PDA

View Full Version : "Next time we'll use more force"


yks 6nnetu hing
06-01-2010, 06:31 AM
WTF????

also, (paraphrase) "our armed soldiers boarded a ship in international waters in the middle of the night, the people on the ship attacked our sholdiers with sticks and bananas, the soldiers thought they were in mortal danger so they opened fire"

yeah. Logic fail.

Or, as has been pointed out by an Iranian commentator - had anyone circulated the exact same news pieces with "Israel" changed to "Iran" the international response would have been very different indeed.

Brita
06-01-2010, 06:40 AM
Or, as has been pointed out by an Iranian commentator - had anyone circulated the exact same news pieces with "Israel" changed to "Iran" the international response would have been very different indeed.

I don't know, the international response seems to be unified condemnation of Israel for this. At least, that is how it is being reported here in Canada.

Perhaps there would have been an immediate jump to sanctions and other official response, but that is only because Iran has a track record of thumbing it's nose at international laws. If Israel keeps this up, they will be in the same boat as Iran before long.

If anything, this incident is taking a bit of the rosy sheen off of Israel's image, that is for sure.

yks 6nnetu hing
06-01-2010, 06:49 AM
I don't know, the international response seems to be unified condemnation of Israel for this. At least, that is how it is being reported here in Canada.

Perhaps there would have been an immediate jump to sanctions and other official response, but that is only because Iran has a track record of thumbing it's nose at international laws. If Israel keeps this up, they will be in the same boat as Iran before long.

If anything, this incident is taking a bit of the rosy sheen off of Israel's image, that is for sure.

What condemnation? the official UN response (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7792371/Gaza-aid-flotilla-attack-UN-calls-for-impartial-inquiry.html) was to call for an impartial investigation and call the current Gaza situation unsustainable.

also, what rosy sheen? The one they've kept polishing for years by building a wall around a minority population, restraining access to basic foodstuffs and trade in the walled-off area, restraining information exchange about the area, and now this...?

I'm sorry, but if this goes on we can exchange Jew for another nationality and get the equivalent of holocaust. One would think that if anyone would understand how very very wrong it is that they are doing, it would be the Jews...

Mort
06-01-2010, 06:53 AM
If anything, this incident is taking a bit of the rosy sheen off of Israel's image, that is for sure.

Israel had a rosy sheen before this? What have they done to deserve that? They were given a country, they decided it wasn't enough and started taking more.

Brita
06-01-2010, 06:59 AM
Israel had a rosy sheen before this? What have they done to deserve that? They were given a country, they decided it wasn't enough and started taking more.

In North America, Israel definitely is viewed through rose coloured glasses. By rosy sheen, I mean that there is an inaccurate view of Israel (over here at least) and this action will force some people to look more honestly at the country and what they are doing, instead of explaining everything away through rose coloured glasses*.

* I write this assuming you have a similar expression of "rose coloured glasses"

GonzoTheGreat
06-01-2010, 07:07 AM
Perhaps there would have been an immediate jump to sanctions and other official response, but that is only because Iran has a track record of thumbing it's nose at international laws.Are you sure?
As far as I know, defending yourself if you're attacked isn't against the law, so they did not break that when they fought back against Saddam. Using poison gas was illegal, I'll grant you. I don't know which side started it at the time.
Having a program for developing nuclear power is not illegal. The USA keeps saying that Saddam, ehr, Iran, is developing nukes, but all it can show for that assertion is the claim that it is true.
Keeping the Westbank and such occupied is in violation of international law, but Iran isn't doing that.

So the most you can pin on them is that they may have been excessive while defending themselves against Saddam. But that's a bit of a dicey argument, I think.

If Israel keeps this up, they will be in the same boat as Iran before long.No, they won't. They will get away with it at least as long as the American system for lobbying politicians does not change significantly.

Edited to add:
* I write this assuming you have a similar expression of "rose coloured glasses"I think that the english term is "rose tinted glasses". If not, that'll provide a nice nitpicking sideline to the 'discussion'.

JSUCamel
06-01-2010, 07:31 AM
I'm sorry, but if this goes on we can exchange Jew for another nationality and get the equivalent of holocaust. One would think that if anyone would understand how very very wrong it is that they are doing, it would be the Jews...

Only thing I would point out here is that Israelis aren't Jews any more than Americans are Christians, which is to say that many are Jews but hardly representative of all Israelis.

yks 6nnetu hing
06-01-2010, 07:44 AM
Only thing I would point out here is that Israelis aren't Jews any more than Americans are Christians, which is to say that many are Jews but hardly representative of all Israelis.

ah, so they are Jewish when it's convenient and not whenever it suits them? You know, how whenever anyone dares to say that Israel is behaving badly, then immediately whoever says it is an "antisemite".

Of course, Germany is not allowed to say anything at all, and EU without Germany is pretty useless.

Davian93
06-01-2010, 07:53 AM
GO ISRAEL!!!

http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/israel_flag.jpg


They have the right to stop smuggling into their territory.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/31/israeli_commandos_attacked_with_knives_clubs__gunf ire_by_aid_ship.html

GonzoTheGreat
06-01-2010, 07:57 AM
Of course, the Gaza Strip isn't their territory, but I guess that does not matter all that much.

Tell me, Davian, what are the official borders of Israel?

Ishara
06-01-2010, 07:57 AM
So long as Israel remains the one and only foothold the US has in the Middle East, I think we'll find that they can indeed do whatever they want.

There should have been sanctions. And this, right on the heels of Netanyahu's visit to Canada? Shameful. Of course, I have to say that I didn't expect Harper to call them out, I'm still disappointed. This kind of behaviour is a revolting display of superiority, although some may say that they are left with no choice in the face of sheer determination to wipe them out. Whatever, I say. I doubt that the AID boat was determined to wipe them out with bananas.

yks, I think what Camel was trying to say is that not all Israelis are Jews, although it's widely recognized that they make up the majority of the population there - much like Christians do in the US. That being said, I think it's important to remember that in this case, being Jewish could be a case of religion and/ or race - not both necessarily.

Davian93
06-01-2010, 07:58 AM
Israel had a rosy sheen before this? What have they done to deserve that? They were given a country, they decided it wasn't enough and started taking more.

Yes, that's exactly what happened. They weren't repeatedly attacked attacked starting in 1947 and again in 67 and 73. They aren't surrounded by nations that have stated their goal is to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Yeah, they started the violence in 47, not the Arabs/Palestinians. In 1967, they preemtively attacked only after both Syria and Egypt (the "united arab republic") had activated its armed forces and was preparing its own invasion. In 1973, both nations attacked again and got their arses handed to them despite outnumbering the IDF. Yeah, Israel is fully to blame here. Unless you are in their shoes getting attacked on a daily basis by terrorists that are directly supported by your neighboring countries, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Davian93
06-01-2010, 07:59 AM
Of course, the Gaza Strip isn't their territory, but I guess that does not matter all that much.

Tell me, Davian, what are the official borders of Israel?

Technically, Gaza is Israeli territory...its an autonomous Palestianian territory within the boundaries of Israel proper.

GonzoTheGreat
06-01-2010, 08:02 AM
What are those boundaries of Israel proper?

For instance, do Montana and Texas fall within those boundaries, or not?
That may seem a rather over the top question, and it is. But on the other hand, as far as I know, Israel has not set limitations on what it wants to claim, so if they could get away with it, they might gobble up some US states too.
This is of course an important issue when demanding of the Palestinians that they acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Suppose that they do, then what are they agreeing to? They don't know, and signing a contract you are not allowed to read is generally inadvisable, as they know too.

The only official borders that one could refer to are those of the 1947 UN division plan. And I do not believe for one moment that's what Israel is hoping to end up with.

Ishara
06-01-2010, 08:05 AM
This kind of behaviour is a revolting display of superiority, although some may say that they are left with no choice in the face of sheer determination to wipe them out. Whatever, I say. I doubt that the AID boat was determined to wipe them out with bananas.

Yes, that's exactly what happened. They weren't repeatedly attacked attacked starting in 1947 and again in 67 and 73. They aren't surrounded by nations that have stated their goal is to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Yeah, they started the violence in 47, not the Arabs/Palestinians. In 1967, they preemtively attacked only after both Syria and Egypt (the "united arab republic") had activated its armed forces and was preparing its own invasion. In 1973, both nations attacked again and got their arses handed to them despite outnumbering the IDF. Yeah, Israel is fully to blame here. Unless you are in their shoes getting attacked on a daily basis by terrorists that are directly supported by your neighboring countries, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I quoted myself because I think we were cross-posting and I wanted to make sure you saw it Dav.

We aren't talking about events of 40+ years ago. We're talking about the murder of over 10 INNOCENT people armed with nothing but bananas. Come on! I'm not unsympathetic to the reason behind the the "creation" of Israel, obviously. But half a century later, to be using that to excuse such disgusting and blatantly brutal behaviour is too much to ask me to be sympathetic for.

How about the situation with North/ South Korea right now? Can we justify that?

Davian93
06-01-2010, 08:09 AM
I quoted myself because I think we were cross-posting and I wanted to make sure you saw it Dav.

We aren't talking about events of 40+ years ago. We're talking about the murder of over 10 INNOCENT people armed with nothing but bananas. Come on! I'm not unsympathetic to the reason behind the the "creation" of Israel, obviously. But half a century later, to be using that to excuse such disgusting and blatantly brutal behaviour is too much to ask me to be sympathetic for.

How about the situation with North/ South Korea right now? Can we justify that?

OTher reports have the Commandos getting attacked with gunfire and knives...all I'm saying is that we're only hearing one side of this. Israel had a right to enforce its blockade of Gaza.

GonzoTheGreat
06-01-2010, 08:15 AM
Did any of the gunfire which went in the direction of those commandos come from a gun they hadn't brought to that boat themselves?
I've heard that one of them got shot with his own gun, when one of the activists took that from him. If he hadn't brought a gun to a banana fight, then he would not have been shot.

yks 6nnetu hing
06-01-2010, 08:18 AM
OTher reports have the Commandos getting attacked with gunfire and knives...all I'm saying is that we're only hearing one side of this. Israel had a right to enforce its blockade of Gaza.

Here's an Israeli article (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3897318,00.html) that has this picture of confiscated knives:
http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/24012010/2585600/1_wa.jpg
The article doesn't say if these were taken directly from the people using them against the Israeli soldiers or if they were taken from the ship or even how many ships. Ok, be the case as it is, I'm no knife-expert but obviously about half - possibly more - of those knives are from the ship's kitchen.

Davian93
06-01-2010, 08:25 AM
What are those boundaries of Israel proper?

For instance, do Montana and Texas fall within those boundaries, or not?
That may seem a rather over the top question, and it is. But on the other hand, as far as I know, Israel has not set limitations on what it wants to claim, so if they could get away with it, they might gobble up some US states too.
This is of course an important issue when demanding of the Palestinians that they acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Suppose that they do, then what are they agreeing to? They don't know, and signing a contract you are not allowed to read is generally inadvisable, as they know too.

The only official borders that one could refer to are those of the 1947 UN division plan. And I do not believe for one moment that's what Israel is hoping to end up with.


Israel has a right to give itself defendable borders and it has done so.

Sei'taer
06-01-2010, 08:41 AM
Here's an Israeli article (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3897318,00.html) that has this picture of confiscated knives:
http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/24012010/2585600/1_wa.jpg
The article doesn't say if these were taken directly from the people using them against the Israeli soldiers or if they were taken from the ship or even how many ships. Ok, be the case as it is, I'm no knife-expert but obviously about half - possibly more - of those knives are from the ship's kitchen.

I count six that are obvious, 3 that are questionable and the rest are not kitchen knives. Not that any of that matters really.

I keep one of these in my room tucked under the bed. (http://fantes.com/images/121241cleavers.jpg) It's good for two reasons, it's heavy as hell and does a lot of damage and it can be thrown and is heavy enough to hurt you whether it hits with the sharp part or not...which it usually does. I also keep a bat there, but this works so much better.

Here's my favorite knife to carry. (I took this one to Atlanta) (http://cdn1.ioffer.com/img/item/137/929/807/TD9k.jpg) It's not a kitchen knife, but it's not a fighting knife either. It'll definitely fuck you up though...I've cut myself enough times with it to know.

Anyway, I'm going with Dav here.

yks 6nnetu hing
06-01-2010, 08:49 AM
I count six that are obvious, 3 that are questionable and the rest are not kitchen knives. Not that any of that matters really.

and I count one screw driver and 2 knife sharpeners.

But I agree, it doesn't matter much, a knife is a knife. anyone want to post pics of confiscated guns? I couldn't find any that are referring this particular incident.

Sei'taer
06-01-2010, 09:04 AM
and I count one screw driver and 2 knife sharpeners.



I counted those too. But they aren't kitchen knives...or even knives at all so I didn't bring them up.

As for the guns. They frickin' had

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p191/vegas-rick/banana_gun2.jpg

and everyone is admitting it.

JSUCamel
06-01-2010, 09:20 AM
yks, I think what Camel was trying to say is that not all Israelis are Jews, although it's widely recognized that they make up the majority of the population there - much like Christians do in the US. That being said, I think it's important to remember that in this case, being Jewish could be a case of religion and/ or race - not both necessarily.

What I was saying was that you can't blame the Jews. Not all Israelis are Jews. There is a sizable Muslim population in the country, as well as atheists, Christians, and other faiths present. You can blame Israel and its leaders, but don't blame a subset of the population just because they're easily identifiable. It's like blaming the Christians in America for Abu Ghraib, when it's not the Christians that did it but rather the military leaders. Though the leaders in charge were likely Christian and a huge chunk of the population of America is Christian, that doesn't mean Christians are at fault here. Or if you want to play the ethnic aspect of being a Jew here, we can make the analogy about blaming all the white Americans for Abu Ghraib, when there were people of all races in the American forces at that prison.

That said, I believe Israel has a right to protect itself from smuggling, invasion, and other things, but I also feel this attack was overkill (so to speak) and shouldn't have resulted in these deaths unless it were absolutely necessary (and it appears that it wasn't absolutely necessary).

yks 6nnetu hing
06-01-2010, 09:36 AM
What I was saying was that you can't blame the Jews. Not all Israelis are Jews. There is a sizable Muslim population in the country, as well as atheists, Christians, and other faiths present. You can blame Israel and its leaders, but don't blame a subset of the population just because they're easily identifiable. It's like blaming the Christians in America for Abu Ghraib, when it's not the Christians that did it but rather the military leaders. Though the leaders in charge were likely Christian and a huge chunk of the population of America is Christian, that doesn't mean Christians are at fault here. Or if you want to play the ethnic aspect of being a Jew here, we can make the analogy about blaming all the white Americans for Abu Ghraib, when there were people of all races in the American forces at that prison. I agree, and I admit I did not post precisely enough. Likewise, I do not think that Israel's actions somehow reflect on all Jewish people elsewhere in the world. However I think what I wanted to express: that if there is one country, one nation, that should know better, it's Israel - still stands.

Davian93
06-01-2010, 09:40 AM
They should have just sunk the ships with helicopter gunships...or F-16s. A bit less messy that way.

Oatman
06-01-2010, 09:41 AM
I'll say I'm with Dav on this one at the moment as well.
As I understand it, the ship was given 6 warnings that they needed to stop. The boat was then boarded with the intention, as far as I know, to stop it from busting through the blockade, and to be directed to the nearest port. They don't stop that, they are inviting invasion. Tell me in all honesty that you wouldn't applaud your own respective governments from stopping a large unknown vessel from entering your countries territory.
The marjority of the people onboard refuse to identify themselves and dumped passports and other identifying information overboard so they cannot be returned home, and are demanding to be allowed back onto the ship to continue on to the location they want to. Surely you can see the security issue with this. The ones that have identified themselves have been told they are free to leave.
Now, if it was the Israel forces opened fire first, then damn right they should be held accontable for it, but if they were responding to being attacked, they are well within their rights as far as I'm concerned. The international communitee requesting a fair and impartial investigation into what happened seems like the right move, and whichever side initiated the violence should be held responsible.

