And mind you, those atrocities are aimed specifically at civilian populations.

From a purely tactical point of view, Sharon can only advance and attack under the guise of rooting out terrorism. It's hypocrisy because those lands aren't Israel's, but it's the advancing option from their point of view.

[trigonometry_vs_velvet]

Originally posted by Solipsism
I am going to make a dangerous assertion.

Consider Sharon's willingness to immediately withdraw tanks & troops from the Occupied regions as the Arab states, the US, the European Union and the UN are suggesting in varying degrees of severity and decide to commit Israel now after so much bloodshed to negotiate on a path of diplomacy.

Would it not then appear that suicide bombs do indeed work? What incentive would that give other would be "terrorists" "freedom fighters" what have you in other nations to strap on bombs to negotiate terms? And mind you, those atrocities are aimed specifically at civilian populations.

From a purely tactical point of view, Sharon can only advance and attack under the guise of rooting out terrorism. It's hypocrisy because those lands aren't Israel's, but it's the advancing option from their point of view.


yeah.. ive heard similar sentiments from people. its a dangerous and volatile double bind situation really.
and everyday it seems to be getting thicker and thicker.. more bloated.

[Asharak]

http://vatican.rotten.com/famous/arafat-sleepy.gif
*yawn* Wake me up when the Intifada's over.

[Asharak]

http://www.indigenouspeople.org/natlit/chiapas/latuff/sharon.gif

http://www.indigenouspeople.org/natlit/chiapas/latuff/iof.jpg

[Asharak]

Originally posted by Kosmopolite
This conflict has been getting increasingly insane since it started when Arafat left the negotiating table. And these last 41/2 months have really made me both depressed and and pissed of to the point I dread watching the news to see more stupidity and more suicide bombings, Arafats Cronies and Sharon and his henchmen making excuses and blaming the other while innocents are torn apart by teenagers strapped
with c-4 dynamite and nailbombs running into pizza parlors and cafes.

Arafat is getting what I think he wanted he seems the happiest at times like these. And it's during these times
he get's most of the support from his people and and foriegners who support the freedom of Palestinians(and some
who just want the destruction of Israel.

And Sharon.... I think He likes this too because his hatred
and contempt for the Arabs is obvious. They are taking both
there peoples hope for a better life to hell with them.

Excuse me but I'm so sick of this BS.


It's a vicious cycle.
http://www.indigenouspeople.org/natlit/chiapas/latuff/war.gif

[Edited by Waco Jesus on 04-03-2002 at 03:09 AM]

[Kosmopolite]

Originally posted by Solipsism
I am going to make a dangerous assertion.

Consider Sharon's willingness to immediately withdraw tanks & troops from the Occupied regions as the Arab states, the US, the European Union and the UN are suggesting in varying degrees of severity and decide to commit Israel now after so much bloodshed to negotiate on a path of diplomacy.

Would it not then appear that suicide bombs do indeed work? What incentive would that give other would be "terrorists" "freedom fighters" what have you in other nations to strap on bombs to negotiate terms? And mind you, those atrocities are aimed specifically at civilian populations.

From a purely tactical point of view, Sharon can only advance and attack under the guise of rooting out terrorism. It's hypocrisy because those lands aren't Israel's, but it's the advancing option from their point of view.


Yeah I know But It just pisses me off because of all the innocents being played like chess by these stubborn out of touch monster who only see their own ethinicity worthy
of a life of peace. It really depresses me.

[captain beeheart]

It's so sad, man - it's like watching a schizophrenic person smashing their own face in with a rock and screaming that god told them to do it. This 'war' no longer seems to be about anything other than fucking shit up. I dunno if any of you read Asterix books, but it all reminds me of Asterix in Corsica, in which all the families on the island have vendettas with one another that go back so many generations that no-one really knows what they are about any more.

Sometimes I wonder if perhaps it would be better for the evolution of the species if they just wiped each other out.... but that's fascist thinking, isn't it?

[whiteywillpay]

Okay, and you consider the conservative alternative where land rights and state soverignty is to be determined by whoever has the larger standing army as better?

The rhetoric that "we can't give in, because it's giving into the terrorism" is total propaganda hogwash. Not only because the US has had no qualms about making deals with "terrorists", "human rights abusers", "dictators" and "communists" in the past (and present) - but also because that language is completely ahistorical. I mean, these people are fighting for their land back, for state soverignty - if that's not worth fighting or dying for, then what the hell is?

I think what alot of Americans are afraid of realizing, but something that their government realized along time ago, is that: Violence Solves Everything. We don't like hearing this, but the Washington DC hasn't really done anything to depart from this doctrine.

The Palestinians have been backed into a corner where terrorism really is the last resort. What else can they do? Without terrorist tactics would Israel even have any incentive to consider a Palestinian state? Does moaning and groaning to the UN ever do anything? Or perhaps sitting around the refugee campire fire singing kumbaya might warm the hearts of the Israelis. They probably would have just taken over the West Bank a long time ago if that was the case. (Need it be mentioned that almost all the Arab-Israeli wars were started by the Israelis?)

These people aren't seperatists like the Irish (okay, that was a very highly qualified and very relativist statement) - these people are under foreign occupation. If even an inch of an idiotic state such as Florida was under occupation by any other country in the world, I'm sure every Floridian, Californian, North Dakotan etc. would be up in arms with their grandaddy's squirrel rifle killing any foreigner (regardless of sex, age, or occupation) on their land until they were out - and they probably wouldn't give a shit if the world called them "terrorists", "freedom fighters", "refugees" or what not. And so why should they?




Originally posted by trigonometry_vs_velvet
Originally posted by Solipsism
I am going to make a dangerous assertion.

Consider Sharon's willingness to immediately withdraw tanks & troops from the Occupied regions as the Arab states, the US, the European Union and the UN are suggesting in varying degrees of severity and decide to commit Israel now after so much bloodshed to negotiate on a path of diplomacy.

Would it not then appear that suicide bombs do indeed work? What incentive would that give other would be "terrorists" "freedom fighters" what have you in other nations to strap on bombs to negotiate terms? And mind you, those atrocities are aimed specifically at civilian populations.

From a purely tactical point of view, Sharon can only advance and attack under the guise of rooting out terrorism. It's hypocrisy because those lands aren't Israel's, but it's the advancing option from their point of view.


yeah.. ive heard similar sentiments from people. its a dangerous and volatile double bind situation really.
and everyday it seems to be getting thicker and thicker.. more bloated.

[whiteywillpay]

AHAHAH, I used to love Asterix as a child! I have a few of those books - I like the one about when they find Vercingetorix's shield. Caesar gets so owned.

Originally posted by captain beeheart
It's so sad, man - it's like watching a schizophrenic person smashing their own face in with a rock and screaming that god told them to do it. This 'war' no longer seems to be about anything other than fucking shit up. I dunno if any of you read Asterix books, but it all reminds me of Asterix in Corsica, in which all the families on the island have vendettas with one another that go back so many generations that no-one really knows what they are about any more.

Sometimes I wonder if perhaps it would be better for the evolution of the species if they just wiped each other out.... but that's fascist thinking, isn't it?

[whiteywillpay]

Totally, the Israelis use their own form of human shields - the jewish settlements in the westbank. Like if that isn't a blatant human shield wtf is? Those settlers are being played by the government to create more conflict so that they can create more political excuses for their military ventures deeper into the west bank.



Yeah I know But It just pisses me off because of all the innocents being played like chess by these stubborn out of touch monster who only see their own ethinicity worthy
of a life of peace. It really depresses me.

[whiteywillpay]

Not even Gandhi was willing to talk shit about the Palestinians.

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French...What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct...If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs... As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds." Mahatma Gandhi, quoted in "A Land of Two Peoples" ed. Mendes-Flohr.

[captain beeheart]

Originally posted by whiteywillpay
Not even Gandhi was willing to talk shit about the Palestinians.

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French...What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct...If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs... As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds." Mahatma Gandhi, quoted in "A Land of Two Peoples" ed. Mendes-Flohr.

Ah shit - that's totally correct.

[Kosmopolite]

Man... You most not really mean that, violence solves everything? If you really thought about it you'd know were
tripping with that statement. And hell no would I go around killing any settlers of any occupied state especially women and children fuck that shit I'll defend myself but I'm no murderer.

Originally posted by whiteywillpay
Okay, and you consider the conservative alternative where land rights and state soverignty is to be determined by whoever has the larger standing army as better?

The rhetoric that "we can't give in, because it's giving into the terrorism" is total propaganda hogwash. Not only because the US has had no qualms about making deals with "terrorists", "human rights abusers", "dictators" and "communists" in the past (and present) - but also because that language is completely ahistorical. I mean, these people are fighting for their land back, for state soverignty - if that's not worth fighting or dying for, then what the hell is?

I think what alot of Americans are afraid of realizing, but something that their government realized along time ago, is that: Violence Solves Everything. We don't like hearing this, but the Washington DC hasn't really done anything to depart from this doctrine.

The Palestinians have been backed into a corner where terrorism really is the last resort. What else can they do? Without terrorist tactics would Israel even have any incentive to consider a Palestinian state? Does moaning and groaning to the UN ever do anything? Or perhaps sitting around the refugee campire fire singing kumbaya might warm the hearts of the Israelis. They probably would have just taken over the West Bank a long time ago if that was the case. (Need it be mentioned that almost all the Arab-Israeli wars were started by the Israelis?)

These people aren't seperatists like the Irish (okay, that was a very highly qualified and very relativist statement) - these people are under foreign occupation. If even an inch of an idiotic state such as Florida was under occupation by any other country in the world, I'm sure every Floridian, Californian, North Dakotan etc. would be up in arms with their grandaddy's squirrel rifle killing any foreigner (regardless of sex, age, or occupation) on their land until they were out - and they probably wouldn't give a shit if the world called them "terrorists", "freedom fighters", "refugees" or what not. And so why should they?



You make an even more dangerous assertion when you support the bombing of civilians as a means for a greater ideal.

As a means to achieve an end, I'd have to say it is as evil as Madelaine Albright's response to a question asked about the million dying starving Iraqi children as a result of the US embargo: We think it's worth the price.

Any person who holds politics or theory above dear innocent life is a terrorist in my book. PERIOD. In my book, the Israeli and the Palestinian are both terrorists.

Violence does NOT solve anything. It begets more violence and more hatred.

I am not going to comment on US policy as it clearly speaks for itself as to how muddled the Bush administration currently is. Nor will I comment on past US dealings and trappings. One cannot dredge up terrible examples from the US's historical past to validate and justify today's atrocities. If we go with that line of reasoning, then China can very well make slaves out of all the Tibetans because the US once had slavery of their Black citizens.

You've framed your response with an obvious anti- "conservative" thinking. I see political maneuvering on your part.

Ultimately, if you are of any humanitarian mind, one MUST be consistent and rigorous in defending civil rights of any nature. Down with evil corporations, but support the suicide bombers of Palestine? Something seriously fucked up in that line of reasoning.

The end does not justify the means.

[Edited by Solipsism on 04-03-2002 at 08:48 AM]

[warspirit]

Originally posted by Kosmopolite
Man... You most not really mean that, violence solves everything? If you really thought about it you'd know were
tripping with that statement. And hell no would I go around killing any settlers of any occupied state especially women and children fuck that shit I'll defend myself but I'm no murderer.

Define "defend yourself."

Jews claim that includes wiping out other races, after the "diaspora."

[archonemis]

Originally posted by warspirit


Define "defend yourself."

Jews claim that includes wiping out other races, after the "diaspora."



If I remember Hitler, a white man, made the same logical fallicy.

[trigonometry_vs_velvet]

Originally posted by whiteywillpay
Okay, and you consider the conservative alternative where land rights and state soverignty is to be determined by whoever has the larger standing army as better?

The rhetoric that "we can't give in, because it's giving into the terrorism" is total propaganda hogwash. Not only because the US has had no qualms about making deals with "terrorists", "human rights abusers", "dictators" and "communists" in the past (and present) - but also because that language is completely ahistorical. I mean, these people are fighting for their land back, for state soverignty - if that's not worth fighting or dying for, then what the hell is?

I think what alot of Americans are afraid of realizing, but something that their government realized along time ago, is that: Violence Solves Everything. We don't like hearing this, but the Washington DC hasn't really done anything to depart from this doctrine.

The Palestinians have been backed into a corner where terrorism really is the last resort. What else can they do? Without terrorist tactics would Israel even have any incentive to consider a Palestinian state? Does moaning and groaning to the UN ever do anything? Or perhaps sitting around the refugee campire fire singing kumbaya might warm the hearts of the Israelis. They probably would have just taken over the West Bank a long time ago if that was the case. (Need it be mentioned that almost all the Arab-Israeli wars were started by the Israelis?)

These people aren't seperatists like the Irish (okay, that was a very highly qualified and very relativist statement) - these people are under foreign occupation. If even an inch of an idiotic state such as Florida was under occupation by any other country in the world, I'm sure every Floridian, Californian, North Dakotan etc. would be up in arms with their grandaddy's squirrel rifle killing any foreigner (regardless of sex, age, or occupation) on their land until they were out - and they probably wouldn't give a shit if the world called them "terrorists", "freedom fighters", "refugees" or what not. And so why should they?




Originally posted by trigonometry_vs_velvet
Originally posted by Solipsism
I am going to make a dangerous assertion.

Consider Sharon's willingness to immediately withdraw tanks & troops from the Occupied regions as the Arab states, the US, the European Union and the UN are suggesting in varying degrees of severity and decide to commit Israel now after so much bloodshed to negotiate on a path of diplomacy.

Would it not then appear that suicide bombs do indeed work? What incentive would that give other would be "terrorists" "freedom fighters" what have you in other nations to strap on bombs to negotiate terms? And mind you, those atrocities are aimed specifically at civilian populations.

From a purely tactical point of view, Sharon can only advance and attack under the guise of rooting out terrorism. It's hypocrisy because those lands aren't Israel's, but it's the advancing option from their point of view.


yeah.. ive heard similar sentiments from people. its a dangerous and volatile double bind situation really.
and everyday it seems to be getting thicker and thicker.. more bloated.


i know your well intentioned in bringing out iraeli immoralities but your tone and wording sounds as if palestians cant do no wrong. you cant excuse the the bombings (suicide bombing) targetted specifically at civilians. this isnt me repeating some rhetoric, as youve suggested before. rather its me acknowledging civilian casulties incurred on both sides. and if some palestinian believe blowing up public places is a progressive move then i think extremely wrongheaded.

youre appeal to macavallian ideology for justification i believe isnt right.. it sounds very similar to netanyahu justification for military action. (cnn interview i saw a few days ago).. it will only recycle the violence.. if anything it will push the israeli forces even harder... a vicious cycle...

[whiteywillpay]

That whole violence thing was a failed attempt at sarcasm on my part - I was trying to pin the statement on our government in a matter of fact way, but I guess I came off as machiavellian. BTW, I'm not machiavellian, and I think the man is pretty demented. However, I do believe that this is the way that the US has been handling its foreign policy for the past 50 years - and to this date, especially in its dealings with the middle east, it hasn't changed.

Also, I agree that putting politics and theory above innocent lives is hogwash. But I don't want to make that a blanketed statement, I do think there is a difference here. Implementing certain political or economic solutions that have certain human costs are definately wrong. Instituting state subsidized "not so free" globalization as a solution to poverty is laughable, so is spending money on a drug war where the capital is funneled in to the same power structures that perpetuate the export of drugs, etc. IMO, I think these are cases where governments play with people's lives in order to experiment with their ideologies. And that to me is wrong.

But I definately do believe that there are exceptions to this rule - where gloves come off, and you must either fight or fly. That's when people take away your home, your rights to statehood, and your rights as a human being. To me, that just seems very basic, it's basically the "right to liberty" isn't it?

Also - I think the notion of Terrorism when it comes down to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is irrelevant, infact, I think it's a concept that does nothing but confuse 3rd parties. I think all that the term does is befuddle - even muddle the boundary between aggressor and victim, while historically, who is who is quite clear. This concept takes the conflict out of context, and into the context of individuals. However, not all tragedy happens at the interpersonal level - in this case, this is a tragedy for an entire polity of the Palestinian people. The notion of Terrorism as it is used in the West turns the Palestinians into the aggressors, and the Israelis into the defenders. Last night, I heard on CNN, "Sharon should be allowed to defend his state." The whole notion that the Israelis are the defenders in this conflict, while one can clearly see their tanks and bombs ravaging Ramallah is absolutely preposterous.

Furthermore, Terrorism is a vague, broad, empty notion. It doesn't explain or help in the understanding of anything, because as the word is invoked, it can be used to explain almost everything that has happened in the past 10,000 years of human history. (Clausewitz in On War described war as the use of violence to promote political aims, but I don't think he was talking about Terrorism) Yes people use violence (and violence against civilians) as a means of furthering their political and economic interests. This isn't new, it's been going on for a long time now.

When it comes down to it, don't you think the concept "Terrorist", is a racially, religiously, and politically prejudiced concept? It's just another political buzz word to replace "Communism" now that the Soviet bloc has fallen. It doesn't help in the causal explanation of the situation, it doesn't help in finding a solution to the situation, all it does is seperate the world into easily digestable Manichean parties. It's a divisive concept that merely outlines who is against who, and promotes the conflict by labeling "the other" as an illogical and inhumane evil.

Sometimes, it is only Violence that solves things. I don't think the Nazis or Imperial Japan would have gone down to a bunch flower wielding hippies. That's not to say it is a good thing, but it is to say that sometimes people are forced to do hideous things that they normally would not do - and this is usually the case when they are fighting defensive wars, or fighting a guerrilla war against occupation. The Palestinians did not ask the British to take their land and turn it into a UN mandate, nor did they ask for their land to be confiscated by the Israelis and then forced out as refugees, nor did they ask to be slaughtered by US supplied weapons of "near-mass" destruction. All that happened to them, and they were forced into a situation where no amount of "civilized" dialogue, politicking, or protesting would return them to the land where they had lived on for a thousand years.

Let's face it, Israel is a product of a colonialism - that's not a good thing. I don't know about you, but when I play cow boys and indians, I might shed a tear at a settler getting shot by an indian - but, hell, that settler should have known what the hell they were getting their asses into. They're invaders...trespassers will get shot.



[QUOTE]Originally posted by Solipsism [b]
You make an even more dangerous assertion when you support the bombing of civilians as a means for a greater ideal.

As a means to achieve an end, I'd have to say it is as evil as Madelaine Albright's response to a question asked about the million dying starving Iraqi children as a result of the US embargo: We think it's worth the price.

Any person who holds politics or theory above dear innocent life is a terrorist in my book. PERIOD. In my book, the Israeli and the Palestinian are both terrorists.

Violence does NOT solve anything. It begets more violence and more hatred.

I am not going to comment on US policy as it clearly speaks for itself as to how muddled the Bush administration currently is. Nor will I comment on past US dealings and trappings. One cannot dredge up terrible examples from the US's historical past to validate and justify today's atrocities. If we go with that line of reasoning, then China can very well make slaves out of all the Tibetans because the US once had slavery of their Black citizens.

You've framed your response with an obvious anti- "conservative" thinking. I see political maneuvering on your part.

Ultimately, if you are of any humanitarian mind, one MUST be consistent and rigorous in defending civil rights of any nature. Down with evil corporations, but support the suicide bombers of Palestine? Something seriously fucked up in that line of reasoning.

The end does not justify the means.

[Edited by whiteywillpay on 04-03-2002 at 04:15 PM]

[whiteywillpay]

And in saying this - I will repeat the words of the once wise man Sam Kinison, "I don't condone it, but I understand it." (okay okay, so he wasn't talking about the middle east, but wife beating, but the structure fits nicely.)

I don't think suicide bombings are good, fine, or the best thing to do - but I'm also not willing to pass judgement on a Palestinian who does it considering their situation. In the simplest terms, if some punks come to your house kill random members of your family and then confiscate your home and property - I would most definately go pretty apeshit.

Personally my policy is...if you pass judgement on one group, might as well damn everybody. Hence a certain degree of misanthropy.

[archonemis]

I second that, fuck-face.

Originally posted by archonemis
I second that, fuck-face.

Arch: You're gonna get raped.

[whiteywillpay]

Gee, how non-confrontational of you.

Originally posted by Solipsism
Personally my policy is...if you pass judgement on one group, might as well damn everybody. Hence a certain degree of misanthropy.

[djbadmonkey]

said strikes again.

good point on the "othering" vis a vis "war on terror."

sharon's policy so closely resembles genocide, it makes me wonder how easily the american public falls on the side of slaughter and malice.

war on terrror:bush::egyptian campaign:napoleon?

djbm

Originally posted by djbadmonkey
said strikes again.

good point on the "othering" vis a vis "war on terror."

sharon's policy so closely resembles genocide, it makes me wonder how easily the american public falls on the side of slaughter and malice.

war on terrror:bush::egyptian campaign:napoleon?

djbm

How? With idiot Bush saying Israel has a right to defend herself. How farcical is that?!

[kyoppolife]

whiteywillpay,

very well said bro.

I believe at some point, the question was raised as to what the difference between terrorism and war constitutes. Well...the line is thin, too thin, but the distinction lies in the manner and method of who is being targeted. In wars, it is traditionally the military or official ruling body of the opposing force that is targeted. In terrorism, the civilians are targeted.

Terrorism is not about winning a war through superior firepower, best trained units, etc etc. It's about instilling fear into a civilian population so that the locals will pressure their governments. Nazi Germans bombing London, and British/Americans retaliatory bombing Dresden, etc etc are terrorist tactics, and are argued in academic circles as such. Terrorism clearly doesn't work.

The criteria is who is targeted.

If Yasser Arafat's security forces fired at Israeli soldiers, that is not terrorism. However, a person strapped to his chin in bombs with the intention of blowing up all the civilian people in an Israeli bus is clearly terrorism. Israeli forces bulldozing residential homes is terrorism.

The counter argument is that as a civilian of the state, you are supporting the state inadvertently. Cynically, one can say, why not bomb the women and children and elderly? They are all part of the industry of war.

The term terrorism is misused and approriated often, thus the meaning is clouded, and diluted.

But do note how quiet the US has gotten over the recent period since Sept 11th over Chechen uprising in the Russian states.

[Edited by Solipsism on 04-03-2002 at 05:56 PM]

Originally posted by whiteywillpay
Gee, how non-confrontational of you.


One can engage in confrontation without killing.
And yes, I know the irony of my sig.

[whiteywillpay]

Tell me how, or why, or if the Israelis would ever give any scrap of land back to the Palestinians if it wasn't for the killing?

It's because of the killing that the Israelis want peace, and it's because of the killing that the Palestinians can even make a demand for land...otherwise, the Israelis and the US would see absolutely no reason to negotiate anything.

Can you tell me another way the Palestinians could get back their land without killing Israelis?

Originally posted by Solipsism
Originally posted by whiteywillpay
Gee, how non-confrontational of you.


One can engage in confrontation without killing.
And yes, I know the irony of my sig.

[whiteywillpay]

Umm...can you name a war where civilians were never targeted. Right, you probably can't, because wars don't discriminate between soldiers and civilians.

OH yeah, that's because wars are fought between nations, not armies.

And OH yeah, that's because civilians can become soldiers at any time, vice versa, or maybe because soldiers aren't a magical sub-breed of civilians that molt once a season, and only for that season.

Originally posted by Solipsism
I believe at some point, the question was raised as to what the difference between terrorism and war constitutes. Well...the line is thin, too thin, but the distinction lies in the manner and method of who is being targeted. In wars, it is traditionally the military or official ruling body of the opposing force that is targeted. In terrorism, the civilians are targeted.

Terrorism is not about winning a war through superior firepower, best trained units, etc etc. It's about instilling fear into a civilian population so that the locals will pressure their governments. Nazi Germans bombing London, and British/Americans retaliatory bombing Dresden, etc etc are terrorist tactics, and are argued in academic circles as such. Terrorism clearly doesn't work.

The criteria is who is targeted.

If Yasser Arafat's security forces fired at Israeli soldiers, that is not terrorism. However, a person strapped to his chin in bombs with the intention of blowing up all the civilian people in an Israeli bus is clearly terrorism. Israeli forces bulldozing residential homes is terrorism.

The counter argument is that as a civilian of the state, you are supporting the state inadvertently. Cynically, one can say, why not bomb the women and children and elderly? They are all part of the industry of war.

The term terrorism is misused and approriated often, thus the meaning is clouded, and diluted.

But do note how quiet the US has gotten over the recent period since Sept 11th over Chechen uprising in the Russian states.

[Edited by Solipsism on 04-03-2002 at 05:56 PM]

[warspirit]

Originally posted by whiteywillpay
Umm...can you name a war where civilians were never targeted. Right, you probably can't, because wars don't discriminate between soldiers and civilians.

OH yeah, that's because wars are fought between nations, not armies.

And OH yeah, that's because civilians can become soldiers at any time, vice versa, or maybe because soldiers aren't a magical sub-breed of civilians that molt once a season, and only for that season.

Originally posted by Solipsism
I believe at some point, the question was raised as to what the difference between terrorism and war constitutes. Well...the line is thin, too thin, but the distinction lies in the manner and method of who is being targeted. In wars, it is traditionally the military or official ruling body of the opposing force that is targeted. In terrorism, the civilians are targeted.

Terrorism is not about winning a war through superior firepower, best trained units, etc etc. It's about instilling fear into a civilian population so that the locals will pressure their governments. Nazi Germans bombing London, and British/Americans retaliatory bombing Dresden, etc etc are terrorist tactics, and are argued in academic circles as such. Terrorism clearly doesn't work.

The criteria is who is targeted.

If Yasser Arafat's security forces fired at Israeli soldiers, that is not terrorism. However, a person strapped to his chin in bombs with the intention of blowing up all the civilian people in an Israeli bus is clearly terrorism. Israeli forces bulldozing residential homes is terrorism.

The counter argument is that as a civilian of the state, you are supporting the state inadvertently. Cynically, one can say, why not bomb the women and children and elderly? They are all part of the industry of war.

The term terrorism is misused and approriated often, thus the meaning is clouded, and diluted.

But do note how quiet the US has gotten over the recent period since Sept 11th over Chechen uprising in the Russian states.