GonzoTheGreat
06-01-2010, 09:48 AM
An interesting historical parallel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Exodus).
Of course, those commandos were more capable:
"The Jew is liable to panic and 800-900 Jews fighting to get up a stairway to escape tear smoke could have produced a deplorable business." He added: "It is a very frightening thing to go into the hold full of yelling maniacs when outnumbered six or eight to one." Describing the assault, the officer wrote to his superiors: "After a very short pause, with a lot of yelling and female screams, every available weapon up to a biscuit and bulks of timber was hurled at the soldiers. They withstood it admirably and very stoically till the Jews assaulted and in the first rush several soldiers were downed with half a dozen Jews on top kicking and tearing ... No other troops could have done it as well and as humanely as these British ones did." He concluded: "It should be borne in mind that the guiding factor in most of the actions of the Jews is to gain the sympathy of the world press."

Ishara
06-01-2010, 09:57 AM
They should have just sunk the ships with helicopter gunships...or F-16s. A bit less messy that way.

Dav...I can't tell if you're being facetious or not, but really, it seems as if you're joking about murdering people in cold blood. You're better than that.

I'll say I'm with Dav on this one at the moment as well.
As I understand it, the ship was given 6 warnings that they needed to stop. The boat was then boarded with the intention, as far as I know, to stop it from busting through the blockade, and to be directed to the nearest port. They don't stop that, they are inviting invasion. Tell me in all honesty that you wouldn't applaud your own respective governments from stopping a large unknown vessel from entering your countries territory.
The marjority of the people onboard refuse to identify themselves and dumped passports and other identifying information overboard so they cannot be returned home, and are demanding to be allowed back onto the ship to continue on to the location they want to. Surely you can see the security issue with this. The ones that have identified themselves have been told they are free to leave.
Now, if it was the Israel forces opened fire first, then damn right they should be held accontable for it, but if they were responding to being attacked, they are well within their rights as far as I'm concerned. The international communitee requesting a fair and impartial investigation into what happened seems like the right move, and whichever side initiated the violence should be held responsible.

A reasonable response to an attack, sure. Killing unarmed people is NOT a reasonable response. I'm sorry, but it's not. I'm feeling a bit as if there's a sort of blind adherence to whatever it is they feel like doing, simply based on the us vs. them mentality of the Middle East.

yks 6nnetu hing
06-01-2010, 09:57 AM
My country (neither one of them, actually) is not occupying another country's territory. It is also not oppressing the minority.

What did the Israelis expect when they boarded that ship? In international waters... If they'd just waited a little bit, no one would have said anything about the whole thing, it would have been Israel's business and no-one elses. Again.

And why oh why was this situation allowed to get this far in the first place? I mean, c'mon, I could hear mumblings weeks ago. for one, there was a sifgnificant movement in several countries to not vote for the Israeli song on the Eurovision (which was on this Saturday) because of the even more escalating situation in the Gaza strip. If something as stupidly pop-culture driven as the Eurovision gets this kinds of mumblings then obviously there's a biiiig build-up of Bad Stuff.

Neilbert
06-01-2010, 10:06 AM
Tell me in all honesty that you wouldn't applaud your own respective governments from stopping a large unknown vessel from entering your countries territory.

Yes, the unknown vessel containing humanitarian aid, construction supplies, at least one holocaust survivor, and two members of Isreal's parliament. Which had clearly and repeatedly broadcast it's intentions.

Have your own opinion or whatever, but the idea that these were "unknown" vessels is horse shit.

Boarded in international waters no less, in clear violation of international law. Going by international law Isreal had the right to board and inspect the vessels when they entered Isreal's territory, but not the right to stop them since they were providing aid to a humanitarian crisis.

Sometimes I wonder what Isreal would have to do for people to not defend her. She could probably get away with outright genocide. I'm talking about mass graves and gas filled showers, not the current slow-burning affair.

They should have just sunk the ships with helicopter gunships...or F-16s. A bit less messy that way.

The last (don't think this was the case) holocaust survivor being killed by the Isreali government would be a hilarious bit of irony.

I have a love-hate relationship with Truman. He was a shitty person, but at least he recognized how shitty he and the world are:

The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes."

The ironic thing is that the man who went against his own State Department to support the creation of Isreal gets labeled an anti-semite for incredibly predictive stuff like this.

irerancincpkc
06-01-2010, 10:07 AM
What happened on those ships was murder. There's no dancing around that issue. Israel should be severely punished. First, that idiotic and wrong offensive last year, now this...

The only good thing that may come of this is the wrong, unethical blockade will hopefully end. Hopefully, the world can put enough pressure on Israel to make this happen.

Davian93
06-01-2010, 10:10 AM
My country (neither one of them, actually) is not occupying another country's territory. It is also not oppressing the minority.

What did the Israelis expect when they boarded that ship? In international waters... If they'd just waited a little bit, no one would have said anything about the whole thing, it would have been Israel's business and no-one elses. Again.

And why oh why was this situation allowed to get this far in the first place? I mean, c'mon, I could hear mumblings weeks ago. for one, there was a sifgnificant movement in several countries to not vote for the Israeli song on the Eurovision (which was on this Saturday) because of the even more escalating situation in the Gaza strip. If something as stupidly pop-culture driven as the Eurovision gets this kinds of mumblings then obviously there's a biiiig build-up of Bad Stuff.

So, the concern here is an arbitrary line on the map, not the action itself? Perhaps they should have waited until they crossed that imaginary line and perhaps not but either way they had a right to enforce their blockade.

GonzoTheGreat
06-01-2010, 10:16 AM
They could have waited until daytime so that everyone could see what they were doing. Sure, that would have increased the danger if they were facing well armed opponents a bit. But they did not have to dodge any SAMs while flying towards the ship, they did not shot at with RPGs, they didn't run into machine gun fire.
There simply was no reason to do this at a time when accidents were most likely to happen.

Isabel
06-01-2010, 10:49 AM
What Israel did was just plain wrong. But as long as they don't realize and don't get condemned by the USA, they won't change there ways.

Another ship is on it's way with also a Nobelprize winner and an former UN diplomat, so i guess that there will be victims there too:(

Davian93
06-01-2010, 10:52 AM
Perhaps the lesson should be: DO NOT ENTER A WARZONE...just a thought.

GonzoTheGreat
06-01-2010, 11:24 AM
Does that not also apply to all those people who have emigrated to Israel in the past century, say?
They knowingly entered a warzone, so why should they now complain when rockets rain down on their homes? They knew very well what they were getting into.

Alternatively, Israel could stop the war. It could withdraw to its own territory (the 1967 lines), deal with the (increasingly rare) attacks on its own land, and let the Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese worry about their own politics. Stop giving all the governments in the neighbourhood that easy Jewish scapegoat to blame for the repression.

Uno
06-01-2010, 11:30 AM
Can't necessarily believe in either side at this point, but unless it's Israeli policy to be on unfriendly terms with absolutely all its neighbors, its military jolly well ought to make sure no one dies when it boards vessels flying the Turkish flag. It's a question of good policy, not technical legalities.

At any rate, Davian, the Israeli government is not claiming to be defending its own territory. It's claiming to be enforcing a naval blockade. That's largely legal under international rules, but it's probably politic not to cause undue harm to the citizens of neutral nations in the process.

Ishara
06-01-2010, 11:35 AM
So, the concern here is an arbitrary line on the map, not the action itself? Perhaps they should have waited until they crossed that imaginary line and perhaps not but either way they had a right to enforce their blockade.

But it's just an "arbitrary" line that makes up it's floating border isn't it? That line matters, but not the international one? Come on!

Perhaps the lesson should be: DO NOT ENTER A WARZONE...just a thought.

You don't mean that. If it had been the UN, or the Red Cross, or Medecines Sans Frontieres, you wouldn't be saying that. But this warzone, this group of aid workers...obviously it was their own fault.

This apologist treatment of Israel for this event is absurd.

Davian93
06-01-2010, 11:46 AM
Does that not also apply to all those people who have emigrated to Israel in the past century, say?
They knowingly entered a warzone, so why should they now complain when rockets rain down on their homes? They knew very well what they were getting into.

Alternatively, Israel could stop the war. It could withdraw to its own territory (the 1967 lines), deal with the (increasingly rare) attacks on its own land, and let the Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese worry about their own politics. Stop giving all the governments in the neighbourhood that easy Jewish scapegoat to blame for the repression.

Yes, I'm sure that would work. Its not like "the destruction of Israel" is in Hamas's charter or anything...oh wait, it is??? Hmmm...maybe Israel isn't the bad guy in the region.

At any rate, Davian, the Israeli government is not claiming to be defending its own territory. It's claiming to be enforcing a naval blockade. That's largely legal under international rules, but it's probably politic not to cause undue harm to the citizens of neutral nations in the process.

Yes, it is legal. Israel didn't really do anything wrong. The ships should have stopped when they were warned. They didnt.

You don't mean that. If it had been the UN, or the Red Cross, or Medecines Sans Frontieres, you wouldn't be saying that. But this warzone, this group of aid workers...obviously it was their own fault.

The thing is that it isn't those groups. Its a "charity" that very well could have ties to terrorism. The group has been accused and suspected of having militant ties in the past and even now. The group could very well be a front for Hamas. Besides which, the Israeli commandos were not armed to attack the ship. They had paintball rifles and pistols. They got attacked after legally seizing a ship and they defended themselves.

You all are acting as if Israel sent an SF team onboard to deliberately kill all the passengers of a peaceful Aid ship. That is not what happened.

Uno
06-01-2010, 11:58 AM
Yes, it is legal. Israel didn't really do anything wrong. The ships should have stopped when they were warned. They didnt.

I don't know about wrong or not, but I don't think it was very smart, not the way it turned out, anyway. If a blockade is broken, it's not an effective blockade, which is an integral part of what a blockade is under rules of naval engagement. A mere paper blockade merits no respect and can be ignored by all parties, but when you board ostensibly neutral vessels, you've got to make sure not to screw up, which one might justifiably argue that they did in this case.

I'm a bit curious about the long-term implications of this incident in Turkish domestic politics. We all know that the Turkish state secularism has been on the wane for a while, but we also know that the Turkish military isn't exactly happy about that trend. Interesting development.

Ivhon
06-01-2010, 12:25 PM
Im curious as to why Americans tend to view Israel more dichotomously than their own country.

For many of us Israel is absolutely incapable of doing anything wrong - which is far more latitude than we give ourselves.

It does not have to be black/white Israel/Muslim world. There is plenty of room for BOTH sides of the middle-east conflict to be waaaaay out of bounds - which is what I see the situation as.

Yes, Hamas, Achmudinjad, et al have a death wish against Israel (due in at least some part to Israel's actions). On the other hand, Israel continuously provokes attacks so they can polish their halo, run to Big American Brother and say "See? Look what those baaaad people keep doing to poor, innocent us who just want to live in peace....don't forget the holocaust or the Jewish vote, by the way."

Israel's hands are just as dirty as the opposition's in this conflict. And until the US comes down strong on its ally, there will never ever be peace there...because it takes TWO to want peace and right now there are NONE.

Sinistrum
06-01-2010, 12:27 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100601/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

Apparently the Israeli military has it all on video. The soldiers were apparently attacked with rods, knives, and two guns taken from soldiers. Some of the soldiers were apparently thrown overboard. That sounds perfect legal and moral justification to open fire on those idiots. And they are idiots. They were the ones dumb enough to pick a fight and threaten the lives of heavily armed commandos. Israel has a perfect right to blockade Gaza after Hamas took it over and they have a perfect right for their soldiers to defend themselves when they are attacked. The fact that the protesters only obtained guns from the soldiers is meaningless. If someone cracks your skull open with a pipe, throws you into the sea to drown, or stabs you in the chest, you are just as dead as if you get shot. The people killed WERE NOT innocent by any objective standard.

Israel's hands are just as dirty as the opposition's in this conflict. And until the US comes down strong on its ally, there will never ever be peace there...because it takes TWO to want peace and right now there are NONE.

I'm calling bullshit on this one. Barak was willing to give the Palestinians 95% of what they wanted, and they still turned their nose up at it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit

Isabel
06-01-2010, 12:36 PM
I'm calling bullshit on this one. Barak was willing to give the Palestinians 95% of what they wanted, and they still turned their nose up at it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit

If you look down on the wikipedia page there is a lot of discussion and articles about why it wasn't possible at that time to come to an agreement.And not everyone says it's the Palestinians fault.

Isabel
06-01-2010, 12:42 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100601/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

Apparently the Israeli military has it all on video. The soldiers were apparently attacked with rods, knives, and two guns taken from soldiers. Some of the soldiers were apparently thrown overboard. That sounds perfect legal and moral justification to open fire on those idiots. And they are idiots. They were the ones dumb enough to pick a fight and threaten the lives of heavily armed commandos. Israel has a perfect right to blockade Gaza after Hamas took it over and they have a perfect right for their soldiers to defend themselves when they are attacked. The fact that the protesters only obtained guns from the soldiers is meaningless. If someone cracks your skull open with a pipe, throws you into the sea to drown, or stabs you in the chest, you are just as dead as if you get shot. The people killed WERE NOT innocent by any objective standard.




I see another quote in the article you quoted:

Israeli military analysts said it was a mistake to send commandos to board the Marmara and the military could have used non-lethal weapons such as tear gas. They also said the intelligence-gathering was faulty.

A serious mistake by Israel. they used way to much force and created this situation themselves by boarding that ship in such a manner.

Sinistrum
06-01-2010, 12:42 PM
If you look down on the wikipedia page there is a lot of discussion and articles about why it wasn't possible at that time to come to an agreement.And not everyone says it's the Palestinians fault.

Yeah, I guess it is the Israeli's fault for not voluntarily agreeing to destroy Israel themselves. :rolleyes:

A serious mistake by Israel. they used way to much force and created this situation themselves by boarding that ship in such a manner.

And how, precisely, are they expected to stop and divert a ship unless they board it? And what would have happened if they commandos had gone in with non-lethal weapons and met heightened lethal level resistence? Hindsight is perfect 20/20 and that quote I suspect is primarily motivated by face saving and not an actual objective analysis of the situation.

Isabel
06-01-2010, 01:08 PM
And how, precisely, are they expected to stop and divert a ship unless they board it? And what would have happened if they commandos had gone in with non-lethal weapons and met heightened lethal level resistence? Hindsight is perfect 20/20 and that quote I suspect is primarily motivated by face saving and not an actual objective analysis of the situation.

In the article some things are mentioned about how to divert a ship. Like sabotaging the engines and stuff like that.

Sei'taer
06-01-2010, 03:57 PM
In the article some things are mentioned about how to divert a ship. Like sabotaging the engines and stuff like that.

Ok, so let me get this straight. They boarded five ships exactly the same way. All of it was peacefully done. They searched the ships and then sent them on to deliver the aid to the port specified. They went to the sixth, and last, ship and boarded it and were attacked by the peaceful people onboard. Attacked with knives and pipes. Several IDF soldiers were beaten so badly that their weapons were taken from them, some were stabbed and not a shot was fired until the peaceful blockade runners got their hands on the guns. Yeah, sounds like Isreal instigated it.

There's all kinds of stuff on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaiMjAULWn0). Most likely it's all doctored by The Mossad, as some of the comments say.

Sinistrum
06-01-2010, 04:27 PM
In the article some things are mentioned about how to divert a ship. Like sabotaging the engines and stuff like that.

And precisely how are they supposed to be able to sabotage the engine if they aren't on the boat?

Sinistrum
06-01-2010, 05:48 PM
After watching that video Sei, the only thing that is absurd about this topic is the anyone who thinks that the Israelis started it or acted disproportionately. There were some soldiers in that footage having the hell beat and/or stabbed out of them.

DahLliA
06-01-2010, 05:55 PM
how anyone can use the terms right and wrong on the overall conflict is beyond me

Oatman
06-01-2010, 06:26 PM
A reasonable response to an attack, sure. Killing unarmed people is NOT a reasonable response.