[Edited by Solipsism on 04-03-2002 at 05:56 PM]

Solipsism is simply taking the moral tone of the Bush administration: there are "good" actions and "evil" actions. When you've stopped laughing at that idiocy, you can see perhaps where he went wrong: he wants to help and to feel good about himself, but is caught in a maze of definitions.

According to the American news, Israel has jurisdiction over those who are to be called terrorists, and they've picked the Muslims. Does anyone else think it's hilarious humanity has been fighting over this stupid space in the middle east for almost 4,000 years?

G.W. Bush just walked himself into a political and military nightmare...

Originally posted by whiteywillpay
Tell me how, or why, or if the Israelis would ever give any scrap of land back to the Palestinians if it wasn't for the killing?

It's because of the killing that the Israelis want peace, and it's because of the killing that the Palestinians can even make a demand for land...otherwise, the Israelis and the US would see absolutely no reason to negotiate anything.

Can you tell me another way the Palestinians could get back their land without killing Israelis?

I cannot tell you another way. I understand tactically where you are coming from. And I have expressed similar agreements over tactics, except I have analyzed the Israeli side.

War is hell. There are no morals in war, right?

So by this, I presume you condone the killing. As opposed to merely understanding it.

[Edited by Solipsism on 04-03-2002 at 07:41 PM]

Originally posted by whiteywillpay
Umm...can you name a war where civilians were never targeted. Right, you probably can't, because wars don't discriminate between soldiers and civilians.

OH yeah, that's because wars are fought between nations, not armies.

And OH yeah, that's because civilians can become soldiers at any time, vice versa, or maybe because soldiers aren't a magical sub-breed of civilians that molt once a season, and only for that season.

So then is it plausible to assume by your statements above that because you are a citizen and civilian of the United States and because you pay your taxes every year to this government that you are involved in every war effort against every enemy of the United States currently?

Doesn't that make you a soldier of the US? Do you consider yourself a soldier of the US?

Absurd.

Originally posted by warspirit

Solipsism is simply taking the moral tone of the Bush administration: there are "good" actions and "evil" actions. When you've stopped laughing at that idiocy, you can see perhaps where he went wrong: he wants to help and to feel good about himself, but is caught in a maze of definitions.

According to the American news, Israel has jurisdiction over those who are to be called terrorists, and they've picked the Muslims. Does anyone else think it's hilarious humanity has been fighting over this stupid space in the middle east for almost 4,000 years?

G.W. Bush just walked himself into a political and military nightmare...

[/B]

I find it amusing that a Nazi would agree with one that thinks whiteys will pay.

[trigonometry_vs_velvet]

whiteywillpay.

i agree with almost all of what youve written.

there is simply no way logically, morality, historically to justify zionism (or in my opinion really nationalism in general).


and there is a difference between critique at an institutional and ideological level and the level of individuals. but nonetheless they are intimately tied. one cannot help but speak of an institution without also speaking of individuals who are identified with the institution. i believe that many source of confusion can be traced back to this relationship. institutions, ideologies are ultimately sources for identity. and when one acts, the institution acts, and when institution acts, individuals are felt the consequences, most of the times even more so than the institution itself. so therein lies the problem. individual acts define an institution, and institutional acts affect individuals. its not enough to declare that individuals make up an institutions, but that institutions absorbs individuals.

so what happens.. when these suicide bombings occur they dont see innocents, they dont see individuals.. they see the institution.. they see israel. it doesnt matter what the indivuals views are, it doesnt even matter if there are non-Jews among the casualties. the act speaks to the institution. and in return institution reacts and they feel more justified for it, because its seen as a reaction to a terrorist act since the act is seen as an indiscrimate killing, by an individual (who in turn "speaks" for the institution - the arab palestinians).

do you see my point? at an institutional level.. who is morally reprehensible? i lean towards israel (and the zionism that helped spawn it). but as an individual act these "terrorist bombings" are no more justified.. and one cannot separate the two because one will "speak" for the other.


heres a quote from brenner to strengthen my position that mere reactionary response and reaction-producing acts of violence can do nothing but perpetuate the situation (esp the last sentence which ive accentuated to make the point more clear).

"Can there be any doubt that many of the United Nations delegates who voted for the creation of an Israeli state, in 1947, were motivated by a desire to somehow compensate the surviving Jews for the Holocaust? They, and many of Israel’s other well-wishers, cathected the state with the powerful human feelings they had toward the victims of Hitler’s monstrous crimes. But therein was their error: they based their support for Israel and Zionism on what Hitler had done to the Jews, rather than on what the Zionists had done for the Jews. To say that such an approach is intellectually and politically impermissable does not denigrate the deep feelings produced by the Holocaust.

Zionism, however, is an ideology, and its chronicles are to be examined with the same critical eye that readers should bring to the history of any political tendency. Zionism is not now, nor was it ever, co-extensive with either Judaism or the Jewish people. The vast majority of Hitler’s Jewish victims were not Zionists. It is equally true, as readers are invited to see for themselves, that the majority of the Jews of Poland, in particular, had repudiated Zionism on the eve of the Holocaust, that they abhored the politics of Menachem Begin, in September 1939, one of the leaders of the self-styled “Zionist-Revisionist” movement in the Polish capital. As an anti-Zionist Jew, the author is inured to the charge that anti-Zionism is equivalent to anti-Semitism and “Jewish self-hatred”.

It is scarcely necessary to add that all attempts to equate Jews and Zionists, and therefore to attack Jews as such, are criminal, and are to be sternly repelled. There cannot be even the slightest confusion between the struggle against Zionism and hostility to either Jews or Judaism. Zionism thrives on the fears that Jews have of another Holocaust. The Palestinian people are deeply appreciative of the firm support given them by progressive Jews, whether religious – as with Mrs Ruth Blau, Elmer Berger, Moshe Menuhin, or Israel Shahak – or atheist – as with Felicia Langer and Lea Tsemel and others on the left. Neither nationality nor theology nor social theory can, in any way, be allowed to become a stumbling block before the feet of those Jews, in Israel or elsewhere, who are determined to walk with the Palestinian people against injustice and racism. It can be said, with scientific certainty, that, without the unbreakable unity of Arab and Jewish progressives, victory over Zionism is not merely difficult, it is impossible."

[whiteywillpay]

Umm, no...but I dunno if a Texan at the Alamo was a civilian or a soldier. The only point I wanted to make was that in most total wars, the line between civilian and soldier is blurred, as the war becomes a national effort.

The US is a strange animal in that our professional military force doesn't require a nation wide mobilization of resources and personnel. It's almost a seperate animal seperate from the polity, because it has the power to inflict "bloodless wars". But let's take a more analogous case, such as the revolutionary war. Were the revolutionary colonists civilian or militia? They were both.

When it comes down to it, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I also think wars are violent, disgusting, and savage affairs. All I'm trying to point out is that Wars are far more violent and nasty than most Americans think. Americans have this notion of "bloodless wars" where only military personnel die by precision bombing, etc. To the average American, the American sense of military invulnerability, also leads to the naieve notion that Wars CAN (or SHOULD) be fought hygenically. This to me is ridiculous. They really don't understand the true nature of war - and therefore, excuse the mobilization of America's massive military construct to further American interests as long as "no civilians are hurt". Personally, I fear that it will lead to a culture of war - or a political culture that will excuse the use of violence given that some sentimental parameters are put around the conflict.

Once again, I'm not saying that it's right to kill civilians - killing another human being in most cases is downright wrong - but given the nature of war, it's inevitable, infact, it's the norm. And we should realize that wars take place in cities, and villages - not a lawful arena full of policemen and referees keeping track of who is playing fair.

Only when people understand just how truly disgusting war is, will people stop making excuses for any war. And to me, the true nature of war does not make that difference between civilian and soldier - I'm not saying that's the best or worst way to fight a war, I'm just saying that's just the way wars are fought and that no amount of precision bombing will hygenically clean up war into some noble enterprise. (which is what Bush and Powell are trying to do)

I mean, it's war...everything's allowed in love and war.

Originally posted by Solipsism
Originally posted by whiteywillpay
Umm...can you name a war where civilians were never targeted. Right, you probably can't, because wars don't discriminate between soldiers and civilians.

OH yeah, that's because wars are fought between nations, not armies.

And OH yeah, that's because civilians can become soldiers at any time, vice versa, or maybe because soldiers aren't a magical sub-breed of civilians that molt once a season, and only for that season.

So then is it plausible to assume by your statements above that because you are a citizen and civilian of the United States and because you pay your taxes every year to this government that you are involved in every war effort against every enemy of the United States currently?

Doesn't that make you a soldier of the US? Do you consider yourself a soldier of the US?

Absurd.

[Edited by whiteywillpay on 04-03-2002 at 08:26 PM]

White:
Don't get me wrong...I am familiar and agree with many things you have pointed out. I think we are merely picking at each other's tenacity for either our moral or pragmatic argument in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

However, that last sentence—Everything is allowed in love and war—even though I am sure it's meant to be in lite jest, is not exactly true.

Were it completely true, we would have dropped more nuclear bombs already.

[whiteywillpay]

If it wouldn't cost the US politically or morally in the eyes of the international community, I believe the US would have dropped a nuke. I mean, we are the only ones in the history of the world to have dropped them on live people. If anyone should be worried about anyone using weapons of mass destruction, they should be worried about the US not Iraq, as we have the worst track record.

I mean, just a few weeks ago Bush was talking about using tactical nukes in Iraq. Just how stupid is that?

Either way, the thought of reforming war into a sanitary enterprse is ridiculous, war should just be plain out right abolished, outlawed, etc.

[Kosmopolite]

Targeting civilians as in let's go tho the bus stop, nursery, church,chucky cheeze,cafe etc is murder, name it terrorism if you think it suits(it does), or an act of war
if it is an act of war it is a war crime.

I'm not a military historian so I can't recall more than rudimentary info on a few wars. I don't knoe if there was one that did not target civilians I'd bet there were but I'm not sure. If that's not true it still isn't any excuse.


[Edited by Kosmopolite on 04-04-2002 at 09:12 PM]

[whiteywillpay]

My point is - how do you go about NOT targeting civilians in a real total war? You can't. Not even the US's so called "blood less" war in Iraq couldn't avoid massive civilian casualties. Infact, to this date - over 5000 Afghan civilians have been killed from direct causes of the US military action in their country.

It doesn't matter if you go into a war with the intention to not kill, loop, and rape the people - it just happens, and people in power should realize that violence against civilians are unavoidable in any type of war. They should own up to it before letting the genie out of the bottle. An army, much less a war is not something you can control like a basketball game.

You can wash shit, you can polish shit, you can boil shit - but ultimately, it's shit. You can't sanitize war with artificial parameters. Wars shouldn't be seen as unavoidable, something to live with, something to be reformed, it should be something perceived to be abolished.



Originally posted by Kosmopolite
[QUOTE]Originally posted by whiteywillpay
[B]Umm...can you name a war where civilians were never targeted. Right, you probably can't, because wars don't discriminate between soldiers and civilians.

OH yeah, that's because wars are fought between nations, not armies.

And OH yeah, that's because civilians can become soldiers at any time, vice versa, or maybe because soldiers aren't a magical sub-breed of civilians that molt once a season, and only for that season.

Targeting civilians as in let's go tho the bus stop, nursery, church,chucky cheeze,cafe etc is murder, name it terrorism if you think it suits(it does), or an act of war
if it is an act of war it is a war crime.

I'm not a military historian so I can't recall more than rudimentary info on a few wars. I don't knoe if there was one that did not target civilians I'd bet there were but I'm not sure. If that's not true it still isn't any excuse.

[perseus]

Originally posted by Solipsism
I believe at some point, the question was raised as to what the difference between terrorism and war constitutes. Well...the line is thin, too thin, but the distinction lies in the manner and method of who is being targeted. In wars, it is traditionally the military or official ruling body of the opposing force that is targeted. In terrorism, the civilians are targeted.

Terrorism is not about winning a war through superior firepower, best trained units, etc etc. It's about instilling fear into a civilian population so that the locals will pressure their governments. Nazi Germans bombing London, and British/Americans retaliatory bombing Dresden, etc etc are terrorist tactics, and are argued in academic circles as such. Terrorism clearly doesn't work.

The criteria is who is targeted.

If Yasser Arafat's security forces fired at Israeli soldiers, that is not terrorism. However, a person strapped to his chin in bombs with the intention of blowing up all the civilian people in an Israeli bus is clearly terrorism. Israeli forces bulldozing residential homes is terrorism.

The counter argument is that as a civilian of the state, you are supporting the state inadvertently. Cynically, one can say, why not bomb the women and children and elderly? They are all part of the industry of war.



well, in military action i think typically a certain class of "enemy" civilians are targeted - the armed forces - while in terrorism it is simply a different segment of civilians being targeted. also, all wars have involved both elements i think. i think rarely are the economic and other power elites, the ones who actually run things, themselves targeted.

i think terrorism does work, and history shows it. terror is a weapon used by the powerful against the weak, despite a common misconneption to the opposite effect. hence, the status of the U.S. as the greatest terrorist nation ever to exist. in our history it starts with genocide against the Indians and both sides deliberately killing civilians in the Civil War. and it includes every official and many un-officials conflicts since then (for example: Central America in the 70s and 80s felt some particularly nasty U.S.-sponsored techniques, with well over 100,000 "non-military civilians" dead). legality or morality has never stopped U.S. decision-makers.

in theory, citizens of a democracy bear some responsibility for the actions "their" government takes - of course, in our system such as it is most "citizens" have no real control whatsoever on the actions of the government they live under, but still - it's the "theory" we labor under to effect change unless we want to start an outright revolution. so, while each citizen may not be a soldier, there is blood on our hands to the degree we accept our system as a representative democracy.