Did you miss the part where they were attacked with knives and rods? I don't believe that anyone who was unarmed was killed, and if they were I have suspect they were just caught in the crossfire. That does happen in conflicts all the time.

Yes, the unknown vessel containing humanitarian aid, construction supplies, at least one holocaust survivor, and two members of Isreal's parliament. Which had clearly and repeatedly broadcast it's intentions.

I hope you never have kids. They'll likely grow up believing the shady van with 'Free Candy' written on the side is actually giving out free candy. People can announce whatever they want, but sometimes you simply can't take their word for it.

Going by international law Isreal had the right to board and inspect the vessels when they entered Isreal's territory

Letting them into to Israels territory would have made it a real effective blockade, don't you think?

Sometimes I wonder what Isreal would have to do for people to not defend her. She could probably get away with outright genocide.

I already said that if Israel initiated the violence then they should be held entirely responsible. That's why I think the investigation is a good idea.

What happened on those ships was murder. There's no dancing around that issue.

Not if the Israeli soldiers were attacked first. When that is established, I'll agree with you.

If it had been the UN, or the Red Cross, or Medecines Sans Frontieres, you wouldn't be saying that

If it had been one of those others they likely would have listened to the directions, allowed themselves to be directed to the port Israel chose, and it wouldn't have happened. Just saying.

Davian93
06-01-2010, 06:55 PM
I hope you never have kids. They'll likely grow up believing the shady van with 'Free Candy' written on the side is actually giving out free candy. People can announce whatever they want, but sometimes you simply can't take their word for it.

But it looked so reputable:

http://lh4.ggpht.com/SergioAlex76/SO-CosDapFI/AAAAAAAAAKw/pVaC0BJ5a2c/fail-free-candy%5B2%5D.jpg

Davian93
06-01-2010, 08:25 PM
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177169

Among the peaceful humanitarian supplies, Israel found night-vision goggles, bulletproof vests and gas masks...as well as at least 50 individuals linked to terrorist organizations.

Yeah, peaceful flotilla my arse.

irerancincpkc
06-01-2010, 09:16 PM
Israel didn't really do anything wrong.
I wasn't aware this was comedy hour... :rolleyes:

Israel is a threat to Gaza, and until the United States condems them, they are going think they are above the law.

Sinistrum
06-01-2010, 09:42 PM
The entire fucking Middle East is a threat to Israel and until the United States condems them, they are going think they are above the law.

Fixed it for you.

irerancincpkc
06-01-2010, 10:05 PM
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177169

Among the peaceful humanitarian supplies, Israel found night-vision goggles, bulletproof vests and gas masks...as well as at least 50 individuals linked to terrorist organizations.

Yeah, peaceful flotilla my arse.

Wow, they took bulletproof vests and gas masks to a warzone! That such a shock! Sounds like protection to me, protection they all needed. I wish they all had pocessed bulletproof vests. Would have saved some lives.

Where are the weapons the Israeli Goverment kept going on about? Show me those, and then we'll talk.

Neilbert
06-01-2010, 10:11 PM
^^^^ LMAO no shit right?

Isreal: White phosphorous attack on hosiptal! Nobody cares!
Palestine: Uh ok I'll get a gas mask so I can actually breathe....
Everyone: DIE TERRORIST SCUM!!!

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177169

Among the peaceful humanitarian supplies, Israel found night-vision goggles, bulletproof vests and gas masks...as well as at least 50 individuals linked to terrorist organizations.

Yeah, peaceful flotilla my arse.

Aah yes. The "official" report. Always a clear beacon of truth.

Anyways, what do gas masks, bullet proof vests, and night-vision goggles all have in common?

You can't kill anyone with them.

Oatman
06-01-2010, 10:25 PM
Where are the weapons the Israeli Goverment kept going on about? Show me those, and then we'll talk.

I believe a picture of the knives has already bee posted earlier in the thread. If you're looking for guns, I don't think the Israeli government has suggested there were any guns on the ship which were not brought onto it by the Israeli soldiers.

Anyways, what do gas masks, bullet proof vests, and night-vision goggles all have in common?

And the 50 individuals linked to terrorist organisations?

Essentially the people who were on that ship, or at least the people in charge, knew what was going to happen(being boarded, not the deaths) when they did what they did, and they chose to do it anyway. To me, that sounds like a publicity stunt. As there were already a number of boats which had been boarded and taken to port, doing the same thing would not have gotten them the publicity they were after, so they started a fight with people with guns, to ensure that they got the international attention that they wanted.
If it turns out the it was the Israeli who initiated the violence I will eat my words, but I'm not going to be sympathetic to people who intentionally provoke a response and then cry foul when it happens.

Sinistrum
06-01-2010, 10:43 PM
Anyways, what do gas masks, bullet proof vests, and night-vision goggles all have in common?

They all make someone harder to take down while they are beating an innocent soldier with a lead pipe?

irerancincpkc
06-01-2010, 11:18 PM
I believe a picture of the knives has already bee posted earlier in the thread. If you're looking for guns, I don't think the Israeli government has suggested there were any guns on the ship which were not brought onto it by the Israeli soldiers.


Yes, cause those knives are really going to turn the tide in Hama's favor... :rolleyes:

And yes, the PM of Israel himself said this. (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-i-regret-gaza-flotilla-deaths-but-israeli-troops-had-right-to-self-defense-1.293187)
We want to maintain a situation where we prevent weapons and war materials from coming into Gaza...

Oatman
06-01-2010, 11:45 PM
Yes, cause those knives are really going to turn the tide in Hama's favor...

If I have a gun and someone comes at me with a knife I'd sure as hell shoot them before they got to me. That's just sensible. And as I have repeatedly said, if it is found that the violence was initiated by the Israelites then I'll eat my words and agree that they should be sanctioned for it.

We want to maintain a situation where we prevent weapons and war materials from coming into Gaza...

Which is why they have the blockade and don't allow ships to enter. They had no way of knowing what was on the ship, and no reason to trust the word of the people on board. And if you don't think bulletproof vests, night vision goggles, and gas masks could be considered war materials then you clearly havent thought about it too hard.

nameless
06-01-2010, 11:51 PM
Yeah, I guess it is the Israeli's fault for not voluntarily agreeing to destroy Israel themselves. :rolleyes:



In a very real way, Israel is destroying itself. This kind of crap will do more to undermine the safety of Isreali citizens than Hamas could ever hope to. They can play the victim card as often as they like but it will never change the fact that their apartheid policy, no matter how justified it may seem to them, will do nothing but perpetuate the hatred of their neighbors. Then their neighbors will attack them and they'll have proof to show the rest of the world that they were right all along and it won't f****** matter because they'll still live in a war zone.

The only similar conflict I can think of that has been successfully resolved in my lifetime was the one in Northern Ireland. The reason it was resolved is that the UK decided peace was more important than victory. It wasn't an easy decision, and it meant letting several attacks go without any sort of reprisal, but in the end it worked. Israel's current strategy, on the other hand, is doomed from the start. What's their end game? How can their present course of action possibly end in anything other than tragedy?

GonzoTheGreat
06-02-2010, 02:38 AM
I am wondering: if Iran boards an American vessel in the Persian Gulf in the same way, and kills a bunch of people on board because they resist, would the same ones that now defend Israel also deplore those stupid American sailors who thought that going up against heavily armed commandos was a good idea?

If not, can they provide evidence proving that the USA is not a threat to Iran?

Mort
06-02-2010, 02:50 AM
In a very real way, Israel is destroying itself. This kind of crap will do more to undermine the safety of Isreali citizens than Hamas could ever hope to. They can play the victim card as often as they like but it will never change the fact that their apartheid policy, no matter how justified it may seem to them, will do nothing but perpetuate the hatred of their neighbors. Then their neighbors will attack them and they'll have proof to show the rest of the world that they were right all along and it won't f****** matter because they'll still live in a war zone.

The only similar conflict I can think of that has been successfully resolved in my lifetime was the one in Northern Ireland. The reason it was resolved is that the UK decided peace was more important than victory. It wasn't an easy decision, and it meant letting several attacks go without any sort of reprisal, but in the end it worked. Israel's current strategy, on the other hand, is doomed from the start. What's their end game? How can their present course of action possibly end in anything other than tragedy?

Good question. Speaking long-term, I don't think there will be any peace in the area for a very long time. Both sides are using aggressive tactics which only inflames the rightousness of the other side thinking they are in the right about this.

They both need to start believing being that peace is more important than being right or victorious.

GonzoTheGreat
06-02-2010, 03:17 AM
Problem is that both have an ideology which says that the only way of getting a trustworthy peace is through victory.
Israel has that as a result its past, the way it was formed and the previous few thousand years of history of the Jews. So they are not even capable of believing they have a chance of peace until after they have won decisively.
The Palestinians have all grown up living under that Israeli doctrine, being taught (the hard way) that unless you are absolutely superior in a military way, you can't live in peace.

So neither side is willing to try putting down their arms.

A couple of times, the Palestinians have tried that temporarily. They usually stopped their cease fires after Israel killed a couple of Palestinian extremists. Whereafter the Palestinians were blamed for breaking the ceasefire, of course. Can't really fault them for not having much confidence in the usefulness of peaceful tactics, seeing as how those peaceful tactics never really worked on their own.

yks 6nnetu hing
06-02-2010, 04:01 AM
So, the concern here is an arbitrary line on the map, not the action itself? Perhaps they should have waited until they crossed that imaginary line and perhaps not but either way they had a right to enforce their blockade.
that was sarcasm. Meaning: no-one cares much what Israel does in Gaza (well, except for the people who live there, obviously), only now they've crossd a line. How incredibly stupid is that. Why not just stay in the area where no-one cares enough to risk angering US and make a fuss? Definitely no fuss as long as Big Old America says "no fuss!" as they have done for the past 15 years, ever since the last major peace talks collapsed after Rabin was assassinated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin) by his own side. *ahem* By a far-right law student:rolleyes:


Like I already pointed out, most of the finger-wagging was/is in the media. The official response from international organisations was/is much more restrained.

One Armed Gimp
06-02-2010, 06:12 AM
I am wondering: if Iran boards an American vessel in the Persian Gulf in the same way, and kills a bunch of people on board because they resist, would the same ones that now defend Israel also deplore those stupid American sailors who thought that going up against heavily armed commandos was a good idea?

If not, can they provide evidence proving that the USA is not a threat to Iran?

I don't think we'll ever find out because when Iranians take American's, the American's do not resist. Novel idea huh?

GonzoTheGreat
06-02-2010, 06:14 AM
Yeah, but that's because the American helicopters tend to fall out of the sky. Hamas doesn't have any helicopters, so this does not work with them.

Oatman
06-02-2010, 07:59 AM
I am wondering: if Iran boards an American vessel in the Persian Gulf in the same way, and kills a bunch of people on board because they resist, would the same ones that now defend Israel also deplore those stupid American sailors who thought that going up against heavily armed commandos was a good idea?

If said situation was a replication of this one with the above countries inserted into the respective roles, I would continue to hold the same opinion.

Neilbert
06-02-2010, 09:03 AM
And if you don't think bulletproof vests, night vision goggles, and gas masks could be considered war materials then you clearly havent thought about it too hard.

I think that if your big "they were carrying war supplies" reveal is bulletproof vests, night vision goggles, and gas masks, you are probably full of shit to the point of complete untrustworthiness.

If you think the people planning this flotilla expected to not be detained and searched I don't know what to say. They wouldn't be bringing weapons for that reason alone. This was a publicity stunt that Isreal walked right into.

irerancincpkc
06-02-2010, 09:06 AM
And if you don't think bulletproof vests, night vision goggles, and gas masks could be considered war materials then you clearly havent thought about it too hard.
Again, going where they were traveling, those are things any reasonable person would want to have with them. And tell me how those are going to cause harm to the Israeli's again? Cause as mentioned before, I'm pretty sure a bulletproof vest does the opposite of killing someone...

GonzoTheGreat
06-02-2010, 09:10 AM
Again, going where they were traveling, those are things any reasonable person would want to have with them. And tell me how those are going to cause harm to the Israeli's again? Cause as mentioned before, I'm pretty sure a bulletproof vest does the opposite of killing someone...Once some idiot boy hijacked an airplane using a Mickey Mouse watch. Doing the same to an El Al plane with night vision goggles should be a doddle.

Uno
06-02-2010, 09:11 AM
This was a publicity stunt that Isreal walked right into.

Quite. They were clever in that they forced the Israeli government to react. The best Israel could hope for was to stop or turn back the ships without the bad publicity that loss of life necessarily entails (and now has entailed).

irerancincpkc
06-02-2010, 09:13 AM
Once some idiot boy hijacked an airplane using a Mickey Mouse watch. Doing the same to an El Al plane with night vision goggles should be a doddle.
I don't know, I'm pretty sure the Israeli's searched everyone for Mickey Mouse watches as well... :)

GonzoTheGreat
06-02-2010, 09:26 AM
That's the beauty of the scheme: while they are checking for the Mickey Mouse watch, they overlook the night vision goggles you're wearing. And, as a side effect of those goggles they can't identify you, so that they do not even notice you don't have any papers for boarding that (or any) plane.
Clearly those goggles are a deadly danger to the very survival of the state of Israel.

Uno, they could have waited a bit longer, and then let the coast guard handle things. This was not the first such convoy, and in all other cases the ships had either been turned back or been towed to a port of Israel's choice without generating any wounded or dead martyrs.
These activists were talking tough. Israel decided to meet that challenge by sending in heavily armed commandos instead of ignoring the challenge and dealing with the situation in a simple way. It was the Israeli decision to give an opportunity for the creation of martyrs which made such a mess.

Uno
06-02-2010, 09:30 AM
Uno, they could have waited a bit longer, and then let the coast guard handle things. This was not the first such convoy, and in all other cases the ships had either been turned back or been towed to a port of Israel's choice without generating any wounded or dead martyrs.
These activists were talking tough. Israel decided to meet that challenge by sending in heavily armed commandos instead of ignoring the challenge and dealing with the situation in a simple way. It was the Israeli decision to give an opportunity for the creation of martyrs which made such a mess.

Yes, that's sort of my point. You can't let yourself be provoked into rash actions by your opponents. Fundamental rule of engagement in war and politics alike.

GonzoTheGreat
06-02-2010, 09:32 AM
Yes, that's sort of my point. You can't let yourself be provoked into rash actions by your opponents. Fundamental rule of engagement in war and politics alike.Ever watched Israeli politics?

Oatman
06-02-2010, 09:59 AM
I think that if your big "they were carrying war supplies" reveal is bulletproof vests, night vision goggles, and gas masks, you are probably full of shit to the point of complete untrustworthiness.

That was hardly a reveal at all. It was a response to an assertion that there was nothing that could be considered war supplies on the ship. Again, if you don't think those particular bits of equipment have an use in warfare, then you should think about it a bit harder.
My point is, and has been the whole time, that if the violence was initiated by the protesters then a violent response was justified.

This was a publicity stunt that Isreal walked right into.

If you read one of my more recent posts on this you will see that I completely agree with this


Essentially the people who were on that ship, or at least the people in charge, knew what was going to happen(being boarded, not the deaths) when they did what they did, and they chose to do it anyway. To me, that sounds like a publicity stunt. As there were already a number of boats which had been boarded and taken to port, doing the same thing would not have gotten them the publicity they were after, so they started a fight with people with guns, to ensure that they got the international attention that they wanted.
If it turns out the it was the Israeli who initiated the violence I will eat my words, but I'm not going to be sympathetic to people who intentionally provoke a response and then cry foul when it happens.

I stand by that whole statement.

Again, going where they were traveling, those are things any reasonable person would want to have with them. And tell me how those are going to cause harm to the Israeli's again? Cause as mentioned before, I'm pretty sure a bulletproof vest does the opposite of killing someone...

If you can find me saying that they have no use other than warfare you may have a valid point there. And if you can't see how a terrorist in a bulletproof vest and with night vision would be more dangerous than one without, then I'm afraid your education system has failed you.

GonzoTheGreat
06-02-2010, 10:19 AM
My point is, and has been the whole time, that if the violence was initiated by the protesters then a violent response was justified.Suppose, just for the sake of discussion, that a bunch of heavily armed Iranian troops land on a US warship in the Gulf. Suppose further that instead of peacefully surrendering, the Americans fight that landing party.
Then who would you say had initiated the violence?

GonzoTheGreat
06-02-2010, 10:26 AM
If you can find me saying that they have no use other than warfare you may have a valid point there. And if you can't see how a terrorist in a bulletproof vest and with night vision would be more dangerous than one without, then I'm afraid your education system has failed you.Please educate me. How would a guy trying to sneak onto a bus with a bomb vest be more dangerous if he were wearing a lot of suspicious looking useless stuff over (or under) the things designed to go BOOM?

On the other hand, the bulletproof vest and night vision goggles could come in handy during fights with soldiers.

So you seem to prefer to have Israel face terrorism rather than low level military resistance. Are you sure you have your priorities right?

Uno
06-02-2010, 10:34 AM
On the other hand, the bulletproof vest and night vision goggles could come in handy during fights with soldiers.

So you seem to prefer to have Israel face terrorism rather than low level military resistance. Are you sure you have your priorities right?

Obviously Israel's goal is to prevent both terrorist assaults and more conventional military resistance, but the night vision goggles would be of use to people who do things like launch rockets into Israel proper, and the bullet proof vests have some utility in protecting these same chaps from soldiers that might seek to prevent them.

But how many of the goggles did they find again? I don't pretend to be of the nautical persuasion, but mightn't the goggles be useful for quite innocent purposes onboard a ship?

Sinistrum
06-02-2010, 11:00 AM
In a very real way, Israel is destroying itself. This kind of crap will do more to undermine the safety of Isreali citizens than Hamas could ever hope to. They can play the victim card as often as they like but it will never change the fact that their apartheid policy, no matter how justified it may seem to them, will do nothing but perpetuate the hatred of their neighbors. Then their neighbors will attack them and they'll have proof to show the rest of the world that they were right all along and it won't f****** matter because they'll still live in a war zone.

That's great and all but it completely ignores things such as this.

http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html

That document was was drafted in 1988, long before Gaza was ever blockaded by the same people who now hold power in Gaza. It calls for the unequivocal destruction of Israel and the massacre of its people. Now you tell me, precisely how are the Israeli's supposed to lay down their arms and attempt to co-exist with people who's stated goal is a second Holocaust?

the silent speaker
06-02-2010, 01:01 PM
This was not the first such convoy, and in all other cases the ships had either been turned back or been towed to a port of Israel's choice without generating any wounded or dead martyrs.
They had already told the convoy to land in Ashdod whereupon any humanitarian supplies on board would be taken into Gaza overland. The convoy refused.

Davian93
06-02-2010, 02:36 PM
Again, going where they were traveling, those are things any reasonable person would want to have with them. And tell me how those are going to cause harm to the Israeli's again? Cause as mentioned before, I'm pretty sure a bulletproof vest does the opposite of killing someone...

If you don't understand the tactical value of items like vests, night vision goggles and gas masks, then you're an idiot. They already have all the rifles they need in Gaza...the 3 above things are quite a bit of value for terrorists that want to attack the IDF.

Davian93
06-02-2010, 02:39 PM
Suppose, just for the sake of discussion, that a bunch of heavily armed Iranian troops land on a US warship in the Gulf. Suppose further that instead of peacefully surrendering, the Americans fight that landing party.
Then who would you say had initiated the violence?

They didn't land on a warship, they stopped a freighter carrying contraband. The US isn't trying to smuggle contraband into terrorists that are attacking Iran on Iranian soil. In that situation, they'd be more than welcome to stop such a ship as it would mean we were already at war with them as supplying insurgents is an act of war.

Your entire reverse scenario is complete bullsh!t and you know it.

Sei'taer
06-02-2010, 03:52 PM
Does the military apply the 21' rule, Davian? I know a lot of police trainers have extended it out to 30' and it generally applies to holstered handguns. Just curious if there is a similar application when using rifles and if it's taught in the military?

Davian93
06-02-2010, 04:24 PM
Does the military apply the 21' rule, Davian? I know a lot of police trainers have extended it out to 30' and it generally applies to holstered handguns. Just curious if there is a similar application when using rifles and if it's taught in the military?

Yes. I was trained on it as a part of my deployment training to go overseas...basically it was for if I was ever tagged to sit on a military checkpoint or gate guard.

nameless
06-02-2010, 05:58 PM
That's great and all but it completely ignores things such as this.

http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html

That document was was drafted in 1988, long before Gaza was ever blockaded by the same people who now hold power in Gaza. It calls for the unequivocal destruction of Israel and the massacre of its people. Now you tell me, precisely how are the Israeli's supposed to lay down their arms and attempt to co-exist with people who's stated goal is a second Holocaust?

Hamas used to be a lunatic fringe group. Isreali actions have since infuriated Palestinians to the point where they're willing to support Hamas' political ambitions and now they're a lawfully elected lunatic fringe group. Anti-Israeli factions have simultaneously incensed the Israeli populace and encouraged the election of ever-more militant Israeli politicians. At the present those in power on both sides depend on the continuation of this conflict for their political legitimacy. Peace would mean no one would vote for hawks anymore; it's no coincidence that the hawks currently in power on both sides are taking actions that are counterproductive the the peace process.

Think of similar situations in which the antagonists are members of the same ethnic group instead of Israelis and Arabs. Lunatic fringe groups in the US are a good example. If a militia group in Utah advocates the violent overthrow of the US government, the feds don't put the entire state of Utah under embargo. If they did, the regular citizens of Utah might start to think the militia group wasn't so crazy after all. They might even vote the militia into political office. Instead they respond to violent militias with police action instead of military action. It entails significantly more risk to the police officers than an air strike would but the risk is seen as worthwhile because it neutralizes the threat without opening the floodgates of new recruits into similar militia groups.

Oatman
06-02-2010, 07:45 PM
Suppose, just for the sake of discussion, that a bunch of heavily armed Iranian troops land on a US warship in the Gulf. Suppose further that instead of peacefully surrendering, the Americans fight that landing party.
Then who would you say had initiated the violence?

I shall refer you to my previous post:

If said situation was a replication of this one with the above countries inserted into the respective roles, I would continue to hold the same opinion.

Please educate me. How would a guy trying to sneak onto a bus with a bomb vest be more dangerous if he were wearing a lot of suspicious looking useless stuff over (or under) the things designed to go BOOM?

On the other hand, the bulletproof vest and night vision goggles could come in handy during fights with soldiers.

So you seem to prefer to have Israel face terrorism rather than low level military resistance. Are you sure you have your priorities right?

Terrorism and suicide bombing arent the same thing, the latter being a strategy used by the former. I believe wikipedia say's it nicely

Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants

An armed and armoured man with a gun could certainly fulfil the role of terrorist by that definition. So I think it's more that you have your definitions wrong than me having my priorities wrong.

One Armed Gimp
06-02-2010, 07:56 PM
Does the military apply the 21' rule, Davian? I know a lot of police trainers have extended it out to 30' and it generally applies to holstered handguns. Just curious if there is a similar application when using rifles and if it's taught in the military?

Yes. I was trained on it as a part of my deployment training to go overseas...basically it was for if I was ever tagged to sit on a military checkpoint or gate guard.

Sometimes I think maybe route clearance was safer after all. 21 feet? If we had the road closed off we could legitimately engage any one with in 100 meters, though we routinely let people pass that. 50m was definite kill zone. That is what kills me about Hurt Locker. The guy with the cell phone, dead, the guy with camcorder, dead before I even call him in. 21 feet? ***shudders***

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

They didn't land on a warship, they stopped a freighter carrying contraband. The US isn't trying to smuggle contraband into terrorists that are attacking Iran on Iranian soil. In that situation, they'd be more than welcome to stop such a ship as it would mean we were already at war with them as supplying insurgents is an act of war.

Your entire reverse scenario is complete bullsh!t and you know it.

Come on now, boarding a warship is the exact same.

Sinistrum
06-02-2010, 08:53 PM
Instead they respond to violent militias with police action instead of military action. It entails significantly more risk to the police officers than an air strike would but the risk is seen as worthwhile because it neutralizes the threat without opening the floodgates of new recruits into similar militia groups.

Uh Israel has tried police actions. They end with even more dead civilians because groups like Hamas use them as human shields. The reason for this is, unlike the average citizen of Utah, the average citizen of Gaza tacitly supports what groups like Hamas are doing and is a willing participant in hiding said groups and using their bodies to do it. Their actions don't open any flood gates. They are already wide open as a result of the culture and the religion within Gaza.

Hamas used to be a lunatic fringe group.

Just labeling them a lunatic fringe group severely underestimates the level of support they have and they level of hatred and anti-Semitism the average Arab Muslim has toward Israel and Jews. Groups that win popular elections, while certainly capable of being labeled "lunatic" are never ever fringe for whatever society they are in.

If a militia group in Utah advocates the violent overthrow of the US government, the feds don't put the entire state of Utah under embargo.

Except you are getting your timeline backwards. It didn't go Hamas exists, blockade, and then they get elected. It went Hamas exists, THEY GET ELECTED, and then blockade. The blockade had nothing to do with Hamas getting elected. It happened after the fact and was a response to them getting elected.

irerancincpkc
06-02-2010, 09:18 PM
If you don't understand the tactical value of items like vests, night vision goggles and gas masks, then you're an idiot. They already have all the rifles they need in Gaza...the 3 above things are quite a bit of value for terrorists that want to attack the IDF.

And if you don't understand that bulletproof vests and gas masks are things that every single reasonable person would take with them into that country, and that night goggles would be useful on a ship where guess what, it gets dark at night, than you're an idiot.

Seriously, you don't think we wouldn't give our own aid workers that kind of equipment if they were going into an unstable area? Or is it okay for us to do it, but not for them? Because, you know, they aren't Americans, so they don't have the right... :rolleyes:

Oatman
06-02-2010, 10:19 PM
And if you don't understand that bulletproof vests and gas masks are things that every single reasonable person would take with them into that country, and that night goggles would be useful on a ship where guess what, it gets dark at night, than you're an idiot.

If you can find one person in this thread who has said that those items do not have a legitimate non-combat use then you may have a point. The issue is what they can potentially be used for. They are incredibly valuable pieces of equipment in combat situations, and it is completely understandable that the government in a country like Israel would want to control the distribution of them.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure most governments in western society control who is able to access them, even if they aren't at war.

Seriously, you don't think we wouldn't give our own aid workers that kind of equipment if they were going into an unstable area? Or is it okay for us to do it, but not for them?

Other aid workers go through the proper channels and avoid looking like they are trying to smuggle said equipment into a war zone.

Neilbert
06-03-2010, 03:11 AM
Again, if you don't think those particular bits of equipment have an use in warfare, then you should think about it a bit harder.

If you think I've said this you are a little dumb.

My point is, and has been the whole time, that if the violence was initiated by the protesters then a violent response was justified.

Who boarded who's boat on international waters in the middle of the night?

And if you don't understand that bulletproof vests and gas masks are things that every single reasonable person would take with them into that country, and that night goggles would be useful on a ship where guess what, it gets dark at night, than you're an idiot.

I have no intention of terroristing anyone ever but if I were passing out food in Gaza I would sure as hell want a bulletproof vest and a gas mask.

That's great and all but it completely ignores things such as this.

That document is 22 years old...

Groups that win popular elections, while certainly capable of being labeled "lunatic" are never ever fringe for whatever society they are in.

I don't know dude, I'd take the crazy terrorists over the foreign intelligence service backed people while hating both.

They are incredibly valuable pieces of equipment in combat situations, and it is completely understandable that the government in a country like Israel would want to control the distribution of them.

This is an arguably reasonable position to take. Accusing the flotilla of smuggling in supplies for war is not.

GonzoTheGreat
06-03-2010, 03:45 AM
Who boarded who's boat on international waters in the middle of the night?A boat (legitimately) flying the Turkish flag in international waters counts as Turkish territory. So obviously the unarmed Turks who tried to protect their home country from invasion were the aggressors, and the gun wielding masked invaders who dropped down on Turkish territory were totally innocent bystanders who got brutally assaulted by terrorists. Couldn't you figure that one out yourself?

Oatman
06-03-2010, 06:14 AM
If you think I've said this you are a little dumb.

If you had said it I would have called you a moron and been done with it. You were, however, not acknowledging that they had a combat use, so it was reasonable to question you about it.

Who boarded who's boat on international waters in the middle of the night?

Who was set on charging through a naval blockade?

I have no intention of terroristing anyone ever but if I were passing out food in Gaza I would sure as hell want a bulletproof vest and a gas mask.

Great. Who is arguing against this again? There are perfectly reasonable reasons to take any number of items to any country. Try to take them in without going through the proper customs procedures and it's smuggling them in. So regardless of the intentions of the ship, which we will never really know, they were smuggling in items which have a combat use.

Accusing the flotilla of smuggling in supplies for war is not.

See above.

Davian93
06-03-2010, 06:56 AM
If you can find one person in this thread who has said that those items do not have a legitimate non-combat use then you may have a point. The issue is what they can potentially be used for. They are incredibly valuable pieces of equipment in combat situations, and it is completely understandable that the government in a country like Israel would want to control the distribution of them.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure most governments in western society control who is able to access them, even if they aren't at war.



Other aid workers go through the proper channels and avoid looking like they are trying to smuggle said equipment into a war zone.


Wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying a firearm (even if its a legal weapon and you have a permit) is a crime in most US States. Wearing one during a criminal act tacks on another charge...because it gives the criminal even more advantages.

Davian93
06-03-2010, 06:58 AM
That document is 22 years old...

The U.S. Constitution is 223 years old...does that mean its irrelevant too? Hamas has never changed it despite opportunities to do so. That is their mission statement, nothing has changed for them since then.

GonzoTheGreat
06-03-2010, 07:21 AM
Great. Who is arguing against this again? There are perfectly reasonable reasons to take any number of items to any country. Try to take them in without going through the proper customs procedures and it's smuggling them in. So regardless of the intentions of the ship, which we will never really know, they were smuggling in items which have a combat use.What proper customs procedures?

Gaza is not part of Israel. Thus, Israeli customs procedures have no more to do with what you may bring there than do, for instance, Namibian customs procedures.
Turkish custom procedures would be relevant in this case, obviously, since that's where they departed from, but apparently they cleared that legal hurdle, so this is a moot point.

Let me ask a question: given the fact that Hamas claims all of Palestina (which, obviously to them, also includes Israel), would the USA be allowed to declare a blockade and carry out such actions on any shipping bound for Haifa and Ashdod? If not, why wouldn't US Marines be entitled to fire on Israeli who object to being boarded?

Oatman
06-03-2010, 08:05 AM
What proper customs procedures?

I won't pretend to be an expert on the situation, but Israel established a line and were restricting who and what could cross it. Rightly or wrongly, I don't think is particularly relevant, it was there, and people knew about it. To me that is close enough to what customs is to be treated the same way.

If not, why wouldn't US Marines be entitled to fire on Israeli who object to being boarded?

I really don't likely loaded questions. I've already said that whoever initiated the violence is the one in the wrong. I've already said you can substitute whatever two countries into whatever respective role in that situation and my opinion on it wouldn't change. Exactly what is the use of making hypotheitcals which arent representative of the situation?

yks 6nnetu hing
06-03-2010, 08:56 AM
The U.S. Constitution is 223 years old...does that mean its irrelevant too? Hamas has never changed it despite opportunities to do so. That is their mission statement, nothing has changed for them since then.

I didn't know the Constitution was still valid 100% the way it was first written :eek:

Again, it was not Hamas who killed the peace talks 15 years ago even though they disliked Arafat just as much as Netanyahu hated Rabin.

Neilbert
06-03-2010, 09:10 AM
The U.S. Constitution is 223 years old...does that mean its irrelevant too? Hamas has never changed it despite opportunities to do so. That is their mission statement, nothing has changed for them since then.