[Edited by perseus on 04-04-2002 at 11:40 AM]

[perseus]

Originally posted by whiteywillpay

You can wash shit, you can polish shit, you can boil shit - but ultimately, it's shit. You can't sanitize war with artificial parameters. Wars shouldn't be seen as unavoidable, something to live with, something to be reformed, it should be something perceived to be abolished.



well, that would be interesting indeed. our current corporate system makes a much higher percentage of profit on "Defense" spending than traditional commerce (even though that is artiifically controlled by big business, as is the State itself). imagine the pie they get to divide up - they control both the spending of Defense and the profits - both sides of the transaction. in fact, much of what the State lists as trade each year is in fact simply two departments or sub-companies of the same larger company shipping goods from one to the other across state lines. they control both sides of the transaction protected by a host of legislation they wrote and subsidized by massive tax-payer money, but it's still called "trade" and a "free market". if you want to get rid of the "war industry", a complete low-level cultural reset would be necessary, imho.

[warspirit]

Originally posted by Solipsism
veg: No no. These Jews that are DP or displaced people (because their property was seized by the NAZIs) are from Europe. There was no Israel to be forced out. Jews simply didn't have a state.

[Edited by Solipsism on 12-04-2001 at 10:38 PM]

Newsflash: What are Semites?

The Semitic tribe encompasses both Jews and Arabs. Formed almost 4,000 years ago, the tribes quickly split with the Jewish religion in prototypical form becoming the basis for justification of conflict.

The Arabs won, and the diaspora began. Hence Jews in Europe, Jews in America, Jews in Asia.

Everywhere but where they belong: in an oven.

[captain beeheart]

Apropos of nothing, I thought of this the other day... my girlfriend was saying "how can Israel commit such acts of blind bullying racism and cruelty after all that their people have suffered", and it struck me that it is like the majority of child abusers who have been abused themselves as children. Violence on a person or community gets internalised, it forms their notions of normality and they fall into the behaviour patterns of the person or ideology who fucked them up in the first place.

So who made you their Cissy, 'Warspirit'?

[ocd]

Originally posted by warspirit
Originally posted by Solipsism
veg: No no. These Jews that are DP or displaced people (because their property was seized by the NAZIs) are from Europe. There was no Israel to be forced out. Jews simply didn't have a state.

[Edited by Solipsism on 12-04-2001 at 10:38 PM]

Newsflash: What are Semites?

The Semitic tribe encompasses both Jews and Arabs. Formed almost 4,000 years ago, the tribes quickly split with the Jewish religion in prototypical form becoming the basis for justification of conflict.

The Arabs won, and the diaspora began. Hence Jews in Europe, Jews in America, Jews in Asia.

Everywhere but where they belong: in an oven.

Originally posted by warspirit
[B]
Also, I don't "hate" anyone;/B]

[whiteywillpay]

What the fuck is your problem?

We're criticizing Israel, we're not spewing anti-semitic bullshit. Fuckin' A man, you are gonna pay.


Originally posted by warspirit
Originally posted by Solipsism
veg: No no. These Jews that are DP or displaced people (because their property was seized by the NAZIs) are from Europe. There was no Israel to be forced out. Jews simply didn't have a state.

[Edited by Solipsism on 12-04-2001 at 10:38 PM]

Newsflash: What are Semites?

The Semitic tribe encompasses both Jews and Arabs. Formed almost 4,000 years ago, the tribes quickly split with the Jewish religion in prototypical form becoming the basis for justification of conflict.

The Arabs won, and the diaspora began. Hence Jews in Europe, Jews in America, Jews in Asia.

Everywhere but where they belong: in an oven.

[Kosmopolite]

Originally posted by whiteywillpay
My point is - how do you go about NOT targeting civilians in a real total war? You can't. Not even the US's so called "blood less" war in Iraq couldn't avoid massive civilian casualties. Infact, to this date - over 5000 Afghan civilians have been killed from direct causes of the US military action in their country.

It doesn't matter if you go into a war with the intention to not kill, loop, and rape the people - it just happens, and people in power should realize that violence against civilians are unavoidable in any type of war. They should own up to it before letting the genie out of the bottle. An army, much less a war is not something you can control like a basketball game.

You can wash shit, you can polish shit, you can boil shit - but ultimately, it's shit. You can't sanitize war with artificial parameters. Wars shouldn't be seen as unavoidable, something to live with, something to be reformed, it should be something perceived to be abolished.



Originally posted by Kosmopolite
[QUOTE]Originally posted by whiteywillpay
[B]Umm...can you name a war where civilians were never targeted. Right, you probably can't, because wars don't discriminate between soldiers and civilians.

OH yeah, that's because wars are fought between nations, not armies.

And OH yeah, that's because civilians can become soldiers at any time, vice versa, or maybe because soldiers aren't a magical sub-breed of civilians that molt once a season, and only for that season.

Targeting civilians as in let's go tho the bus stop, nursery, church,chucky cheeze,cafe etc is murder, name it terrorism if you think it suits(it does), or an act of war
if it is an act of war it is a war crime.

I'm not a military historian so I can't recall more than rudimentary info on a few wars. I don't knoe if there was one that did not target civilians I'd bet there were but I'm not sure. If that's not true it still isn't any excuse.


The point is this when an army attacks a group of non combatants even non civilians it is a war crime. TARGETING civilians which means "hey guys let's maim those school kids over there for the cause, alright?" is murder and a war crime at it's most vile. Regretably civilians get killed in war. But they are not who the war should be against. I really find disgusting on how people supposedly anti war(or at least anti american war) can justify the atrocities that pepole commit in other countries as legitimate. Wrong is wrong.

[Edited by Kosmopolite on 04-04-2002 at 10:28 PM]

[Kosmopolite]

Yo Sol about your definition of terrorism. The def is still
a hot topic especially with countries that spend heavily in support of it. But anyway I a wanted to point out that
most defs of terrorism do include personal and government property, civilian, government and military wartime non comabatants, and military wartime combatants. As with many
definitions anti semite, racist, Sexist,politically correct
the are usually twisted to what the accuser or accued want them to mean often without regard to it's "official" meaning.

Indeed.

Originally posted by warspirit
Originally posted by Solipsism
veg: No no. These Jews that are DP or displaced people (because their property was seized by the NAZIs) are from Europe. There was no Israel to be forced out. Jews simply didn't have a state.

[Edited by Solipsism on 12-04-2001 at 10:38 PM]

Newsflash: What are Semites?

The Semitic tribe encompasses both Jews and Arabs. Formed almost 4,000 years ago, the tribes quickly split with the Jewish religion in prototypical form becoming the basis for justification of conflict.

The Arabs won, and the diaspora began. Hence Jews in Europe, Jews in America, Jews in Asia.

Everywhere but where they belong: in an oven.



I am sorry. But we are speaking currently of the the STATE of Israel. If you don't er...get...perhaps you shouldn't be in the discussion....

[Kosmopolite]

Originally posted by warspirit
Originally posted by Solipsism
veg: No no. These Jews that are DP or displaced people (because their property was seized by the NAZIs) are from Europe. There was no Israel to be forced out. Jews simply didn't have a state.

[Edited by Solipsism on 12-04-2001 at 10:38 PM]

Newsflash: What are Semites?

The Semitic tribe encompasses both Jews and Arabs. Formed almost 4,000 years ago, the tribes quickly split with the Jewish religion in prototypical form becoming the basis for justification of conflict.

The Arabs won, and the diaspora began. Hence Jews in Europe, Jews in America, Jews in Asia.

Everywhere but where they belong: in an oven.



Man you try really hard to sound smart and convincing and then oops you let the nazi genie out the bottle!
You silly racist.

I think the romans kicked the jews out cause they were too much trouble. I doubt the arabs had anything to do with it.

[whiteywillpay]

Gee isn't that nice and purty in this perfect world...

Palestinians don't have an army...they don't even have a state.

Originally posted by Kosmopolite
Originally posted by whiteywillpay
My point is - how do you go about NOT targeting civilians in a real total war? You can't. Not even the US's so called "blood less" war in Iraq couldn't avoid massive civilian casualties. Infact, to this date - over 5000 Afghan civilians have been killed from direct causes of the US military action in their country.

It doesn't matter if you go into a war with the intention to not kill, loop, and rape the people - it just happens, and people in power should realize that violence against civilians are unavoidable in any type of war. They should own up to it before letting the genie out of the bottle. An army, much less a war is not something you can control like a basketball game.

You can wash shit, you can polish shit, you can boil shit - but ultimately, it's shit. You can't sanitize war with artificial parameters. Wars shouldn't be seen as unavoidable, something to live with, something to be reformed, it should be something perceived to be abolished.



Originally posted by Kosmopolite
[QUOTE]Originally posted by whiteywillpay
[B]Umm...can you name a war where civilians were never targeted. Right, you probably can't, because wars don't discriminate between soldiers and civilians.

OH yeah, that's because wars are fought between nations, not armies.

And OH yeah, that's because civilians can become soldiers at any time, vice versa, or maybe because soldiers aren't a magical sub-breed of civilians that molt once a season, and only for that season.

Targeting civilians as in let's go tho the bus stop, nursery, church,chucky cheeze,cafe etc is murder, name it terrorism if you think it suits(it does), or an act of war
if it is an act of war it is a war crime.

I'm not a military historian so I can't recall more than rudimentary info on a few wars. I don't knoe if there was one that did not target civilians I'd bet there were but I'm not sure. If that's not true it still isn't any excuse.


The point is this when an army attacks a group of non combatants even non civilians it is a war crime. TARGETING civilians which means "hey guys let's maim those school kids over there for the cause, alright?" is murder and a war crime at it's most vile. Regretably civilians get killed in war. But they are not who the war should be against. I really find disgusting on how people supposedly anti war(or at least anti american war) can justify the atrocities that pepole commit in other countries as legitimate. Wrong is wrong.

[Edited by Kosmopolite on 04-04-2002 at 10:28 PM]

[captain beeheart]

Originally posted by whiteywillpay
Wrong is wrong.

[Edited by Kosmopolite on 04-04-2002 at 10:28 PM]

But wronger is wronger. Both sides are damaged and fucked up and doing stupid bad things; one is lashing out randomly and defensively, but the other is doing constant obscene acts of dehumanising bullying brutality and aggressive expansionism.

[Kosmopolite]

Okay I'd rather be humiliated and treated like crap than have my legs blown off waiting for the bus. Or having nails tear though my body right after the waiter brings me pizza. I know it's a tough call. But that's just me being idealistic in my rose tinted world.

[captain beeheart]

The "humiliating and treating like crap" is currently being done with tanks and Uzis.

[trigonometry_vs_velvet]

Originally posted by captain beeheart
The "humiliating and treating like crap" is currently being done with tanks and Uzis.


amen!


but i really cant agree at all with your logic whiteywillpay. i dont see how any of it can help the palestinian people. or israeli public understand that their gvt is doing some pretty horrible things. i mean muslim world has pretty much become worlds enemy now. and israelis probably feels more than ever, vindicated in their oppression.

we know bush has chosen HIS side.

[whiteywillpay]

Well, realistically speaking - short of the GA throwing off the chains of the Security Council and going in to the area with out US support - what really is there?

Frankly, I don't see the Palestinians chilling out until the whole area of Israel returns to the status of a UN mandate (which means that Israel loses its sovereignty, but in my warped logic the UN should be able to taketh what they gaveth)

What if the Palestinians chilled out? The day that happens, that would return the situation to the status quo - with Israel constantly harrassing the Palestinian political and economic body, and Israel once again unwilling to recognize Palestinian rights to land that was stolen from them post '63.

I mean really, as long as Israel has sovereignty, or the US backs up Israel - the Palestinians can't do anything. As sick as it is to say, imo, without "terrorism", there would have been no peace process - because to twisted minds in power - the Palestinians living in their oppression without a bit of peep is THE PEACE. And just how ridiculous is that?





Originally posted by trigonometry_vs_velvet
Originally posted by captain beeheart
The "humiliating and treating like crap" is currently being done with tanks and Uzis.


amen!


but i really cant agree at all with your logic whiteywillpay. i dont see how any of it can help the palestinian people. or israeli public understand that their gvt is doing some pretty horrible things. i mean muslim world has pretty much become worlds enemy now. and israelis probably feels more than ever, vindicated in their oppression.

we know bush has chosen HIS side.

[trigonometry_vs_velvet]

look.. you seem to equate non-violence with "chillin-out" which i take it to mean "non-action"?

i see a fallacy in this argument.

and suppose the violence keeps being played out.. so tell me exactly how is this going to resolve the situation?

realistically... who holds more firepower... and now, who has teh "blessings" of a world power (US)?

if we take this violence road to its extreme ends... we may as well wish for a genocide.