I never said it was irrelevant.
However, if you have to go back digging 20+ years you are probably slightly disingenuous. 20+ years ago we were toppling governments in South America, 20+ years ago someone would be absolutely justified in calling for the destruction of the local American supported regime.

If it's as bad as you claim it is surely you can find something more recent. That really shouldn't be a challenge.

Davian93
06-03-2010, 09:41 AM
I didn't know the Constitution was still valid 100% the way it was first written :eek:

Again, it was not Hamas who killed the peace talks 15 years ago even though they disliked Arafat just as much as Netanyahu hated Rabin.

Israel caved on almost every Palestinian demand at Camp David and Arafat spit in their face because he wanted to continue the violence rather than make peace. The US put all their pressure on Israel to give in to the demands, Israel did and Arafat basically give them the middle finger.

Davian93
06-03-2010, 09:42 AM
I never said it was irrelevant.
However, if you have to go back digging 20+ years you are probably slightly disingenuous. 20+ years ago we were toppling governments in South America, 20+ years ago someone would be absolutely justified in calling for the destruction of the local American supported regime.

If it's as bad as you claim it is surely you can find something more recent. That really shouldn't be a challenge.


Maybe Hamas could change their charter then? I mean, if it doesn't apply anymore, why do they still use it?

Sinistrum
06-03-2010, 01:39 PM
You want current expressions of the Hamas desire to wipe out the Jews and Israel? I can do that. Its very easy to find it.

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/94/4161.htm

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/94/4042.htm

This is what they are teaching their children.

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/94/4035.htm

Here is an official statement by a member of the Hamas government about what the Jews apparently are.

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/94/3247.htm

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/94/3023.htm

From their state run tv. Notice the date on all of those broadcasts is after Hamas took power. ;)

But hey, its just a 22 year old document that apparently has lost its meaning, right? :rolleyes: Its not like they could, yanno, amend it to take out all of the parts calling for the annihilation of the Jews.

Neilbert
06-03-2010, 06:00 PM
That's very interesting, but the fact still remains that for every Isreali killed by Palestinians, 10 Palestinians are killed by Isrealis.

Also, execution style murders don't exactly scream self-defense:

A forensic report said he was shot at close range, with four bullets in his head and one in his chest, according to the Anatolian news agency. (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Media/american-killed-gaza-aid-flotilla/story?id=10814848)

All of the people killed were Turkish or of Turkish descent. This whole thing is suspicious as ***** especially considering that Isreal is known to have assassination squads.

I really have to wonder though. What, hypothetically, would it take for you to change your stance here? What would Isreal have to do?

For me if Isreal would cease the economic isolation of Palestine and withdraw to previously agreed upon borders I would be much more likely to find fault with Palestine's actions. Is there a conceivable set of circumstances under which your support would shift? What are they?

Neilbert
06-03-2010, 06:06 PM
Oh Sinistrum...

Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor for the Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom, has been one of the most outspoken critics of MEMRI, writing: "My problem with Memri is that it poses as a research institute when it's basically a propaganda operation,"[11] to "further the political agenda of Israel."[1] Whitaker has also complained that "MEMRI's website does not mention you [Carmon] or your work for Israeli intelligence. Nor does it mention MEMRI's co-founder, Meyrav Wurmser, and her extreme brand of Zionism.... Given your political background, it's legitimate to ask whether MEMRI is a trustworthy vehicle."[11]

They state that MEMRI consistently picks for translation and dissemination the most extreme views, which portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, while ignoring moderate views that are often found in the same media outlets.

The accuracy of MEMRI's translations are often disputed,[40] as in the case of MEMRI's translation of a 2004 Osama bin Laden video, which MEMRI defended.[11][38][41][42][43] Norman Finkelstein, in an interview with the Muslim newspaper In Focus said MEMRI "uses the same sort of propaganda techniques as the Nazis... [I]t’s a reliable assumption that anything MEMRI translates from the Middle East is going to be unreliable."[44]
In 2007, CNN correspondent Atika Shubert and Arabic translators accused MEMRI of mistranslating portions of a Palestinian children's television programme.
"Media watchdog MEMRI translates one caller as saying - quote - 'We will annihilate the Jews,"' said Shubert. "But, according to several Arabic speakers used by CNN, the caller actually says 'The Jews are killing us."' [45]
Several commentators, such as CNN's Arabic department, have claimed that the transcript of the April 13 show (2007) provided by MEMRI contains numerous translation errors and undue emphases. Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor for the Guardian newspaper (UK), wrote in a blog for the newspaper that in the translation of the video, showing Farfour eliciting political comments from a young girl named Sanabel, the MEMRI transcript misrepresents the segment, by attributing a sentence said by Farfour, ("I'll shoot"), to the child, and ignoring the child's statement ("I'm going to draw a picture").[46]
Whitaker further criticized MEMRI's translation. He and others commented that a statement uttered by the same child, ("We're going to [or want to] resist"), had been given an unduly aggressive interpretation by MEMRI as ("We want to fight"). Also, where MEMRI translated the girl as saying the highly controversial remark ("We will annihilate the Jews"), Whitaker and others, including Arabic speakers used by CNN, insist that based on careful listening to the low quality video clip, the girl is variously interpreted as saying, "The Jews [will] shoot[] us"[46] or "The Jews are killing us."[47] Other sources have also pointed out that MEMRI's translation "I will commit martyrdom" should more accurately have been "I'll become a martyr" – a passive statement rather than an active/aggressive threat.[48]
MEMRI defends their translation of the show, Yigal Carmon, founder and President of MEMRI declared, "Yes, we stand by the translation by the very words, by the context, by the syntax, and every measure of the translation."[47]

No wonder all your links came from the same place.

Second link on the website's header: "Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor"

Sounds like some Fox-news level bullshit to me.
Speaking of fox news level bullshit, I wonder what picture I could create of america just quoting fox news....

Neilbert
06-03-2010, 06:14 PM
From: http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Wurmser_Meyrav

Meyrav Wurmser, the director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the neoconservative-aligned Hudson Institute in Washington, DC, and a contributing expert at the Israel-based Ariel Center, is a longtime proponent of hardline Likud Party policies in the Middle East and, along with her husband David Wurmser (an adviser on Mideast issues to Vice President Dick Cheney), a member of an elite clique of policy wonks who helped shape ideas that seem to have heavily influenced the George W. Bush administration's response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Hey Gonzo, this is the part where you post that Sinistrum quote saying about how Saddam is responsible for 9-11.

Sinistrum
06-03-2010, 08:49 PM
Its not surprising that places like CNN and the Guardian impune the quality of MEMRI translations. They are, after all, the only source that actually takes the time to translate most of the media broadcasts in the Middle East instead of just relying on the mouth pieces for those organizations that make English language statements. The Arab world speaks out of both sides of its mouth. It tells Western news agencies like CNN and the Guardian precisely what they want to hear and then they run back to their own media organizations and tell them what they really think. It tends to make places like CNN and the Guardian look foolish when the standard "Arabs love peace" that those media organizations lap up like honey get contradicted behind their backs in native language broadcasts.

Furthermore, the cites on the Wiki for those accusations come from places like

http://www.infocusnews.net/content/blogcategory/19/16/

Which is an admitted Muslim news paper. Gee, I wonder why they might have an interest in accusing MEMRI of bias and mistranslation?

Or how about TBS

http://www.tbsjournal.com/abouttbs.html

Which is based partly in the American University in Cairo. Perchance they might have an interest in keeping the perception that radical broadcasts like the ones MEMRI translates are exceptions and not the rule.

Or what about IPS?

http://www.ips.org/institutional/get-to-know-us-2/our-mission/

Why they're "giving a voice to the voiceless." Certainly no bias there. :rolleyes:

Or how about factsontheground

http://www.factsontheground.co.uk/2007/05/14/memri-and-its-mickey-mouse-translation/

Certainly no bias there even though the entire blog is rife with it and refuses to put any identifying information about it. :rolleyes:

And hey as for that link you posted in your last post. "Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy"

Not only is that their mission statement but they're also affiliated with IPS.

But no, they're totally credible and legitimate and certainly have moral and intellectual authority to criticize others for bias and inaccuracy.

Is there a conceivable set of circumstances under which your support would shift? What are they?

Yes there is. If the majority of Palestinians were to formally disavow the right of return, acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel's right to continue to exist, clean up their own house by turning on groups like Hamas and other terrorist organizations, renounce religious concepts like strict Sha'ria and Islamic Waqf, start treating their women like people, admit that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery, and embrace concepts such as political and religious freedom and the Israelis continued to attack them, then I'd turn on the Israelis. EDIT: Almost forgot, they'd also have to cease specifically targeting civilians for attacks too.

As for the flotilla attack victim you are labeling an "execution" the close range plus the number of bullets involved is just as suggestive of panic fire if not more so. Executioners rarely use more than one or two bullets.

Sei'taer
06-03-2010, 10:24 PM
Just for shits and giggles...

Biden Supports Isreal In Flotilla Disaster (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjPYeJ3jWf0)

This isn't Foxnews, btw.

yks 6nnetu hing
06-04-2010, 04:22 AM
Its not surprising that places like CNN and the Guardian impune the quality of MEMRI translations. They are, after all, the only source that actually takes the time to translate most of the media broadcasts in the Middle East instead of just relying on the mouth pieces for those organizations that make English language statements. The Arab world speaks out of both sides of its mouth. It tells Western news agencies like CNN and the Guardian precisely what they want to hear and then they run back to their own media organizations and tell them what they really think. It tends to make places like CNN and the Guardian look foolish when the standard "Arabs love peace" that those media organizations lap up like honey get contradicted behind their backs in native language broadcasts.

Invalid. Look what CNN ran as their front page news yesterday (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/06/03/lithuania.nazi.prosecutions/index.html?hpt=C1)

It's factually incorrect to say the least. Not to even mention emotional blackmail. Unless the editor in chief actually wanted everyone who read the story to go "oh, please, look at what Israel's doing instead of dragging out the Holocaust again". Which I doubt, that would be deliberately discrediting CNN.

Neilbert
06-04-2010, 08:36 AM
Its not surprising that places like CNN and the Guardian impune the quality of MEMRI translations. They are, after all, the only source that actually takes the time to translate most of the media broadcasts in the Middle East instead of just relying on the mouth pieces for those organizations that make English language statements.

Hmmmmm....

In 2007, CNN correspondent Atika Shubert and Arabic translators accused MEMRI of mistranslating portions of a Palestinian children's television programme.

"The only source" from the same people who brought you "Saddam is responsible for 9-11" and "Colin Powell's presentation on mobile WMD labs".

The Arab world speaks out of both sides of its mouth. It tells Western news agencies like CNN and the Guardian precisely what they want to hear and then they run back to their own media organizations and tell them what they really think.

You seriously do have a very child-like view of the world. This isn't hyperbole, you really, honestly, seriously do.

Neilbert
06-04-2010, 08:41 AM
Just for shits and giggles...

Biden Supports Isreal In Flotilla Disaster (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjPYeJ3jWf0)

This isn't Foxnews, btw.

Yes if only those cruel palestinians would leave the Isrealis alone and just quietly die so that in 50 years they will be extinct and Isreal can just roll in and peacefully take over and conflict solved right.

I was aware of the clip already, and Biden is a dumbass. Also not supporting Isreal is like political suicide because of idiots who will believe anyone who speaks loudly and authoritatively enough so w/e.

Ishara
06-04-2010, 08:56 AM
Now this gives me echoes of Tigana...

I think I realize your perspective on the book better now, Dav.

Sei'taer
06-04-2010, 09:03 AM
Yes if only those cruel palestinians would leave the Isrealis alone and just quietly die so that in 50 years they will be extinct and Isreal can just roll in and peacefully take over and conflict solved right.

I was aware of the clip already, and Biden is a dumbass. Also not supporting Isreal is like political suicide because of idiots who will believe anyone who speaks loudly and authoritatively enough so w/e.

I didn't say it, I just posted it. Maybe a call to Bidens office would do more good than raggin on about it here...eh, nevermind, the fuckers don't listen to us anyway...doesn't matter which side of the issue you're on.

Neilbert
06-04-2010, 09:24 AM
Sorry I didn't mean to imply I thought you agreed with his statements.

Sei'taer
06-04-2010, 10:48 AM
Sorry I didn't mean to imply I thought you agreed with his statements.

Oh, I agree with him. He's still a putz. Probably the only time I have agreed with him about anything. I don't believe political affiliation should be a reason enough to not agree with someone who is right. Heck, I think I agreed with Obama once, but I forgot what it was...

nameless
06-04-2010, 12:21 PM
Its not surprising that places like CNN and the Guardian impune the quality of MEMRI translations. They are, after all, the only source that actually takes the time to translate most of the media broadcasts in the Middle East instead of just relying on the mouth pieces for those organizations that make English language statements.
British news sources have a (deserved) reputation for pro-Palestinian bias, which accounts for the Guardian's stance here. American news sources have an equally deserved reputation for pro-Israeli bias. When an American news outlet like CNN reports any story that does not cast Israel is a positive light you would be wise to sit up and take notice. Don't just assume that because "the media has a liberal bias" they will report disproportionately in favor of the underdog; keep in mind that all the pundits who complain about the liberal-run American media do so because it is no longer permissible to complain about the Jewish-run American media.
The Arab world speaks out of both sides of its mouth.
The racism behind a statement like this should be self-evident. There is no monolithic Arab world. They do not have secret meetings to agree on a master plan of misinformation. The reliability of any given piece of Arab-language news depends largely on the degree of freedom of the press in the country from which the news originated. Judge a piece of news as coming from the Turkish world or the Syrian world and you might come up with some meaningful assessment of it. Judge it as from the "Arab world" and you do nothing but betray your own ignorance.

Yes there is. If the majority of Palestinians were to formally disavow the right of return, acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel's right to continue to exist, clean up their own house by turning on groups like Hamas and other terrorist organizations, renounce religious concepts like strict Sha'ria and Islamic Waqf, start treating their women like people, admit that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery, and embrace concepts such as political and religious freedom and the Israelis continued to attack them, then I'd turn on the Israelis. EDIT: Almost forgot, they'd also have to cease specifically targeting civilians for attacks too.

No more Sha'ria? I can get behind that... so we agree that theocracy is no basis for a system of government. Where exactly does that leave Israel again? Targetting civilians is repugnant but the last time I checked Hamas and the IDF were both equally on the hook for war crimes. Likewise the subjugation of women in any country for any reason can only be described as abominable, but citing it as a justification for embargo and disproportionate military response? Really? What are we going to do, go through every country in the bottom half of the Gender Equality Index one by one and bulldoze their houses till they straighten up and fly right? Take a look at the actual rankings, you may be surprised at how low your own country comes in: http://www.socialwatch.org/node/11760
Which isn't to say you aren't perfectly correct in believing that the Middle East's treatment of women is particularly appalling, but if you consider the economic factors behind gender-based oppression and the model of aggression displacement there is a very real possibility that Israel is exacerbating the Palestinian gender gap rather than correcting it.

Sinistrum
06-04-2010, 12:26 PM
Invalid. Look what CNN ran as their front page news yesterday

It's factually incorrect to say the least. Not to even mention emotional blackmail. Unless the editor in chief actually wanted everyone who read the story to go "oh, please, look at what Israel's doing instead of dragging out the Holocaust again". Which I doubt, that would be deliberately discrediting CNN

That's great that they ran a piece on how horrible the Holocaust was. Anyone who is even semi-rational acknowledges that it happened and it was terrible (which btw excludes a large swath of the Arab world). How, precisely, does that invalidate CNN and the Guardian buying into the fairy tale Palestinian english speaking representatives are peddling about the Palestinians not being bigoted and wanting a peaceful two state solution? I'm not accusing them of being actively duplicitious. I'm accusing them of being lazy because the message the Palestinians present to the West is more emotionally satisfying to the people in those organizations than the truth. They want to believe the Palestinians want peace, so they report on them like they do, so that way people like you and Neil, who also want to believe that can be affirmed in that belief. Sadly, as the links I've posted demonstrate, nothing could be farther from the truth.

"The only source" from the same people who brought you "Saddam is responsible for 9-11" and "Colin Powell's presentation on mobile WMD labs".

And your source on this claimed tied is a website with a catch phrase that labels everyone who disagrees with its political views "militarists." Yeah, great retort there from an obvious legitimate source. :rolleyes:

In 2007, CNN correspondent Atika Shubert and Arabic translators accused MEMRI of mistranslating portions of a Palestinian children's television programme.

The cite for this claim is IPS which can hardly be claimed as credible either. And imagine that, they never provide any information about who these translators were.

You seriously do have a very child-like view of the world. This isn't hyperbole, you really, honestly, seriously do

Yup, its very child like to think people are capable of duplicity in what they tell outsiders and what they tell themselves. :rolleyes: It certainly isn't child like to think people who's past actions and stated beliefs include violence, terrorism, irrationality at the negotiating table, bigotry, and who don't respect women's rights, freedom of speech, or freedom of religion just want to get along with others and be left alone. ;) I mean that's pretty much what this is all about with most Palestinian supporters who aren't Palestinian, aside from a heavy helping of white guilt that seems to allow them to justify even the most horrid atrocities as long as they person who commits them has a skin color a shade darker than theirs. Its all based upon the assumption that people are people, that differences don't matter, and that when it comes down to it, people like the Palestinians couldn't possibly think any differently than they do about the world or value different things. But no, I'm apparently the one with the child like view of the world. :rolleyes:

Sinistrum
06-04-2010, 12:46 PM
American news sources have an equally deserved reputation for pro-Israeli bias.

Yes, someone who grew up in the most populous Muslim country in the world and has a degree from a Jakarta university couldn't possibly be pro-Palestinian. :rolleyes:

The racism behind a statement like this should be self-evident. There is no monolithic Arab world. They do not have secret meetings to agree on a master plan of misinformation. The reliability of any given piece of Arab-language news depends largely on the degree of freedom of the press in the country from which the news originated. Judge a piece of news as coming from the Turkish world or the Syrian world and you might come up with some meaningful assessment of it. Judge it as from the "Arab world" and you do nothing but betray your own ignorance.

And who does most of the speaking in the Arab world? That would be the governments that run it. In the most pertinent example, that would be Hamas, which was a demoncratically elected government. But no, I'm just racist. :rolleyes:

I can get behind that... so we agree that theocracy is no basis for a system of government.

You're the one who said that, not me. I have no problem with a theocracy as long as it meets certain basic standards of civil society (embraces general political and social freedoms). Israel's government is quite successful in doing that, as demonstrated that they have Arab, pro-Palestinian political parties with representation in the Knesset. That's assuming it could be characterized as a theocracy at all, though. Sha'ria, on the other hand, has never had an instance in which it was implemented and such freedoms were preserved. In point of fact, its very definition sets itself as the exact opposite of things such as women's liberation, free speech, and freedom of religion.

Targetting civilians is repugnant but the last time I checked Hamas and the IDF were both equally on the hook for war crimes

Really? Please name me a couple of instances in which Israel deliberately targeted civilians? The reason I ask for a couple is because single instances have happened in all wars throughout history due to things such as poor troop discipline. It its more than a handful, then that would demonstrate a pattern of deliberation. I will admit they've certainly killed them, but all of the times I'm aware of, those civilians were either mistakenly targeted, were collateral damage of legitimate military operations against military targets, or allowed themselves to be used as human shields for actual combatants, thereby making them legitimate targets under the laws of war.

Which isn't to say you aren't perfectly correct in believing that the Middle East's treatment of women is particularly appalling, but if you consider the economic factors behind gender-based oppression and the model of aggression displacement there is a very real possibility that Israel is exacerbating the Palestinian gender gap rather than correcting it.

This assumes that it is Israel's fault that it exists, that it is Israel's problem to correct, and that they have the power to correct it. They don't. Nothing Israel does will change the hardwired religious attitudes that lead to the oppression of Muslim women. That change has to come from within the Muslim world.

DahLliA
06-04-2010, 01:39 PM
I mean that's pretty much what this is all about with most Palestinian supporters who aren't Palestinian, aside from a heavy helping of white guilt that seems to allow them to justify even the most horrid atrocities as long as they person who commits them has a skin color a shade darker than theirs.

kinda like letting Israel do whatever they want because the jews got slaughtered during WW2? :p

*jumps back on the ESC-couch*

Sinistrum
06-04-2010, 01:52 PM
kinda like letting Israel do whatever they want because the jews got slaughtered during WW2?

Yeah, and what the Jews want to do is have a two state solution. But hey, I guess we shouldn't let them do "whatever they want."

Davian93
06-04-2010, 01:58 PM
Yeah, and what the Jews want to do is have a two state solution. But hey, I guess we shouldn't let them do "whatever they want."

Those darn reasonable Jews...trying to share like that only to get their teeth kicked in repeatedly.

Sorry, but I respect Israel's stance with their neighbors. They tried doing it the peaceful way and got ripped..so Israel started playing by the PLO's rules...only they did it better.

nameless
06-04-2010, 05:47 PM
And who does most of the speaking in the Arab world? That would be the governments that run it. In the most pertinent example, that would be Hamas, which was a demoncratically elected government. But no, I'm just racist. :rolleyes:
It's racist, or at the very best ignorant, to assume that "Arab world" is a relevant descriptive category in the first place, just as it would be to assume "white world" to be a meaningful category. There are no "governments that run it;" there are individual governments that run individual parts of it. Duplicity from the Russian government regarding a suspected KGB assassination would not lead you to distrust reports from Norway or to make sweeping statements about the mendacity of "Caucasian governments." Why do you believe the Middle East to be homogeneous in a way the rest of the world is not? Their ethnic and linguistic similarities do not preclude a vast array of political, religious, and sociological differences from one Arab country to the next or within the citizenship of each individual country.

Really? Please name me a couple of instances in which Israel deliberately targeted civilians? The reason I ask for a couple is because single instances have happened in all wars throughout history due to things such as poor troop discipline. It its more than a handful, then that would demonstrate a pattern of deliberation.

From Wikipedia's summary of the Goldstone report:
Civilian targeting allegations
The report disputes Israel's claim that the Gaza war would have been conducted as a response to rockets fired from the Gaza Strip, saying that at least in part the war was targeted against the "people of Gaza as a whole" The report also says that Israel’s military assault on Gaza was designed to "humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability”.

The report focused on 36 cases that it said constituted a representative sample. In 11 of these episodes, it said the Israeli military carried out direct attacks against civilians, including some in which civilians were shot “while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags”. Talking to Bill Moyers Journal, Goldstone said that the committee chose 36 incidents that represented the highest death toll, where there seemed to be little or no military justification for what happened. According to the report, another alleged war crime committed by IDF include “wanton” destruction of food production, water and sewerage facilities; the report also asserts that some attacks, which were supposedly aimed to kill small number of combatants amidst significant numbers of civilians, were disproportionate.

The report concluded that Israel violated the Fourth Geneva Convention by targeting civilians, which it labeled "a grave breach". It also claimed that the violations were "systematic and deliberate", which placed the blame in the first place on those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw the operations.
This is just a handful of allegations from the most recent military action. There's also several decades worth of bulldozing civilian houses for the sake of improving security. These homes were chosen for demolition because of their strategic locations, not because the residents were aiding Hamas terrorists. Then there's the widespread executions of POWs during the 6-day war and a whole laundry list of atrocities going back to 1948 when Isreali the terrorist factions Irgun and the Stern Gang massacred 100 civilians with no legal repurcussions - in fact, two of their members, Menachem Begin and Yitzak Shamir, went on to become Prime Ministers of Israel.

For the record, I'm not pro-Palestine or pro-Israel. I'm anti-war crime, and I'm equally appalled by the behavior of both factions.

If anything, I think the Goldstone report could be the first step in the reconciliation process because it puts both Israel and Palestine on equal footing. They're both aggressors and they're both victims. If the Palestinians named 5 IDF soldiers and the Israelis named 5 Hamas terrorists and all 10 of them stood trial before an international court it could go a long way towards restoring faith in the ability of the rule of law to address the legitimate grievances of both sides. But of course that will never happen; instead they are resorting to Mossad assassins and Iranian rocket launchers and mindlessly perpetuating the conflict.

Sinistrum
06-04-2010, 06:39 PM
Why do you believe the Middle East to be homogeneous in a way the rest of the world is not?

Gee, as to Anti-Semitism, let me think on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Arab_world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_imprints_of_The_Protocols_of_the_Elde rs_of_Zion

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1388161/Mein-Kampf-for-sale-in-Arabic.html

Recognizing popular veins of thought amongst a culture and society is not racist by any means. And the ideas of writings such as the Protocols and Mein Kampf are quite popular in Arab countries, as is their natural, logical offshoots visa vie Israel (ie they want to destroy it and its people). But no, please continue name calling instead of actually debating the issues. I'm sure its quite emotionally satisfying to you in a way that reality cannot be.

As for the Goldstone report...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Co nflict#Journalism

I believe the Economist, London Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal sum up my response to its accusations.

And then there is the matter of the mandate that created the Goldstone commishion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Co nflict#Mandate

Yeah, when your original mandate only allows you to investigate Israel, and not Palestinian war crimes and you have to have it amended after getting blasted for bias, the end result is automatically suspect.

Ishara
06-04-2010, 07:28 PM
Sini, with respect, he's saying that your repeated use of the term "Arab World" is racist - which it is.

He's not, as far as I can see, doing to distract from the argument, rather to point out to you, an intelligent person, that what you're saying is racist.

I don't think you are racist, but I do find the term to be, and I wish you'd stop using it in such an antagonistic way.

~shrug~

Sinistrum
06-04-2010, 08:57 PM
Uh, with respect, Ishy no its not racist. Its the truth. As I've pointed out through multiple links with solid source material, the vast majority of Arabic Muslims are anti-semitic and they don't own up to that in Western media when they make claims of a desire for peace and point fingers any time Israel does something that ends in civilian dead (regardless of the circumstances). And then they go right back to reading Mein Kampf and calling the Jews pigs when they are by themselves and the cameras are off. Hence the vast majority of them do talk out of both sides of their mouths on the subjects of Israel and Jews. In response to that evidence nameless and people like you have provided exactly squat in contradictory sources and done nothing but name call. And that name calling is something I'd wish you'd stop doing.

nameless
06-04-2010, 11:16 PM
Recognizing popular veins of thought amongst a culture and society is not racist by any means.
The point of contention is your use of the singular tense, ie 'a culture' when the reality is many Arab cultures in many Arab nations. You have repeatedly implied that Arab=Arab Muslim=Arab Muslim anti-Semite. This is simply not true. I don't think you believe it is true. There are Arab Christians, Arab Muslims, Arab Zoroastrians, secular Arabs who don't think much of any religion in particular. There are, as you yourself have pointed out, Arab Israelis who love their country and serve in Knesset. In short, there is the same variety of religious and political beliefs within the "Arab world," as you put it, as can be found in any other part of the world. Your assertions to the contrary are reductive and offensive. I honestly can't tell if your failure to understand this simple concept is the result of a blind spot in your world view or simply a knee-jerk reaction to defend your previous assertions without actually subjecting them to critical scrutiny. I'm not saying this because I want to call you names. I am engaging with your ideas, not you as a person. And I have provided a number of logical reasons why I believe your ideas are indicative of prejudice which you have not engaged at all. It is almost as if you stopped reading after seeing the word "racist" and derailed the entire discussion in order to respond to a perceived personal attack.

Everyone here knows that movements like Hamas are driven by powerful anti-semitism and no one has tried to argue to the contrary. If you believe this fact is not reported in Western media then you have not been paying very much attention to the news. Hamas' violent bigotry and Iran's mindless denial of the Holocaust are regular topics of discussion on every American news network I've ever watched. But Hamas does not represent the "Arab world." They don't represent Egypt, which has to date co-operated with the Israeli blockade. They don't represent Turkey, a democratic, secular nation whose ships were boarded in the incident that inspired this thread.

edit: upon further reflection, the bit about "blind spot in your world view" actually is a personal attack. But I stand by it. Like I said, the idea that there's no such thing as a monolithic Arab culture is a simple one and you've proven yourself fairly intelligent, so I think it's reasonable to assume there's something going on behind your failure to acknowledge it.

Sinistrum
06-04-2010, 11:48 PM
Read the goddamn wiki link I posted regarding Arab Anti-Semitism. You'll see that it spans every country in the region.

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, the most popular political movement in the country, called the Holocaust a fraud. So did the Egyptian government run news paper.

Jordan doesn't allow Jews in its country to openly display visable signs of their religion as an official government policy.

Members of the Saudi government commonly promote Jewish conspiracy theories and use the Protocols as proof. Saudi school text books claim that Jews are swine who worship the devil and encourage Jihad against them.

The Syrian based Hezbollah tv network commonly broadcasts Anti-Semitic content including a popular story claiming Jews kill Christian children to make Matza balls.

The Palestinians, of course have Hamas and other radical groups, however even the leader of the PA, Mahmoud Abbas, published a paper claiming a link between Zionism and Nazism and denying the Holocaust. The PA's news paper promotes Jewish conspiracy theories.

In Lebanon, Jew is considered an insult. They also get Hezbollah's Al Manar network and its lovely Jew hating broadcasts.

And then there is of course Iran with its well published Holocaust denial and threat to destroy Israel.

I'm sure I could find multiple other examples of this pervading attitude transcending country borders and apparent cultural differences. Anti-Semitism in the Middle East is not confined to one country, culture, or one political group nameless. That is the message I've been trying to get through your thick skull. These are not isolated pockets of people in one or two countries that believe this. They are the majority in most of the countries that are considered Arabic. There is no difference between Jordian Anti-Semitism, Iranian Anti-Semitism, Saudi Anti-Semitism, Palestinian Anti-Semitism or any other kind of Anti-Semitism in the Middle East. No matter culture or political boundry, they all share the exact same idea about Jews and Israel. In point of fact, it unifies many of their cultures. Ergo the attack by multiple Arab countries on Israel during the 48, 67, and 76 wars. Therefore the generalization fits, is entirely valid, and most definitely not racist.

Is it perfect? No. As for all those lovely minorities you pointed out, are they Anti-Semitic? Probably not. Does that matter with regard to my characterization of the dominate ideas among Middle Eastern countries? Abso-fucking-lutely not. Because simply put, they don't matter in terms of characterizing the nature of Arab countries. They have little to no power in them and they do nothing to stand up for themselves or others that are similarly oppressed and they do nothing to combat abhorrent ideologies such as Anti-Semitism. They might as well not exist for all the impact they have on the pervading cultures and political doctrines in the Middle East.

EDIT: Oh an about Israel's supposed biggest ally in the Middle East...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE50P3A220090126

Ishara
06-05-2010, 04:59 PM
Uh, with respect, Ishy no its not racist. Its the truth. As I've pointed out through multiple links with solid source material, the vast majority of Arabic Muslims are anti-semitic and they don't own up to that in Western media when they make claims of a desire for peace and point fingers any time Israel does something that ends in civilian dead (regardless of the circumstances). And then they go right back to reading Mein Kampf and calling the Jews pigs when they are by themselves and the cameras are off. Hence the vast majority of them do talk out of both sides of their mouths on the subjects of Israel and Jews. In response to that evidence nameless and people like you have provided exactly squat in contradictory sources and done nothing but name call. And that name calling is something I'd wish you'd stop doing.

I'm not interested in providing contradictory sources, and I'm not debating the larger issue here. I am also most certainly NOT calling you any names, let alone calling you a racist. In fact, I took pains to emphasize that in my last post. Either you chose not read what I wrote, or you're deliberately misinterpreting it. Why, I don't know. I prefer to think that you misunderstood, because for you to read what I wrote and take away from that that I think you're racist is hurtful.