Originally posted by whiteywillpay
Well, realistically speaking - short of the GA throwing off the chains of the Security Council and going in to the area with out US support - what really is there?

Frankly, I don't see the Palestinians chilling out until the whole area of Israel returns to the status of a UN mandate (which means that Israel loses its sovereignty, but in my warped logic the UN should be able to taketh what they gaveth)

What if the Palestinians chilled out? The day that happens, that would return the situation to the status quo - with Israel constantly harrassing the Palestinian political and economic body, and Israel once again unwilling to recognize Palestinian rights to land that was stolen from them post '63.

I mean really, as long as Israel has sovereignty, or the US backs up Israel - the Palestinians can't do anything. As sick as it is to say, imo, without "terrorism", there would have been no peace process - because to twisted minds in power - the Palestinians living in their oppression without a bit of peep is THE PEACE. And just how ridiculous is that?





Originally posted by trigonometry_vs_velvet
Originally posted by captain beeheart
The "humiliating and treating like crap" is currently being done with tanks and Uzis.


amen!


but i really cant agree at all with your logic whiteywillpay. i dont see how any of it can help the palestinian people. or israeli public understand that their gvt is doing some pretty horrible things. i mean muslim world has pretty much become worlds enemy now. and israelis probably feels more than ever, vindicated in their oppression.

we know bush has chosen HIS side.

[trigonometry_vs_velvet]

we need to work on worlds perception of the situation... NOT promote more violence.. yes its a daunting task.. but i believe its really the only plausible road to take.

[perseus]

it seems easier to understand when you look at other interests being served - not the Palestinians thats for sure, and not the Israelis... there is some kind of complex power game going on between the arab countries there in the middle-east and the U.S. and it's proxies. obviously the Palestinians will not "win" a conventional military victory with Israel - apparently neither can the combined nearby countries when they attack it. the U.S. giving Israel nukes and $5-10 billion a year just in military aid doesnt help either... so why do they keep fighting? and the same for Israel really - they cant expect their treatment of the Palestinians to lead to peace. i dont pretend to know for sure why there are still going at it, but i suspect it is two things: one, the continuation of a war that never really stopped since Israel was formed, and two, a great excuse for the U.S. to have a hopped-up well-armed ally in the region, right smack in the backyard of our stategic enemies... so really, talk of peace will come to nothing until something in the larger situation changes and the "powers that be" have an interest in peace. imho, of course.

[Kosmopolite]

Originally posted by captain beeheart
The "humiliating and treating like crap" is currently being done with tanks and Uzis.

"Currently" Israel is tired of having it's citizens splattered around resturant halls.

But the humiliation of being a second class citizen is fucked but if you take it apon yourself to make a victim of some mother taking her 6 year old girl to school and blasting her brain all over that little girls car seat,

I'm pretty sure thats pushing most people who don't just hate israel or would support the Palestinians no matter what off the fence and against your noble dream of a free palestine and/or Israels Destruction.

[Kosmopolite]

Originally posted by perseus
it seems easier to understand when you look at other interests being served - not the Palestinians thats for sure, and not the Israelis... there is some kind of complex power game going on between the arab countries there in the middle-east and the U.S. and it's proxies. obviously the Palestinians will not "win" a conventional military victory with Israel - apparently neither can the combined nearby countries when they attack it. the U.S. giving Israel nukes and $5-10 billion a year just in military aid doesnt help either... so why do they keep fighting? and the same for Israel really - they cant expect their treatment of the Palestinians to lead to peace. i dont pretend to know for sure why there are still going at it, but i suspect it is two things: one, the continuation of a war that never really stopped since Israel was formed, and two, a great excuse for the U.S. to have a hopped-up well-armed ally in the region, right smack in the backyard of our stategic enemies... so really, talk of peace will come to nothing until something in the larger situation changes and the "powers that be" have an interest in peace. imho, of course.






Dood is everything some well oiled conspiracy?? YO They give isreal so much because ever since it's formation it has been attacked or threatedned not 'til the late 70's
did one Arab country over the olive leaf. The other powers were Fundamentalist monarchies dictatorships and or alligned with the U.S.S.R why would you not support your only ally in the region?

[trigonometry_vs_velvet]

Originally posted by Kosmopolite
Originally posted by perseus
it seems easier to understand when you look at other interests being served - not the Palestinians thats for sure, and not the Israelis... there is some kind of complex power game going on between the arab countries there in the middle-east and the U.S. and it's proxies. obviously the Palestinians will not "win" a conventional military victory with Israel - apparently neither can the combined nearby countries when they attack it. the U.S. giving Israel nukes and $5-10 billion a year just in military aid doesnt help either... so why do they keep fighting? and the same for Israel really - they cant expect their treatment of the Palestinians to lead to peace. i dont pretend to know for sure why there are still going at it, but i suspect it is two things: one, the continuation of a war that never really stopped since Israel was formed, and two, a great excuse for the U.S. to have a hopped-up well-armed ally in the region, right smack in the backyard of our stategic enemies... so really, talk of peace will come to nothing until something in the larger situation changes and the "powers that be" have an interest in peace. imho, of course.






Dood is everything some well oiled conspiracy?? YO They give isreal so much because ever since it's formation it has been attacked or threatedned not 'til the late 70's
did one Arab country over the olive leaf. The other powers were Fundamentalist monarchies dictatorships and or alligned with the U.S.S.R why would you not support your only ally in the region?

first... i think youre missing a punctuation or words or something... i cant make sense of second sentence at all... the one that starts with "YO They give israel...."

second... i dont see how his observation is any more radical or conspiratory than have put forth by any other people on this thread..

do you guys have a grudge?

in fact.. there seems to be a little more than a handful of grudges held on this forum... we should bring back up that "oversensitive robot" thread. or better yet the thread about "what i love about fellow bots" or whatever it was called...

[perseus]

Originally posted by Kosmopolite
Originally posted by perseus
it seems easier to understand when you look at other interests being served - not the Palestinians thats for sure, and not the Israelis... there is some kind of complex power game going on between the arab countries there in the middle-east and the U.S. and it's proxies. obviously the Palestinians will not "win" a conventional military victory with Israel - apparently neither can the combined nearby countries when they attack it. the U.S. giving Israel nukes and $5-10 billion a year just in military aid doesnt help either... so why do they keep fighting? and the same for Israel really - they cant expect their treatment of the Palestinians to lead to peace. i dont pretend to know for sure why there are still going at it, but i suspect it is two things: one, the continuation of a war that never really stopped since Israel was formed, and two, a great excuse for the U.S. to have a hopped-up well-armed ally in the region, right smack in the backyard of our stategic enemies... so really, talk of peace will come to nothing until something in the larger situation changes and the "powers that be" have an interest in peace. imho, of course.






Dood is everything some well oiled conspiracy?? YO They give isreal so much because ever since it's formation it has been attacked or threatedned not 'til the late 70's
did one Arab country over the olive leaf. The other powers were Fundamentalist monarchies dictatorships and or alligned with the U.S.S.R why would you not support your only ally in the region?

we have had lots of allies in the region, some just as bad on human rights as the israelis. we gave saddam money and military aid the whole time he was gassing his own people, for example... also, while israel has been attacked since it's inception, the US did not give them any real aid until several wars later, i think the 60s but i am not sure about the date. it took a couple decades for US global hegemony to set in as a deep-seated policy after WWII.

and it does make it more understandable to remember that the Zionists came in recently, in historical terms, about 70 years ago, and have been pushing out the previous occupants of that area ever since. and not making friends doing it either. every town in Israel once had an Arab name. that's mostly why Israel was attacked straight off in the 40s... there were Zionist terrorists operating in Palestine when it was a British mandate in the 30s, fighting and commiting illegal "acts of terror" to promote the creation of a "jewish homeland". personally i think church and state should be separate, but that's just me... oh yea, and the people who wrote the US Constitution. there were semites, jews, arabs living in the area and getting along fine until Zionists came in and started agitating. in the old days the muslim/hebrew cultures interacted fruitfully, jewish writers wrote in arabic because the people of the region, their neighbors and the members of the community, read arabic - but now that the euro-centric Zionists have taken over, jewish writers are forced to write in hebrew, though most of their community of arabic-speaking fellow citizens has either been murdered or exiled anyway...

read about sabra and shatila - true war crimes and deliberate massacres.. and the guy who did it is running Israel now! amazing.

or read about the Night of the Long Knives, when the Zionist terrorists went house-to-house killing Palestinians and emptying towns for "settlement".

it's true that the Palestinians hurt their modern political cause immeasurably by deliberately targeting civilians. in a sense they learned from the Israelis, who have been practicing terror in the region for 70 years, and for whom it seems to have worked. no one talks of them leaving anymore, it's just a question of how much of the land they invaded they are going to let the remnants of the Palestinians live on. so perhaps the Palestinians hope that by being similarly stubborn they will eventually achieve some of their goals. one problem for them i think, however, is that they are not nearly as vicious or well-organized as the Zionists - or as well-supplied for that matter. the Palestinians will be hard-pressed to "out-terror" the masters themselves, the Israeli Zionists (and dont forget their ally and benefactor, perhaps the only bigger diseminator of terror to the globe, the United States - ah the US, who treats the whole world as its own little Gaza Strip... but that's another story).

[whiteywillpay]

Errr, dude, the formation of Israel was a spat on the face of justice. The Arabs had all rights to be pissed.


Originally posted by Kosmopolite
Originally posted by perseus
it seems easier to understand when you look at other interests being served - not the Palestinians thats for sure, and not the Israelis... there is some kind of complex power game going on between the arab countries there in the middle-east and the U.S. and it's proxies. obviously the Palestinians will not "win" a conventional military victory with Israel - apparently neither can the combined nearby countries when they attack it. the U.S. giving Israel nukes and $5-10 billion a year just in military aid doesnt help either... so why do they keep fighting? and the same for Israel really - they cant expect their treatment of the Palestinians to lead to peace. i dont pretend to know for sure why there are still going at it, but i suspect it is two things: one, the continuation of a war that never really stopped since Israel was formed, and two, a great excuse for the U.S. to have a hopped-up well-armed ally in the region, right smack in the backyard of our stategic enemies... so really, talk of peace will come to nothing until something in the larger situation changes and the "powers that be" have an interest in peace. imho, of course.






Dood is everything some well oiled conspiracy?? YO They give isreal so much because ever since it's formation it has been attacked or threatedned not 'til the late 70's
did one Arab country over the olive leaf. The other powers were Fundamentalist monarchies dictatorships and or alligned with the U.S.S.R why would you not support your only ally in the region?

[Kosmopolite]

What most people forget in the first place is that before
arab hating war happy Sharon there was Barak Who offered the most any Israeli President ever offered post 67.
What did mister victim of Israeli Aggression Arafat Say:
Not good enough I'll holla later man. That's the brick wall
the palestinians were up against a leader who didn't give a fuck about peace.

[Kosmopolite]

Originally posted by trigonometry_vs_velvet
Originally posted by Kosmopolite
Originally posted by perseus
it seems easier to understand when you look at other interests being served - not the Palestinians thats for sure, and not the Israelis... there is some kind of complex power game going on between the arab countries there in the middle-east and the U.S. and it's proxies. obviously the Palestinians will not "win" a conventional military victory with Israel - apparently neither can the combined nearby countries when they attack it. the U.S. giving Israel nukes and $5-10 billion a year just in military aid doesnt help either... so why do they keep fighting? and the same for Israel really - they cant expect their treatment of the Palestinians to lead to peace. i dont pretend to know for sure why there are still going at it, but i suspect it is two things: one, the continuation of a war that never really stopped since Israel was formed, and two, a great excuse for the U.S. to have a hopped-up well-armed ally in the region, right smack in the backyard of our stategic enemies... so really, talk of peace will come to nothing until something in the larger situation changes and the "powers that be" have an interest in peace. imho, of course.






Dood is everything some well oiled conspiracy?? YO They give isreal so much because ever since it's formation it has been attacked or threatedned not 'til the late 70's
did one Arab country over the olive leaf. The other powers were Fundamentalist monarchies dictatorships and or alligned with the U.S.S.R why would you not support your only ally in the region?

first... i think youre missing a punctuation or words or something... i cant make sense of second sentence at all... the one that starts with "YO They give israel...."

second... i dont see how his observation is any more radical or conspiratory than have put forth by any other people on this thread..

do you guys have a grudge?

in fact.. there seems to be a little more than a handful of grudges held on this forum... we should bring back up that "oversensitive robot" thread. or better yet the thread about "what i love about fellow bots" or whatever it was called...



That sentence I didn't puctuate corrctly was trying to explain that the U.S. Gave so much financial and military
support to Israel because it was always under threat of attack of the countries that surrounded it.

His statement that U.S. might want that conflict to go on so they can have "a great excuse for the U.S. to have a hopped-up well-armed ally in the region" Is to my humble eyes ludicriths! And it just reminds me of the many times he has stated even paranoid conspiracies.

He's views I have problems I guess he's cool personally.
But don't agree with most of his political positions and they do piss me off when i first read them sometimes.
But It's not real beef.

If I had real beef it would be with
Dudes who are always on that racist homophobic but let's talk all civil type people. It's quite annoying.