GonzoTheGreat
06-06-2010, 03:50 AM
Members of the Saudi government commonly promote Jewish conspiracy theories and use the Protocols as proof. Saudi school text books claim that Jews are swine who worship the devil and encourage Jihad against them.Then blockade Saudi Arabia. If they can't export their oil, they will stop funding extremists all over the world really quickly. That would be the single most effective way of combating Islamic terrorism possible, but the USA prefers to be friends with these islamofascists, using appeasement rather than isolating them.

Sinistrum
06-06-2010, 12:48 PM
I'm not interested in providing contradictory sources, and I'm not debating the larger issue here.

Is it that you're not interested or that contradictory sources aren't out there? I mean really, if I'm wrong in my characterization of the Arab World, then please show me proof. Show me Arab country demonstrations against suicide bombings in Israel. Show me the Arab country based intellectuals that stand up and take issue when people like Ahmadinejad deny the Holocaust happen. Show me the media and university sources that argue against the Protocols of the Elders of Zion being legitimate. Show me the Arab children's shows that directly refute the ones Hamas broadcasts teaching children to hate Jews and be Martyrs. Show me the outrage and scorn when Syria propagates the myth that Jews use the blood of Christians to make Mahtza. Show me the populist movements against governments in the Middle East that propagate this kind of hatred. Put up, or shut up.

I prefer to think that you misunderstood, because for you to read what I wrote and take away from that that I think you're racist is hurtful.

This is a cop out and you know. I never have and never will buy into this distinction that people set up between the person and their ideas. A person's expressed ideas are as much a part of their personality as anything else is. In trying to cling to that distinction, you've attempted to set up a choice for me. If I retract my statements, then hey you were right that I'm not racist. If I don't, then it creates the appearance that maybe I am. The point of this choice you present is that you are attempting to pressure me into agreeing with you by creating the perception that I am racist if I don't back down. That's the same damn thing as outright calling me a racist, its just a little bit more intellectually dishonest because its not as overt.

Then blockade Saudi Arabia. If they can't export their oil, they will stop funding extremists all over the world really quickly. That would be the single most effective way of combating Islamic terrorism possible, but the USA prefers to be friends with these islamofascists, using appeasement rather than isolating them.

Love to. However eco-nuts and NIMBY whiners keep blocking our efforts to drill domestically and thereby achieve energy independence. Since they won't let us drill here, we have no choice but to elsewhere, and OPEC is pretty much the only other game in town.

Ishara
06-06-2010, 07:13 PM
Is it that you're not interested or that contradictory sources aren't out there? I mean really, if I'm wrong in my characterization of the Arab World, then please show me proof. Show me Arab country demonstrations against suicide bombings in Israel. Show me the Arab country based intellectuals that stand up and take issue when people like Ahmadinejad deny the Holocaust happen. Show me the media and university sources that argue against the Protocols of the Elders of Zion being legitimate. Show me the Arab children's shows that directly refute the ones Hamas broadcasts teaching children to hate Jews and be Martyrs. Show me the outrage and scorn when Syria propagates the myth that Jews use the blood of Christians to make Mahtza. Show me the populist movements against governments in the Middle East that propagate this kind of hatred. Put up, or shut up.

You're missing my point. I don't need to show you proof of anything - I'm not going there. It's a gross generalization, just like asserting that all Mexicans are lazy. I feel that the term "Arab World" is racist. That's my thought, and my opinion.

This is a cop out and you know. I never have and never will buy into this distinction that people set up between the person and their ideas. A person's expressed ideas are as much a part of their personality as anything else is. In trying to cling to that distinction, you've attempted to set up a choice for me. If I retract my statements, then hey you were right that I'm not racist. If I don't, then it creates the appearance that maybe I am. The point of this choice you present is that you are attempting to pressure me into agreeing with you by creating the perception that I am racist if I don't back down. That's the same damn thing as outright calling me a racist, its just a little bit more intellectually dishonest because its not as overt.


But pal, that's your dichotomy - not mine. I'm not setting up a choice, I'm not asking you to retract your statements or opinions, and I'm NOT calling you a racist.

Sinistrum
06-06-2010, 08:31 PM
Then I guess all of these sites are racist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_World

Oh wiki, you racist encyclopedia.

http://www.arabworld.org/

Hey look at that, people in Arab countries refer to themselves as the "Arab World." Guess they must hate themselves.

http://www.arabworldfest.com/

Guess non-profits that celebrate Arab cultures are racist.

http://www.kennedy-center.org/programs/festivals/08-09/arabesque/

I guess the Kennedy center is racist too, even when they promote Arab art.

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2007/10arabworld.aspx

And how about that racist Brookings institute?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6301PU20100401

And racist news sources like reuters!

http://www.aaiusa.org/press-room/389/the-arab-world

And hey look, an Arab American special interest group is racist against themselves! I wonder how they managed to pull that off. :rolleyes:

You're being more than a little thin skinned for a term that doesn't even apply to you and is commonly used by both Arab and non-Arab people alike. And its fucking ridiculous that you and nameless would use it to completely derail this discussion. But I guess when you can't refute anything with actual points or sources to back them up, name calling is a tried and true fall back. And no, I don't care whether you think your directing the term racist at me or not. As far as I'm concerned, if you call my view point racist, you ARE calling me racist.

JSUCamel
06-06-2010, 10:44 PM
I like waffles.

GonzoTheGreat
06-07-2010, 03:29 AM
Love to. However eco-nuts and NIMBY whiners keep blocking our efforts to drill domestically and thereby achieve energy independence. Since they won't let us drill here, we have no choice but to elsewhere, and OPEC is pretty much the only other game in town.You have yet another alternative, of course: use less oil.

That one was already suggested by president Carter, and it may have been his best idea by far. But it has been consistently opposed by Republicans as eco-nuttery, with the result that your only remaining option is financing (through a few other mor eor less shady parties) Bin Laden and his fellow radicals.
The War on Drugs is financing terrorism too, of course. And I have to admit that that one is not only a conservative hobby. There are quite a few left wing people who are quite eager to tell others how to live their lives too, and they are happy to team up with the right wingers who want to do that. Liberalism, as you know, should oppose the WoD, though many supposed liberals don't get that.

yks 6nnetu hing
06-07-2010, 05:07 AM
That's great that they ran a piece on how horrible the Holocaust was. Anyone who is even semi-rational acknowledges that it happened and it was terrible (which btw excludes a large swath of the Arab world). *bang head on desk* it's like arguing with a rubber wall. Of course the Holocaust was horrible. No-one's denying that. In fact, in many countries it's a criminal offence to deny it. How, precisely, does that invalidate CNN and the Guardian buying into the fairy tale Palestinian english speaking representatives are peddling about the Palestinians not being bigoted and wanting a peaceful two state solution? I'm not accusing them of being actively duplicitious. I'm accusing them of being lazy because the message the Palestinians present to the West is more emotionally satisfying to the people in those organizations than the truth. They want to believe the Palestinians want peace, so they report on them like they do, so that way people like you and Neil, who also want to believe that can be affirmed in that belief. Sadly, as the links I've posted demonstrate, nothing could be farther from the truth.
the only thing I agree with you in there is that CNN is lazy. They ran a rather rabid (completely one-sided and conveniently ignoring actual peer-revieweved accurate historical data) pro-Israeli Holocaust story as their front page news in the same week that Israel boarded another country's ship in international waters - an incident which ended with civilian deaths. If that's not "... but look: Holocaust. It's all good now", then I dont' know what is.

also, where the hell have you been in the last 40 years? there is no such thing as objective truth when it comes to history. There are facts and numbers, but if you want truth... whose truth do you want? Israel's truth is very different from Palestinian truth, but they're both valid.

Davian93
06-07-2010, 06:09 AM
I like waffles.

Waffles are good...especially Belgian Waffles.

Sinistrum
06-07-2010, 09:39 AM
the only thing I agree with you in there is that CNN is lazy. They ran a rather rabid (completely one-sided and conveniently ignoring actual peer-revieweved accurate historical data) pro-Israeli Holocaust story as their front page news in the same week that Israel boarded another country's ship in international waters - an incident which ended with civilian deaths. If that's not "... but look: Holocaust. It's all good now", then I dont' know what is.

Then you really don't know what is.

This is the same week in which the following articles were posted.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/06/02/Malley.gaza.flotilla/index.html?iref=allsearch

Hey look, Israle is bad because of the blockade

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/02/palestinian.israel.talks/index.html?iref=allsearch

CNN acting as a Hamas mouth piece here.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/04/gaza.raid.autopsies/index.html?iref=allsearch

Look at how horrible Israel is for shooting people in the head.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/02/is-israel-looking-to-start-a-war/?iref=allsearch

The Israelis are war mongers!

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/06/01/clancy.raid.palestinian.erakat.cnn?iref=allsearch

And hey, here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about with regarding to feeding the Western media what it wants to hear. But no, CNN is attempting to white wash Israel by posting Holocaust stories. :rolleyes:

JSUCamel
06-07-2010, 09:56 AM
Waffles are good...especially Belgian Waffles.

Waffles are pancakes with syrup traps.

Davian93
06-07-2010, 10:00 AM
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=129349&sectionid=351020101

Iran sends Aid ships to Gaza...this should end well.

yks 6nnetu hing
06-07-2010, 10:05 AM
Then you really don't know what is. *boing* 1st: did you actually read my sentence structure? Because that answer makes no sense at all. If I don't know what is, then you should have posted loads of links along the lines of "Holocaust! Israelis can kill babies and castrate arabs because of Holocaust. Read all, the new World Law! Read all!" (that was sarcasm, by the way)

2nd: how is your post refuting my point, again? all you're doing is posting links to what CNN (or blogs, or videos that I'm assuming are related to CNN?) also posted. As front page news? really? perhaps the first opinion piece (which you call "Israel's bad becaue of the blockade" and I call "careful jabber about diplomatic means") made a blimp in the click-counter. But the rest? highly doubt it.

Sinistrum
06-07-2010, 11:53 AM
How does it refute your point? Lets see, you posted one article about the Holocaust, and attempted to claim that because of that one article, CNN has a pro-Israeli slant and therefore attempts to white wash what it does. In response, I posted not one, but FIVE articles put out the same week giving a pro-Palestinian slant, including a video in which one Palestinian is doing precisely what I'm accusing them of doing. That being presenting the face of reasonableness to Western media sources such as CNN and CNN lapping it up like cat with milk.

irerancincpkc
06-08-2010, 07:29 AM
And who does most of the speaking in the Arab world? That would be the governments that run it. In the most pertinent example, that would be Hamas, which was a demoncratically elected government. But no, I'm just racist. :rolleyes:


I'm pretty sure that if you ask an Arab if the statement 'Arab World' is racist, you'd get a pretty definite answer...

GonzoTheGreat
06-08-2010, 07:42 AM
And who does most of the speaking in the Arab world? That would be the governments that run it. In the most pertinent example, that would be Hamas, which was a demoncratically elected government. But no, I'm just racist. :rolleyes:I think I missed this the first time.
No, you are not just a racist. (Even assuming that the typo was not intentional.)

You also openly admit that you are opposed to democracy in Arab countries. You want to keep those people enslaved, because if they are allowed to vote for whom they want, they will pick people who do not obey your orders. That is why the West supported the annulment of the elections in Algeria after the wrong party won. That is why Egypt is allowed to hold its sham elections every time, while getting lots of military support in order to be able to suppress the opposition. That is why the Saudi royal house is such good friends with our leaders: they vigorously oppose democracy. That is Iraq was turned into such a mess after the invasion: if it hadn't been, then real elections could have taken place, and 'we' wouldn't have liked that. And it is why we supported the coup in the Palestinian Territories, when Abbas tried to overthrow the democratically elected government. When he succeeded only in the Westbank, the Gaza Strip was simply put under a blockade and left to rot.

The Palestinians will only be allowed to get any food if they vote as we want them to, not as long as they vote as they want to. Our Israeli allies are actively fighting against democracy and in favor of oppression.

Neilbert
06-08-2010, 08:18 AM
Keep in mind Gonzo, this is the same Sinistrum who does not believe in collective guilt and innocence.

Just for himself though, cus he's a precious snowflake.

I honestly can't tell if your failure to understand this simple concept is the result of a blind spot in your world view or simply a knee-jerk reaction to defend your previous assertions without actually subjecting them to critical scrutiny.

Waffles are pancakes with syrup traps.

Crispy pancakes with syrup traps. The crunch adds to the good.

Davian93
06-08-2010, 08:26 AM
Belgian Waffles with Bananas Foster...it should be illegal its so good.

There's a place in PA that does that for the Sunday Brunch (its called the William Penn Inn in Lower Gwynnedd outside of Philly I believe). Ridiculously good.

Ivhon
06-08-2010, 08:28 AM
Belgian Waffles with Bananas Foster...it should be illegal its so good.

There's a place in PA that does that for the Sunday Brunch (its called the William Penn Inn in Lower Gwynnedd outside of Philly I believe). Ridiculously good.

Holy crap Im hungry now. Need more coffee to take the edge off....

Sinistrum
06-08-2010, 09:30 AM
I'm pretty sure that if you ask an Arab if the statement 'Arab World' is racist, you'd get a pretty definite answer...

You are totally right. And said answer is contained in the links I posted regarding the term "Arab World." ;)

nameless
06-08-2010, 11:10 PM
The Jewish world speaks out of both sides of its mouth. It tells Western news agencies like CNN and the Guardian precisely what they want to hear and then they run back to their own media organizations and tell them what they really think

They want to believe the Israelis want peace, so they report on them like they do, so that way people like you and Neil, who also want to believe that can be affirmed in that belief. Sadly, as the links I've posted demonstrate, nothing could be farther from the truth.

And who does most of the speaking in the Jewish world? That would be the governments that run it.

See if you can spot my clever modifications of your original posts. Can you honestly tell me that someone could post all three of the above statements without causing you to believe they were at least a little bit anti-Semetic?

But if you seriously want to get back to the thread, let's look at your dismissal of the Goldstone report.
As for the Goldstone report...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ict#Journalism

I believe the Economist, London Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal sum up my response to its accusations.


The Economist might not be the best flagship for your argument, seeing as they actually agreed with the report's assessment of Isreali atrocities. Their only problem was that it didn't look into Hamas as thorougly.
In particular, The Economist, while maintaining that allegations of Israelis committing war crimes were credible, chastised the mission's fact-finders for detecting little or no evidence in favor of the charge that Hamas endangered civilians
Goldstone's failure to gather evidence against Palestine does not invalidate the evidence he did gather against Israel. It does of course cast suspicion upon the conclusions, and the use of words like "wanton" and "grave," but I didn't bring up the report because I thought the finger-pointing aspects were relevant. I brought it up for its fact-finding, not its conclusions. You asked for evidence of Israeli war crimes, I cited a report that found evidence of them, and your response is that the report isn't valid because it specifically investigated Israel? Looking into only one side of a two-sided conflict may be myopic and a huge political blunder but it doesn't mean the things you find weren't really there.
The war crimes from the Six-day War are well-documented; there are multiple Israeli journalists who claim to have witnessed the execution of POWS and declassified orders from IDF general staff instructing their subordinates in no uncertain terms to stop shooting people after they surrender.

Sinistrum
06-09-2010, 08:59 AM
See if you can spot my clever modifications of your original posts. Can you honestly tell me that someone could post all three of the above statements without causing you to believe they were at least a little bit anti-Semetic?

If the Israelis themselves referred to themselves as the "Jewish World" and the criticisms levied at them such as the ones I've levied at Arabs were true, then no, it absolutely would not be Anti-Semitic to state those kind of things.

Goldstone's failure to gather evidence against Palestine does not invalidate the evidence he did gather against Israel. It does of course cast suspicion upon the conclusions, and the use of words like "wanton" and "grave," but I didn't bring up the report because I thought the finger-pointing aspects were relevant. I brought it up for its fact-finding, not its conclusions.

And its fact finding mission was stated unequivocally in its original mandate. And that mandate was to find Israeli war crimes. So of course they found them. The commission made up its collective mind on the facts of the case long before it was ever constituted or did an ounce of investigation.