Oh yeah and maybe if they talked about my Mama.

But I wouldn't get to pissed because I can't sock 'em in the glass jaw. So I might just go to and watch some space ghost and have a drink to chill out.

[Kosmopolite]

Ayo I'm learning allot from your post Percy but
before I forget How is Hebrew Eurocentric?

[Kosmopolite]

Dood the U.S is no Angel But I mean you make it sound like the great Satan I mean it has to have some good points.
If we can find good points with China I'm sure we can with theU.S. I feel the same way about church and state. I think Israel is mostly secular but I'll look that up. Thanks for some of the info on early israel.

Can you let me know(besides forcing people off there own land which we know is beyon fucked)some of the crimes that
Israel commit to the Palestinians? I read allot about this
stuff in high school but I'm 23 now and old age takes it toll on the noggin. I

I also realize that both sides play the outrage/victim game
when one of their dead is such a tragedy while the othere asked for it or were in the wrong place at the wong time.
i.e. Window of house bus stop.

I wouldn't seem to be defending the israeli side so much if
first I wouldn't hear so many half hearted excuses for the
palestinians crimes. And justification of warcrimes because other countries including ours has committed them.

Honestly until Septmber 11th I was totally for the Palestinians cause for an independent democratic state. I was of course against Hamas and all
the other murderers especially Sharon who I held responsible for making things worse by giving the muderers
of Hezbollah,Hamas and fatah more support.
After 911 worried if there was a strong palestinian stated then that would mean more reason to finish of israel.

I really tried to belive in Arafat until it beame clear to me lately he could care less for peace and the ending of suicide bombings he wants the destruction of Israel or to go out in a blaze of Glory as a Shaheed.
Now I hate both of thier leaders and I just pray for those caught in this mess.

[trigonometry_vs_velvet]

Originally posted by Kosmopolite
Ayo I'm learning allot from your post Percy but
before I forget How is Hebrew Eurocentric?

i believe he was saying Zionism were eurocentric..

remember.. zionism was a russo-european movement entirely. it was founded by herzl around the turn of teh century in reaction to anti-semetic sentiments in russia and europe during that time. zionists were entirely european.

and its because of western colonialism (in this case specifically british) that israel even exists! its a vestige of the ol' european imperialism.

very roughly speaking, britain took control of palestine from the turks (they were aided by arabs) then sort of fucked over the arabs with teh belfour agreement, which catered to the zionists and helped them migrate into palestine after WW I. thsi was before israel was recognized (that happened when british went to the UN for advice on what to do after WW II. basically UN chose who got control of what land in palestine and established israel pretty much... no doubt, Hitler evils probably had something to do with their decision even though majority of jews who suffered under hitler werent themselves zionists).

the irony doesnt escape me that before UN recognized israel as a state, the "israelis" were engaged in "terrorist" acts against the palestinians.

but yeah theres an element of danger i think.. when we speak like this.. cuz it gets really polarized and we miss a whole spectrum. it transforms into the us vs. them mentality you know? and when youre with us, you cant do no wrong.. and when youre not.. you cant do no right.. its fucked up.. i hope the leftists realize that no one shoudl be above criticism.. treat them as humans first. both sides.

[trigonometry_vs_velvet]

damn man.. this west bank biz is frustrating.. argggg... :[

and its a double source of frustration to know that your president is backing it.

[Kosmopolite]

Hey I'm going to lay off the responding with a qoute cause
it takes too much room. I agree on that Us an them thing and that's not what. I'm just I wanted some balance and questioning and possible shifts in points of view if the make sense.

I feel that Jews shoulds have their own land but kicking out it's inhabitants is wrong. During the 90's I was hoping that Israel would give the Palestinians their independence and help them along with other countries to prosper. And that Israel itself take a cue from South Africa and try to right it's past wrongs. And work to be more plural. Yeah I'll be dissed for being hokey for actually thinking there could have been a workable peace.
But It looked like it could happen in those idealistic high school days post '93.

Thanks for the brief history I've read about it before
and was let down to see how Israel came into existence to.

[phism]

i was too lazy to read the rest of this thread, so i'm starting here.

it sucks that i can't say "fuck the jews" without getting flamed. really though, israel is fucked up. giving them the state was a really bad idea....and our support is a really bad idea too. obviously we aren't going to just pull out, so there's no real answer.

however, i'd more readily support palestine than israel, because they're the rightful owners of the land. the jewish people were nomads before, they don't need a state, put them in cities...judaism seems to thrive about everywhere else without too much conflict these days.

[Kosmopolite]

Originally posted by phism
i was too lazy to read the rest of this thread, so i'm starting here.

it sucks that i can't say "fuck the jews" without getting flamed. really though, israel is fucked up. giving them the state was a really bad idea....and our support is a really bad idea too. obviously we aren't going to just pull out, so there's no real answer.

however, i'd more readily support palestine than israel, because they're the rightful owners of the land. the jewish people were nomads before, they don't need a state, put them in cities...judaism seems to thrive about everywhere else without too much conflict these days.
I think everyone especially people like Jews need a state
who where forced from their land and throughout history
persecute because of it.
Nomads? So are Arabs so they don't need their own land?
Think about what you just wrote maybe you came of wrong.

[mobs]

Both sides have their own version of history. How this started, who is at fault, what should happen now.

This is the holy land, home to an unholy war.

Could Britain be the scapegoat for all this fighting?

While that would not be entirely fair, a lot of trouble in this area can be traced back to World War I and the British.

The Ottoman Turks, or Turkey, ruled the area known as Palestine before World War I, but the area came under British control after the Turks sided with Germany and lost the war.

Here's where the Brits lit the powder keg with contradictory promises.

During the war, the British wanted the Arabs on their side and promised there would be Arab independence in these former Turkish areas, then 90% Arab Christian and Muslim.

But in 1917, Britain's leaders also wrote the Balfour Declaration, calling for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," in attempt to rally Jewish leaders in the U.S. and the U.K. to their side.

After the war, the League of Nations granted power over Palestine to Britain with the mandate that the British would help the Palestinian Jews build a national homeland.

The people in Palestine objected and hostility grew.

The British knew they had a huge problem on their hands. Jewish immigration soared as violent anti-Semitism grew in Europe and Russia. By the end of World War II, Jews made up one-third of the population of Palestine.

"There were no political problems between Jews and Arabs in Palestine prior to the 20th Century," said University of Toronto history professor James Reilly. "It's not a feud that goes back to biblical times.

"But because of the development of Jewish nationalism and Arab nationalism focused on the same territory, a modern ethnic conflict developed," Reilly said. "It acquired international dimensions when the British pledged to build a Jewish national home in a country that at that point was 90% Arab."

Britain wanted out and in 1947 handed Palestine over to the United Nations. It was someone else's problem now.

[mobs]

INDEPENDENCE

The United Nations decided the best way to solve the tensions in Palestine was to partition the territory into a Jewish and an Arab state.

The Jewish movement accepted the partition.

"The Arab population of Palestine and the Arab states opposed the partition on the grounds that the UN had no authority to partition Palestine over the objections of its indigenous inhabitants," said McGill politics professor Rex Brynen, an expert on the Middle East.

On May 14, 1948 the State of Israel was proclaimed by the United Nations.

On May 15, 1948, the State of Israel was attacked by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon in an attempt to destroy the one-day-old nation.

The move backfired. By 1949 and the end of the Arab-Israeli war, Israel held three-quarters of Palestine, double what the UN had proposed. Jordan had the West Bank, Egypt had the Gaza Strip. Palestinians had nothing.

REFUGEES

The Palestinians were dispossessed from their homes and land in what had become Israel after the 1948 war. There were now 700,000 Palestinian refugees.

They formed refugee populations in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Syria.

"The Palestinian sense of themselves as a people is tied to this dispossession," Reilly said. "Their dream was to return home to their lands, homes and villages."

Since 1949, it has sometimes seemed as if Israel has been under attack on a daily basis from displaced Palestinians trying to recapture their land.

WAR AND PEACE

In 1967, after UN peacekeeping forces had moved out of the area, Egypt closed off the Suez Canal to Israeli ships for the second time in 12 years.

Fearing the Egyptians would attack, Israel struck first, mounting what became known as the Six-Day War. The Israeli fighting machine destroyed both the Egyptian air force as it sat on the ground, then its ground forces. When the UN ended that war, Israel had redrawn the map again.

Israel was swallowing up land like it was a superpower.

It captured Gaza, parts of the Egyptian Sinai desert, West Bank lands, old Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip put Israel in control of one million hostile Palestinians.

Guerrilla violence against Israel escalated as the Arab world responded to its capture with a no peace, no negotiation, no recognition policy. The Palestine Liberation Organization also got its start in the '60s and Yasser Arafat became its chairman in 1969.

In 1973, Egypt attacked Sinai, while Syria bombarded the Golan Heights in the Yom Kippur War. Despite being attacked on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar and suffering huge losses, Israel prevailed and gained even more land.

The Yom Kippur War seemed to prove that after 25 years, the military solution to the Arab nations' demand for some of the land perhaps wasn't the best alternative.

The first Arab-Israeli peace conference convened in December 1973 in Switzerland. That led eventually to the Camp David Accords of 1978, where Egypt and Israel agreed to end the dispute between the two countries. Israel returned Sinai to Egypt.

Both Israel and Egypt also agreed to negotiate Palestinian autonomy in Gaza and the West Bank. But Egyptian president Anwar al-Sadat was assassinated before any progress could be made.

The PLO believed no movement toward a Palestinian state was happening and began missile attacks on Israel in the early 1980s. In 1982, the Israeli army moved in to Lebanon in an attempt to drive the PLO out.

"Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon was an attempt to destroy the PLO," said McGill's Brynen. "The architect was Ariel Sharon and the target was Yasser Arafat. In some ways we're replaying 1982 now, except we're in Ramallah instead of Beirut."

[mobs]

RELIGION

The land now called Israel is holy land for three religions, Muslims,Christians and Jews. Brynen believes as the conflict becomes more intense, religion becomes more important.

"But I think most Palestinians would tell you it's as much a national struggle as it is a religious struggle," Brynen said. "Many Israelis, certainly in more secular cities like Tel Aviv, would tell you it's an Israeli national security issue.

"I think the religious dimension quite dangerously has become more important the worse the violence has got," he said. "That makes compromise more difficult."

Peace was close to reality in July 2000 at Camp David. It was closer still as negotiations carried on in private until January 2001.

"There was a sensible middle ground," Brynen said.

That middle ground didn't sit well with many Israelis, who argued Yasser Arafat, representing the Palestinians, was unprepared to even consider the most generous concessions ever offered. Eventually Ehud Barak's Labour government collapsed and Ariel Sharon, the hard-nosed right-wing Likud politician became prime minister in February.

"They ran out of time, the political context was bad," Brynen said. "But the negotiations were going extraordinarily well. In fact, a great many of the negotiators I know personally on both sides said if they would have had another month they would have had a deal."

Sharon pulled all "land-for-peace" deals from the table and began seeking a military solution.

Brynen said two problems must be overcome before peace can come to the Middle East: Violence and politics.

"The violence, most of the blame can be put at the Palestinian door. The absence of any political light at the end of the tunnel can be put at the Israeli door."

Many believe Sharon is not interested in ending the West Bank occupation, so he's incapable of putting a reasonable compromise on the table.

Others argue Arafat's real agenda is not a Palestinian state living peacefully beside Israel, but the destruction of Israel itself.

"It will probably require a different government in Israel to change the political light and that's not going to happen any time in the coming years," he said.

And Brynen said even if Arafat were trying hard to convince his population they shouldn't shoot at Israelis, the Palestinians won't listen as long as Israelis continue to settle in the captured territory.

"We're kind of caught in a Catch-22 which I think we'll have a great deal of difficulty getting out," Brynen said. "I think we're stuck in years of the same at this point."

[perseus]

Originally posted by Kosmopolite
What most people forget in the first place is that before
arab hating war happy Sharon there was Barak Who offered the most any Israeli President ever offered post 67.
What did mister victim of Israeli Aggression Arafat Say:
Not good enough I'll holla later man. That's the brick wall
the palestinians were up against a leader who didn't give a fuck about peace.

well... why do you think George Bush and his cronies like Arafat so much? they keep begging Israel not to kill him, not to expel him, etc... i think there is a serious question around Arafat's true purpose and constituency. he seems to be serving the interests of the surrounding Arab countries more than the local Palestinians. as i said in the previous post, in a way Arafat is the partner of the U.S. in that he keeps the whole charade going, the "cycle of violence". i think that if either of the two real players - the U.S. and the local Muslim/Arab countries - wanted peace they could probably achieve it. but they obviously do not, which indicated they have other purposes being served than just the obvious goal of land and an independent state for the Palestinians.

really, the average person on both the Israeli side and the Palestinian side is a victim of strategies set by powers outside both countries. it's quite sad really, and infuriating i should think esp for the people living there.

[perseus]

Originally posted by Kosmopolite
Originally posted by trigonometry_vs_velvet
Originally posted by Kosmopolite
Originally posted by perseus
it seems easier to understand when you look at other interests being served - not the Palestinians thats for sure, and not the Israelis... there is some kind of complex power game going on between the arab countries there in the middle-east and the U.S. and it's proxies. obviously the Palestinians will not "win" a conventional military victory with Israel - apparently neither can the combined nearby countries when they attack it. the U.S. giving Israel nukes and $5-10 billion a year just in military aid doesnt help either... so why do they keep fighting? and the same for Israel really - they cant expect their treatment of the Palestinians to lead to peace. i dont pretend to know for sure why there are still going at it, but i suspect it is two things: one, the continuation of a war that never really stopped since Israel was formed, and two, a great excuse for the U.S. to have a hopped-up well-armed ally in the region, right smack in the backyard of our stategic enemies... so really, talk of peace will come to nothing until something in the larger situation changes and the "powers that be" have an interest in peace. imho, of course.






Dood is everything some well oiled conspiracy?? YO They give isreal so much because ever since it's formation it has been attacked or threatedned not 'til the late 70's
did one Arab country over the olive leaf. The other powers were Fundamentalist monarchies dictatorships and or alligned with the U.S.S.R why would you not support your only ally in the region?

first... i think youre missing a punctuation or words or something... i cant make sense of second sentence at all... the one that starts with "YO They give israel...."

second... i dont see how his observation is any more radical or conspiratory than have put forth by any other people on this thread..

do you guys have a grudge?

in fact.. there seems to be a little more than a handful of grudges held on this forum... we should bring back up that "oversensitive robot" thread. or better yet the thread about "what i love about fellow bots" or whatever it was called...



That sentence I didn't puctuate corrctly was trying to explain that the U.S. Gave so much financial and military
support to Israel because it was always under threat of attack of the countries that surrounded it.

His statement that U.S. might want that conflict to go on so they can have "a great excuse for the U.S. to have a hopped-up well-armed ally in the region" Is to my humble eyes ludicriths! And it just reminds me of the many times he has stated even paranoid conspiracies.

He's views I have problems I guess he's cool personally.
But don't agree with most of his political positions and they do piss me off when i first read them sometimes.
But It's not real beef.

If I had real beef it would be with
Dudes who are always on that racist homophobic but let's talk all civil type people. It's quite annoying.



well, i do think people who talk about racism and/or homosexuality should do it in a civil way... and i also think it is ok to talk about. unfortunately those are both hot-button politically correct issues and many people react very aggressively and non-sensically to views different than their own. but back to the topic at hand:

if you look back, when Israel was first started the U.S. establishment was actually still somewhat anti-semitic. also, they really didnt have the long-term strategic planning and vision of themselves that later developed. so, at first their support of Israel was limited. fairly soon though i think policy makers realized we would need a more present and forceful influence in the region, and Israel became almost another state it seems like.

it seems to me normal that Israel was attacked by it's neighbors the day after its declaration - i mean, really it was an illegal, terrorist invasion by foreigners. to the locals, it must seem somewhat like another Crusade.

it's interesting to look at the history of U.S. involvement in destabilizing, overthrowing and other direct military involvement, in other countries after WWII. even before the war ended, when U.S. troops invaded Italy they did not go attack the retreating Germans first always - in many cases, their main target was the (quite successful) Anarchist/Socialist militias which had been doing a very good job giving the Germans a hard time and were poised to take control of the country after they left. since they would serve the interests of their own citizens over U.S. corporate interests the U.S. could not allow this and murdered most of the militias before the war was even over. then we went into Greece right after the war and similarly murdered most of the people about to put a more self-serving government in power there... then we, the U.S., applied basically the same policies they used in Greece to many other nations... finally they had to change a bit when they got in some trouble in Vietnam, but they must've fucked with 20 countries at least between 1945 and 1965.

http://www.yuksel.org/e/guest/interventions.htm

the sad thing in letting Israel continue to exist is that they are basically saying terrorism works, and "might equals right". that's the way of the world i guess though, and shown throughout history... I just hate the way the Israeli politicians act like they are so innocent, just a regular country that is unfairly attacked by these "terrorists" - it's amazing. actually, i shouldnt say that - it's totally predictable and typical really. the Israeli politicians are doing the same thing the U.S. always does (and many politicians for that matter), which is publicly state the exact opposite of their actions, and of course accuse their enemies of what they themselves are guilty of. it's Orwell's "1984", where the Ministry of Truth is really the ministry of propaganda (i.e, lies), the Ministry of Peace really the ministry of war, etc. like the U.S. "defense department" is really for offense... when Bush says he is "defending democracy and freedom" he is most likely doing exactly the opposite in reality. similarly when the U.S. sends troops to kill people in far away places to "defend our national security" it is actually the opposite.

[Asharak]

Israel and the real "anti-Americans."

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j040502.html

[Asharak]

http://www.jvao.org/

[Kosmopolite]

Thanks allot mobs I'm going to finish reading soon! Gotta run to the store though.

[whiteywillpay]

Errr...Man...do you even know what Barak's terms were? They were outright ridiculous - sure it might have been the most Israelis have ever offered, but compared to the overall Palestinian demands, and even measuring those terms to reality - those terms were absolute shit.


Originally posted by Kosmopolite
What most people forget in the first place is that before
arab hating war happy Sharon there was Barak Who offered the most any Israeli President ever offered post 67.
What did mister victim of Israeli Aggression Arafat Say:
Not good enough I'll holla later man. That's the brick wall
the palestinians were up against a leader who didn't give a fuck about peace.

[Kosmopolite]

Originally posted by whiteywillpay
Errr...Man...do you even know what Barak's terms were? They were outright ridiculous - sure it might have been the most Israelis have ever offered, but compared to the overall Palestinian demands, and even measuring those terms to reality - those terms were absolute shit.


Originally posted by Kosmopolite
What most people forget in the first place is that before
arab hating war happy Sharon there was Barak Who offered the most any Israeli President ever offered post 67.
What did mister victim of Israeli Aggression Arafat Say:
Not good enough I'll holla later man. That's the brick wall
the palestinians were up against a leader who didn't give a fuck about peace.

What were they?

[Asharak]

Originally posted by whiteywillpay
Errr...Man...do you even know what Barak's terms were? They were outright ridiculous - sure it might have been the most Israelis have ever offered, but compared to the overall Palestinian demands, and even measuring those terms to reality - those terms were absolute shit.


Originally posted by Kosmopolite
What most people forget in the first place is that before
arab hating war happy Sharon there was Barak Who offered the most any Israeli President ever offered post 67.
What did mister victim of Israeli Aggression Arafat Say:
Not good enough I'll holla later man. That's the brick wall
the palestinians were up against a leader who didn't give a fuck about peace.

http://www.indigenouspeople.org/natlit/chiapas/latuff/barak.gif

[Asharak]

http://www.indigenouspeople.org/natlit/chiapas/latuff/stone.gif

[Asharak]

http://www.indigenouspeople.org/natlit/chiapas/latuff/crime.jpg

[Kosmopolite]

Originally posted by perseus
Originally posted by Kosmopolite
What most people forget in the first place is that before
arab hating war happy Sharon there was Barak Who offered the most any Israeli President ever offered post 67.
What did mister victim of Israeli Aggression Arafat Say:
Not good enough I'll holla later man. That's the brick wall
the palestinians were up against a leader who didn't give a fuck about peace.

well... why do you think George Bush and his cronies like Arafat so much? they keep begging Israel not to kill him, not to expel him, etc... i think there is a serious question around Arafat's true purpose and constituency. he seems to be serving the interests of the surrounding Arab countries more than the local Palestinians. as i said in the previous post, in a way Arafat is the partner of the U.S. in that he keeps the whole charade going, the "cycle of violence". i think that if either of the two real players - the U.S. and the local Muslim/Arab countries - wanted peace they could probably achieve it. but they obviously do not, which indicated they have other purposes being served than just the obvious goal of land and an independent state for the Palestinians.

really, the average person on both the Israeli side and the Palestinian side is a victim of strategies set by powers outside both countries. it's quite sad really, and infuriating i should think esp for the people living there.



I don't think they like him so much I think that unlike Sharon and HIS cronies Bush realizes the asshole is the only Palestinian at present who has the influence to bring about a cease fire.
It's makes no since that you of all people think that the
U.S or Bush wants or needs the Cycle of violence to continue especially since everytning is a conspiracy to you. You tend to lead everything back to Oil an U.S. hegemony so why would the U.S. want the region destabilized when it means higher oil prices and unpredictable uncooperative governments? So it can kill more non white people? come on.

[trigonometry_vs_velvet]

well.. a thin sliver of positive development..


UN Security Council voted unanimously to urge israel to git going out of the palestinian territory.

and sharons office made rather a vague announcement that theyll pull out of west bank... but didnt really specify no specifics.. if you.. nah mean.

i dont know... finally UN is starting to flex its muscles towards the matter.

[Kosmopolite]

That fat bastard Sharon probably just made it worse anyway.
I try but I have a very hard time in seeing the effectiveness of his actions.
But yeah that's at least hopeful news.

[warspirit]

Originally posted by Waco Jesus
Israel and the real "anti-Americans."

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j040502.html

This article seems hopelessly biased from the liberal side. First, the goal of Arabs is not to destroy the state of Israel, but to stop the Israeli invasion (both sides can play the definition game). Second, Bush is a neoliberal (support of globalism) not a neoconservative, although the two seem like equatable definitions.

Not impressed. Libertarian, eh? I doubt it.

[warspirit]

Originally posted by Kosmopolite
Originally posted by perseus
Originally posted by Kosmopolite
What most people forget in the first place is that before
arab hating war happy Sharon there was Barak Who offered the most any Israeli President ever offered post 67.
What did mister victim of Israeli Aggression Arafat Say:
Not good enough I'll holla later man. That's the brick wall
the palestinians were up against a leader who didn't give a fuck about peace.

well... why do you think George Bush and his cronies like Arafat so much? they keep begging Israel not to kill him, not to expel him, etc... i think there is a serious question around Arafat's true purpose and constituency. he seems to be serving the interests of the surrounding Arab countries more than the local Palestinians. as i said in the previous post, in a way Arafat is the partner of the U.S. in that he keeps the whole charade going, the "cycle of violence". i think that if either of the two real players - the U.S. and the local Muslim/Arab countries - wanted peace they could probably achieve it. but they obviously do not, which indicated they have other purposes being served than just the obvious goal of land and an independent state for the Palestinians.

really, the average person on both the Israeli side and the Palestinian side is a victim of strategies set by powers outside both countries. it's quite sad really, and infuriating i should think esp for the people living there.



I don't think they like him so much I think that unlike Sharon and HIS cronies Bush realizes the asshole is the only Palestinian at present who has the influence to bring about a cease fire.
It's makes no since that you of all people think that the
U.S or Bush wants or needs the Cycle of violence to continue especially since everytning is a conspiracy to you. You tend to lead everything back to Oil an U.S. hegemony so why would the U.S. want the region destabilized when it means higher oil prices and unpredictable uncooperative governments? So it can kill more non white people? come on.

The U.S. can explore its own oil reserves, or be destroyed, as is appropriate.

Arafat couldn't bring about a cease fire. He is living in occupied lands, facing an enemy with several thousand times his funding.

[warspirit]

Originally posted by Solipsism
Originally posted by warspirit
Originally posted by Solipsism
veg: No no. These Jews that are DP or displaced people (because their property was seized by the NAZIs) are from Europe. There was no Israel to be forced out. Jews simply didn't have a state.

[Edited by Solipsism on 12-04-2001 at 10:38 PM]

Newsflash: What are Semites?

The Semitic tribe encompasses both Jews and Arabs. Formed almost 4,000 years ago, the tribes quickly split with the Jewish religion in prototypical form becoming the basis for justification of conflict.

The Arabs won, and the diaspora began. Hence Jews in Europe, Jews in America, Jews in Asia.

Everywhere but where they belong: in an oven.



I am sorry. But we are speaking currently of the the STATE of Israel. If you don't er...get...perhaps you shouldn't be in the discussion....

No state exists without its full history. Jews, as a religion and as a culture, are a racially-defined entity.

[warspirit]

Originally posted by whiteywillpay
Well, realistically speaking - short of the GA throwing off the chains of the Security Council and going in to the area with out US support - what really is there?

Frankly, I don't see the Palestinians chilling out until the whole area of Israel returns to the status of a UN mandate (which means that Israel loses its sovereignty, but in my warped logic the UN should be able to taketh what they gaveth)

What if the Palestinians chilled out? The day that happens, that would return the situation to the status quo - with Israel constantly harrassing the Palestinian political and economic body, and Israel once again unwilling to recognize Palestinian rights to land that was stolen from them post '63.

I mean really, as long as Israel has sovereignty, or the US backs up Israel - the Palestinians can't do anything. As sick as it is to say, imo, without "terrorism", there would have been no peace process - because to twisted minds in power - the Palestinians living in their oppression without a bit of peep is THE PEACE. And just how ridiculous is that?





Originally posted by trigonometry_vs_velvet
Originally posted by captain beeheart
The "humiliating and treating like crap" is currently being done with tanks and Uzis.


amen!


but i really cant agree at all with your logic whiteywillpay. i dont see how any of it can help the palestinian people. or israeli public understand that their gvt is doing some pretty horrible things. i mean muslim world has pretty much become worlds enemy now. and israelis probably feels more than ever, vindicated in their oppression.

we know bush has chosen HIS side.

Some think Bush is hoping to push the Arab states to nuclear conflict, in order to justify a globalist neoliberal state.

It would fulfill the political goals of both major religions...

[Kosmopolite]

Some say the world doesn't rotate.

[perseus]

Originally posted by Kosmopolite
Originally posted by whiteywillpay
Errr...Man...do you even know what Barak's terms were? They were outright ridiculous - sure it might have been the most Israelis have ever offered, but compared to the overall Palestinian demands, and even measuring those terms to reality - those terms were absolute shit.


Originally posted by Kosmopolite
What most people forget in the first place is that before
arab hating war happy Sharon there was Barak Who offered the most any Israeli President ever offered post 67.
What did mister victim of Israeli Aggression Arafat Say:
Not good enough I'll holla later man. That's the brick wall
the palestinians were up against a leader who didn't give a fuck about peace.

What were they?

here is an interesting FAQ from the Palestinian Authority's viewpoint:

http://www.nad-plo.org/eye/news38.html

CAMP DAVID PEACE PROPOSAL.
OF.JULY, 2000

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Map of the Camp David Proposal


1. Why did the Palestinians reject the Camp David Peace Proposal?

For a true and lasting peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, there must be two viable and independent states living as equal neighbors. Israel's Camp David proposal, which was never set forth in writing, denied the Palestinian state viability and independence by dividing Palestinian territory into four separate cantons entirely surrounded, and therefore controlled, by Israel. The Camp David proposal also denied Palestinians control over their own borders, airspace and water resources while legitimizing and expanding illegal Israeli colonies in Palestinian territory. Israel's Camp David proposal presented a 're-packaging' of military occupation, not an end to military occupation.


2. Didn't Israel's proposal give the Palestinians almost all of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967?

No. Israel sought to annex almost 9% of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in exchange offered from Israel's own territory only the equivalent of 1% of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. In addition, the Israel sought control over an additional 10% of the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the form of a "long-term lease". However, the issue is not one of percentages - the issue is one of viability and independence. In a prison for example, 95% of the prison compound is ostensibly for the prisoners - cells, cafeterias, gym and medical facilities - but the remaining 5% is all that is needed for the prison guards to maintain control over the prisoner population. Similarly, the Camp David proposal, while admittedly making Palestinian prison cells larger, failed to end Israeli control over the Palestinian population.

3. Did the Palestinians accept the idea of a land swap?.

The Palestinians were (and are) prepared to consider any idea that is consistent with a fair peace based on international law and equality of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. The Palestinians did consider the idea of a land swap but proposed that such land swap must be based on a one-to-one ratio, with land of equal value and in areas adjacent to the border with Palestine and in the same vicinity as the lands to be annexed by Israel. However, Israel's Camp David proposal of a nine-to-one land swap (in Israel's favor) was viewed as so unfair as to seriously undermine belief in Israel's commitment to a fair territorial compromise.


4. How did Israel's proposal envision the territory of a Palestinian state?

Israel's proposal divided Palestine into four separate cantons surrounded by Israel: the Northern West Bank, the Central West Bank, the Southern West Bank and Gaza. Going from any one area to another would require crossing Israeli sovereign territory and consequently subject movement of Palestinians within their own country to Israeli control. Not only would such restrictions apply to the movement of people, but also to the movement of goods, in effect subjecting the Palestinian economy to Israeli control. Lastly, the Camp David proposal would have left Israel in control over all Palestinian borders thereby allowing Israel to control not only internal movement of people and goods but international movement as well. Such a Palestinian state would have had less sovereignty and viability than the Bantustans created by the South African apartheid government.


5. How did Israel's proposal address Palestinian East Jerusalem?

The Camp David Proposal required Palestinians to give up any claim to the occupied portion of Jerusalem. The proposal would have forced recognition of Israel's annexation of all of Arab East Jerusalem. Talks after Camp David suggested that Israel was prepared to allow Palestinians sovereignty over isolated Palestinian neighborhoods in the heart of East Jerusalem, however such neighborhoods would remain surrounded by illegal Israeli colonies and separated not only from each other but also from the rest of the Palestinian state. In effect, such a proposal would create Palestinian ghettos in the heart of Jerusalem.


6. Why didn't the Palestinians ever present a comprehensive permanent settlement proposal of their own in response to Barak's proposals?

The comprehensive settlement to the conflict is embodied in United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338, as was accepted by both sides at the Madrid Summit in 1991 and later in the Oslo Accords of 1993. The purpose of the negotiations is to implement these UN resolutions (which call for an Israeli withdrawal from land occupied by force by Israel in 1967) and reach agreement on final status issues. On a number of occasions since Camp David - especially at the Taba talks - the Palestinian negotiating team presented its concept for the resolution of the key permanent status issues. It is important to keep in mind, however, that Israel and the Palestinians are differently situated. Israel seeks broad concessions from the Palestinians: it wants to annex Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem; obtain rights to Palestinian water resources in the West Bank; maintain military locations on Palestinian soil; and deny the Palestinian refugees' their right of return. Israel has not offered a single concession involving its own territory and rights. The Palestinians, on the other hand, seek to establish a viable, sovereign State on their own territory, to provide for the withdrawal of Israeli military forces and colonies (which are universally recognized as illegal), and to secure the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the homes they were forced to flee in 1948. Although Palestinian negotiators have been willing to accommodate legitimate Israeli needs within that context, particularly with respect to security and refugees, it is up to Israel to define these needs and to suggest the narrowest possible means of addressing them..


7. Why did the peace process fall apart just as it was making real progress toward a permanent agreement?

Palestinians entered the peace process on the understanding that (1) it would deliver concrete improvements to their lives during the interim period, (2) that the interim period would be relatively short in duration - i.e., five years, and (3) that a permanent agreement would implement United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338. But the peace process delivered none of these things. Instead, Palestinians suffered more burdensome restrictions on their movement and a serious decline in their economic situation. Israeli colonies expanded at an unprecedented pace and the West Bank and Gaza Strip became more fragmented with the construction of settler "by-pass" roads and the proliferation of Israeli military checkpoints. Deadlines were repeatedly missed in the implementation of agreements. In sum, Palestinians simply did not experience any "progress" in terms of their daily lives.

However, what decisively undermined Palestinian support for the peace process was the way Israel presented its proposal. Prior to entering into the first negotiations on permanent status issues, Prime Minister Barak publicly and repeatedly threatened Palestinians that his "offer" would be Israel's best and final offer and if not accepted, Israel would seriously consider "unilateral separation" (a euphemism for imposing a settlement rather than negotiating one). Palestinians felt that they had been betrayed by Israel who had committed itself at the beginning of the Oslo process to ending its occupation of Palestinian lands in accordance with UN Resolutions 242 and 338..


8. Doesn't the violence which erupted following Camp David prove that Palestinians do not really want to live in peace with Israel?

Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist in 1988 and re-iterated this recognition on several occasions including Madrid in 1991 and the Oslo Accords in September, 1993. Nevertheless, Israel has yet to explicitly and formally recognize Palestine's right to exist. The Palestinian people waited patiently since the Madrid Conference in 1991 for their freedom and independence despite Israel's incessant policy of creating facts on the ground by building colonies in occupied territory (Israeli housing units in Occupied Palestinian Territory - not including East Jerusalem - increased by 52% since the signing of the Oslo Accords and the settler population, including those in East Jerusalem, more than doubled). The Palestinians do indeed wish to live at peace with Israel but peace with Israel must be a fair peace - not an unfair peace imposed by a stronger party over a weaker party..


9. Doesn't the failure of Camp David prove that the Palestinians are just not prepared to compromise?

The Palestinians have indeed compromised. In the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians recognized Israeli sovereignty over 78% of historic Palestine (23% more than Israel was granted pursuant to the 1947 UN partition plan) on the assumption that the Palestinians would be able to exercise sovereignty over the remaining 22%. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians accepted this compromise but this extremely generous compromise was ignored at Camp David and the Palestinians were asked to "compromise the compromise" and make further concessions in favor of Israel. Though the Palestinians can continue to make compromises, no people can be expected to compromise fundamental rights or the viability of their state.


10. Have the Palestinians abandoned the two-state solution and do they now insist on all of historic Palestine?

The current situation has undoubtedly hardened positions on both sides, with extremists in both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories claiming all of historic Palestine. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the PA or the majority of Palestinians have abandoned the two-state solution. The two-state solution however is most seriously threatened by the on-going construction of Israeli colonies and by-pass roads aimed at incorporating the Occupied Palestinian Territories into Israel. Without a halt to such construction, a two-state solution may simply be impossible to implement - already prompting a number of Palestinian academics and intellectuals to argue that Israel will never allow the Palestinians to have a viable state and Palestinians should instead focus their efforts on obtaining equal rights as Israeli citizens..

11. Isn't it unreasonable for the Palestinians to demand the unlimited right of return to Israel of all Palestinian refugees?

The refugees were never seriously discussed at Camp David because Prime Minister Barak declared that Israel bore no responsibility for the refugee problem or its solution.Obviously, there can be no comprehensive solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict without resolving one of its key components: the plight of the Palestinian refugees. There is a clearly recognized right under international law that non-combatants who flee during a conflict have the right to return after the conflict is over. But an Israeli recognition of the Palestinian right of return does not mean that all refugees will exercise that right. What is needed in addition to such recognition is the concept of choice. Many refugees may opt for (i) resettlement in third countries, (ii) resettlement in a newly independent Palestine (though they originate from that part of Palestine which became Israel) or (iii) normalization of their legal status in the host country where they currently reside. In addition, the right of return may be implemented in phases so as to address Israel's demographic concerns.

[perseus]

Originally posted by Kosmopolite
Originally posted by perseus
Originally posted by Kosmopolite
What most people forget in the first place is that before
arab hating war happy Sharon there was Barak Who offered the most any Israeli President ever offered post 67.
What did mister victim of Israeli Aggression Arafat Say:
Not good enough I'll holla later man. That's the brick wall
the palestinians were up against a leader who didn't give a fuck about peace.

well... why do you think George Bush and his cronies like Arafat so much? they keep begging Israel not to kill him, not to expel him, etc... i think there is a serious question around Arafat's true purpose and constituency. he seems to be serving the interests of the surrounding Arab countries more than the local Palestinians. as i said in the previous post, in a way Arafat is the partner of the U.S. in that he keeps the whole charade going, the "cycle of violence". i think that if either of the two real players - the U.S. and the local Muslim/Arab countries - wanted peace they could probably achieve it. but they obviously do not, which indicated they have other purposes being served than just the obvious goal of land and an independent state for the Palestinians.

really, the average person on both the Israeli side and the Palestinian side is a victim of strategies set by powers outside both countries. it's quite sad really, and infuriating i should think esp for the people living there.



I don't think they like him so much I think that unlike Sharon and HIS cronies Bush realizes the asshole is the only Palestinian at present who has the influence to bring about a cease fire.
It's makes no since that you of all people think that the
U.S or Bush wants or needs the Cycle of violence to continue especially since everything is a conspiracy to you. You tend to lead everything back to Oil an U.S. hegemony so why would the U.S. want the region destabilized when it means higher oil prices and unpredictable uncooperative governments? So it can kill more non white people? come on.


everything is not a conspiracy to me. that's just a lame assertion - i am so sick of Ye Olde Conspiracy Criticism, it's such an easy and vague dismissal - i make a major effort to list facts, with sources when possible, and make calm rational arguments. as for oil, in a few threads i talked about that, certainly not all, though i do think much U.S. foreign policy is occupied with oil - more accurately, with the ability of American coroporations to control the economic wealth of other countries, which includes oil.

since when could Arafat bring a cease fire? i dont think many of the so-called "terrorist groups" or militias would necessarily follow his orders. Arafat is not supplying a constant flow of guns, explosives, etc., so obviously there are "interested parties" outside Palestine. Arafat is mainly a convenient lightning rod for western criticism of the palestinians and for empty promises of peace mouthed by Bush and other politicians. also, Arafat of course has his own interest in seeming to be in control of everything, since it legitimizes him when Bush talks about Arafat making peace or whatever.

how does continuing the brutalization of the Palestinians create unpredictable or uncoperative governments, that were not that way to begin with? they were either already uncoperative towards the U.S., in which case encouraging destabilization would be standard U.S. policy, or they were our allies for larger military and economic reasons, in which case the palestinian issue will not make them change. they are more predictable when they are all focused on the Palestinian conflict than if that were settled and they had a larger scope of issues to focus on. basically, it's the old divide and conquer strategy, sort-of. they are kept busy "at home" in the middle east with an ongoing type of proxy war in the territories, but there's no messy (or bad-for-business) expansion and chaos in the whole region.

[perseus]

Originally posted by trigonometry_vs_velvet
well.. a thin sliver of positive development..


UN Security Council voted unanimously to urge israel to git going out of the palestinian territory.

and sharons office made rather a vague announcement that theyll pull out of west bank... but didnt really specify no specifics.. if you.. nah mean.

i dont know... finally UN is starting to flex its muscles towards the matter.


it seems like they have done so more strongly in the past and it never did any good. Israel certainly does not care what the UN says, except for propaganda purposes.