Ivhon
06-09-2010, 09:20 AM
If the Israelis themselves referred to themselves as the "Jewish World" and the criticisms levied at them such as the ones I've levied at Arabs were true, then no, it absolutely would not be Anti-Semitic to state those kind of things.



And its fact finding mission was stated unequivocally in its original mandate. And that mandate was to find Israeli war crimes. So of course they found them. The commission made up its collective mind on the facts of the case long before it was ever constituted or did an ounce of investigation.

Kinda like Iraq...

GonzoTheGreat
06-09-2010, 10:04 AM
And its fact finding mission was stated unequivocally in its original mandate. And that mandate was to find Israeli war crimes.Can you substantiate this?

According to this site (www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/FactFindingMission.htm), the mandate was:
“to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.” While that is similar to what you say, it is not the same.

It seems to me that the difference between "find Israeli war crimes" and "investigate human rights violations" is significant.
Naturally, I am not a lawyer, so I may be wrong in thinking that an accusation isn't automatically proof of guilt.

Edited to fix link.

Sinistrum
06-09-2010, 10:18 AM
Gonzo, go back and look at the wiki on the Goldstone report. Pay special attention both the mandate section and the language I used in my last post. The original mandate read something like this.

to dispatch an urgent, independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission

It was only changed to the language you are quoting after the mandate got blasted as biased for four solid months.

GonzoTheGreat
06-09-2010, 10:25 AM
According to Wiki, it was changed before Goldstone even accepted the appointment. So whatever mandate had been originally intended, the one I quoted was the one that actually guided the mission.

Sinistrum
06-09-2010, 01:23 PM
According to Wiki, it was changed before Goldstone even accepted the appointment. So whatever mandate had been originally intended, the one I quoted was the one that actually guided the mission.

Uh huh. Sure it was. ;) The change in mandate was totally honest and had nothing to do with CYA measures. :rolleyes:

Mort
06-09-2010, 02:01 PM
How is such a fact finding mission different from a criminal investigation of an individual or such?

Example. An individual has been charged or suspected of a crime, a court along with chain of evidence are brought up to substantiate the claim or falsify it. Are they also victim of finding the individual guilty beforehand? What does that say of the legal system in that case?

I believe that such a report can be biased one way or another, but I would not claim that it definitely is biased and completely wrong in it's conclusions, just because their goal was to investigate a claim.

Examples like that happen all the time, in all levels, whether it's an example just like this, or in a larger scale, and we seem to be fine with those investigations. Why not this one? Because it's political? Because it is Israel?

If it is based on those reasons, can we make any claim about anything concerned with politics in that region? For fear it is biased one way or another?

nameless
06-09-2010, 02:48 PM
^^^ exactly!

The issue at stake with the reliability of a report like this is confirmation bias. If you're looking for something in particular you're more likely to see it in situations where someone who was just looking with no agenda would see ambiguity. But there's a limit to what confirmation bias can do in terms of distorting the evidence. Parts of the Goldstone report based in interpreting ambiguity are definitely suspect. However, unless you think the bias went so far as to manufacture incidents and eyewitnesses where none actually existed you still have to deal with the investigative side of the report however tainted by bias you find the interpretative side.

Neilbert
06-09-2010, 02:55 PM
Kinda like Iraq...

It's this that has convinced me that "debating" Sinistrum is pointless. He was conclusively and thoroughly proven wrong about Saddam, admitted he was wrong, and then immediately went back to the same ideas, same sources of information and same ideologies.

Meanwhile he is still condescending, dismissive, belittling, and arrogant toward all those who were actually, ya know, correct, about the whole Iraq thing. Because clearly the people who saw through the bullshit last time were just accidentally correct. Just an aberration, nothing to see here.

At least in 50 years when all the Palestinians are dead or dispersed, and Gaza is just another part of Isreal we'll be able to say "I told you so". Like it means anything...

Guy doesn't deserve a discussion, he deserves shame and contempt.

Uno
06-09-2010, 04:14 PM
Well, who does or does not deserve shame and contempt doesn't strike me as a fruitful topic of discussion, so my considered advice is that we avoid that avenue of investigation.

GonzoTheGreat
06-09-2010, 04:27 PM
Well, who does or does not deserve shame and contempt doesn't strike me as a fruitful topic of discussion, so my considered advice is that we avoid that avenue of investigation.Shame and contempt, no, that isn't really very fruitful. However, noting that someone was wrong, noting which basis was used to draw those erroneous conclusions, and noting that he is using the exact same basis once again in another debate, would suggest that he may be wrong now too. Not a guarantee, of course, but definitely suggestive.

Sinistrum
06-09-2010, 06:14 PM
Guy doesn't deserve a discussion, he deserves shame and contempt.

The idea that you or anyone else on here thinks they can make me feel either or that you feeling either would impact me in anyway is hysterical. :D

Oh my god I was wrong once and on the basis of faulty information, not faulty logical processes. That automatically means my views are completely delegitimized for all time on all issues. :rolleyes: Guess that means that none of Gonzo's ideas can be given credence since he's been proven conclusively wrong on the nature of Palestinian terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. You too, since you were dead wrong on in assuming my parents were authoritarian during the child psychology "discussion." Guess none of us have any credibility on any issue by the standard you are attempting to hold me to. ;)

Davian93
06-09-2010, 07:26 PM
It's this that has convinced me that "debating" Sinistrum is pointless. He was conclusively and thoroughly proven wrong about Saddam, admitted he was wrong, and then immediately went back to the same ideas, same sources of information and same ideologies.

Meanwhile he is still condescending, dismissive, belittling, and arrogant toward all those who were actually, ya know, correct, about the whole Iraq thing. Because clearly the people who saw through the bullshit last time were just accidentally correct. Just an aberration, nothing to see here.

At least in 50 years when all the Palestinians are dead or dispersed, and Gaza is just another part of Isreal we'll be able to say "I told you so". Like it means anything...

Guy doesn't deserve a discussion, he deserves shame and contempt.

God, I hope you're right and Israel is still a strong state with defendable borders in 50 years.

Neilbert
06-09-2010, 07:37 PM
Oh my god I was wrong once and on the basis of faulty information, not faulty logical processes.

The point is that you return to the same sources of information... garbage in garbage out and all.

You too, since you were dead wrong on in assuming my parents were authoritarian during the child psychology "discussion."

That was actually a shot in the dark based on previous statements you've made about parental discipline. I'll be the first to admit I could be wrong here, but I suspect I'm more correct then you are trying to imply. I don't really know you, I just know internet you, and internet you is a piece of shit. But hey, that's what the internet is for.

Neilbert
06-09-2010, 07:40 PM
God, I hope you're right and Israel is still a strong state with defendable borders in 50 years.

Congratulations on supporting genocide.

Davian93
06-09-2010, 07:51 PM
Congratulations on supporting genocide.

Congrats on defending and supporting terrorists.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Israel-flag03r.jpg

Sinistrum
06-09-2010, 08:31 PM
That was actually a shot in the dark based on previous statements you've made about parental discipline. I'll be the first to admit I could be wrong here, but I suspect I'm more correct then you are trying to imply.

Nope, you're not. You are dead wrong. Therefore all of your opinions from here on out are invalid because you've been wrong once.

Congratulations on supporting genocide.

Pot calling the kettle me thinks. I mean after all, you're the one with admitted sympathies to groups like Hamas who openly admit they want to commit genocide.

I don't really know you, I just know internet you, and internet you is a piece of shit.

You smell a piece of shit huh? Sure that's not yourself you're smelling? After all, burn outs like you tend to not bathe.

The point is that you return to the same sources of information... garbage in garbage out and all.

Really? Because my source of information at the time with Iraq was the U.S. government and its statements on the issue that were then reported by media outlets. I wasn't aware that yahoo, cnn, wikipedia, and memri (which I didn't use at all during the Iraq war debates) were extensions of the U.S. government. Learn something new every day. :rolleyes:

Ivhon
06-09-2010, 08:41 PM
Still haven't heard why both sides aren't at fault in this neverending conflict. Palestinians were disposessed. Of course they are pissed. Furthermore, Israel routinely provokes conflict and hides behind Holocaust and angry Americans who view Israel as a symbol, spout hate and genocide from the safety of 3000 miles. You would think that a people with this history of oppression would be more sympathetic - but no. As soon as the tables are turned, they jump into the opressor role just as quickly as anyone else.

NONE of which excuses the tactics of Hamas and groups/governments sympathetic to it. Terrorism is a bad answer even if it seems like the only one.

I get tired of seeing Israel's halo polished. They don't want peace any more than the Palestinians do. EVERYBODY is in the wrong here. Way in the wrong. And yet all "we" do is sit there and argue who is slightly MORE wrong from the comfort of our American or European condos that have infintely no chance of seeing the horrors the REAL victims - common ordinary Israelis and Palestinians who legitimately are tired of seeing their innocent families ripped apart - on a daily basis. You feel that strongly for either side, pick up a gun and GO there. Then come back and say how long it took you to realize that it's a big heaping pile of steaming political shit stirred up primarily by people that don't pay the price for it.

It doesn't have to be a dichotomy and rarely is. Sometimes both parties can be right. This time, both parties are so far in the wrong there is no difference.

Davian93
06-09-2010, 09:02 PM
Ivhon, that is so completely untrue its ridiculous. Israel tried for peace on multiple occasions only to be kicked in the teeth. Israel was okay with the initial partition in 1947 only to be attacked on all sides. They tried for peace with Carter, Clinton, Reagan, and both Bushes. They gave back the Sinai for peace with Egypt, they made peace with Jordan...and they tried for decades to make peace with Syria despite Syria attacking them on repeated occasions. They even went with the 2 state option and gave the PLO free reign only to see them elect a terrorist group in the territories. They opened Gaza for food and other aid only to have terrorists launch rockets at their citizens. They closed the border only after repeated attacks. Hamas is busy smuggling TONS of weapons into Gaza from Egypt...weapons that will only be used to kill Israeli civilians. Its complete BS to say Israel doesn't want peace. Are they supposed to just sit back and get kicked in the nuts continually so they can be the better person?

Remember that Israel didn't start this war. Israel never made it their mission statement to wipe the Arabs from the face of the earth.

Siding with the Palestinians is like siding with Hitler because of the massacre of German POWs at Dachau.

Ivhon
06-09-2010, 09:22 PM
Ivhon, that is so completely untrue its ridiculous. Israel tried for peace on multiple occasions only to be kicked in the teeth. Israel was okay with the initial partition in 1947 only to be attacked on all sides. They tried for peace with Carter, Clinton, Reagan, and both Bushes. They gave back the Sinai for peace with Egypt, they made peace with Jordan...and they tried for decades to make peace with Syria despite Syria attacking them on repeated occasions. They even went with the 2 state option and gave the PLO free reign only to see them elect a terrorist group in the territories. They opened Gaza for food and other aid only to have terrorists launch rockets at their citizens. They closed the border only after repeated attacks. Hamas is busy smuggling TONS of weapons into Gaza from Egypt...weapons that will only be used to kill Israeli civilians. Its complete BS to say Israel doesn't want peace. Are they supposed to just sit back and get kicked in the nuts continually so they can be the better person?

Remember that Israel didn't start this war. Israel never made it their mission statement to wipe the Arabs from the face of the earth.

Siding with the Palestinians is like siding with Hitler because of the massacre of German POWs at Dachau.

you dichotomously assume that because I call out Israel's BS that I am taking the side of the Palestinians. I am not. There is no need for me to list out all the atrocious crap the palestinians have pulled - you have done that quite adequately.

I liken it to two 5 year olds in the back seat. One of whom (Israel) pokes the other in the ribs until the second ( Palestine) punches back. Then the first one cries to Mommy (US) that the other hit him for no reason and then throws fists back. Pokes in the ribs being things like aggressively planting settlements in Palestinian land, unfair tax and trade restrictions, over-reaction to provocation from the other side.

Again. I'm not saying Palestine is in the right. I'm saying the power structures on BOTH sides are not served by peace. They just use differing levels of subtlety to ensure that peace never comes.

Sinistrum
06-09-2010, 10:13 PM
Still haven't heard why both sides aren't at fault in this neverending conflict.

Yes, you have, but I'll repeat myself. Your answer is two words. Camp David. After Camp David, the Palestinians have zero justification for ANY violent action what so ever. They had everything they could have reasonably wanted offered to them on a silver platter at Camp David and they turned their noses up at it in favor of intifada. There is no justification for Arafat and the PLO rejecting what Ehud Barak offered them. Camp David proved that the Palestinians aren't reasonable and that they don't want a peaceful two state solution.

Camp David is also proof that the Israelis are willing to be reasonable to resolve this situation. They were willing to get rid of the settlements, willing to give the Palestinians their own state, even willing to allow partial control over Jeruselam. Once again, the Palestinians choose intifada. So given all that, what possible incentive could the Israelis have to be anything but harsh and confrontational with the Palestinians?

Camp David shows that the Israelis are the reasonable, sympathetic party in this situation and the Palestinians are anything but. It showed that Israel will embrace a two state solution, which is the only peaceful solution to this problem, and the Palestinians do not. It showed that the Palestinians prefer violence and barbarism to peaceful coexistence. How Camp David played out is the defining moment in this conflict because it truly showed who was the "good guy" and who was the "bad guy" in this, if either term can be applied.

Ivhon
06-09-2010, 11:26 PM
Yes, you have, but I'll repeat myself. Your answer is two words. Camp David. After Camp David, the Palestinians have zero justification for ANY violent action what so ever. They had everything they could have reasonably wanted offered to them on a silver platter at Camp David and they turned their noses up at it in favor of intifada. There is no justification for Arafat and the PLO rejecting what Ehud Barak offered them. Camp David proved that the Palestinians aren't reasonable and that they don't want a peaceful two state solution.

Camp David is also proof that the Israelis are willing to be reasonable to resolve this situation. They were willing to get rid of the settlements, willing to give the Palestinians their own state, even willing to allow partial control over Jeruselam. Once again, the Palestinians choose intifada. So given all that, what possible incentive could the Israelis have to be anything but harsh and confrontational with the Palestinians?

Camp David shows that the Israelis are the reasonable, sympathetic party in this situation and the Palestinians are anything but. It showed that Israel will embrace a two state solution, which is the only peaceful solution to this problem, and the Palestinians do not. It showed that the Palestinians prefer violence and barbarism to peaceful coexistence. How Camp David played out is the defining moment in this conflict because it truly showed who was the "good guy" and who was the "bad guy" in this, if either term can be applied.

Ill say this again. The ONLY empathy I give to the Palestinians is this: If the U.S. or U.N. - for whatever reason at all - were to all of a sudden say "Okay. The Indigenous Peoples of North America have been persecuted for too long and need a place of safety they can call their own. Therefore, from now on, Texas will be an autonomous nation governed by native american tribes. You can leave if you can afford it, if not you will be a second-class citizen with no hope of being equal unless you are ethnically native american." I, as a pure whitebread Texan who either can't afford to leave or don't want to give up the ranch that my family has lived on since Texas first declared independance would want no part of some fancy-schmancy Obamaliberal "two state nation" crap.

That said, none of the violence committed by the Palestinians has been justified. I hear and agree with your two words (Camp David). The Palestinians have done next to nothing right in all of this.

However, if peace is truly desired this does not give Israel justification to do whatever it wants, hang it all because "hey, I tried." The Israeli government may have said they would stop settlements, but when push came to shove under pressure from the hardline pro-Israel lobby safely ensconced in the US (I have Facebook friends who get absolutely incensed whenever there is ANY concession to Palestine...and immediately start calling for Final Solutions. Which again I find horrifically ironic). and from the settlers themselves, they caved. They have systematically made it impossible for Palestinians to have a fair shot at economic self-sufficiency. Peace, it seems, is fine...so long as it comes with unconditional surrender and abject defeat with no chance at recovery.

Versailles and the years thereafter show the risks of that approach.

You will probably discount it as apples and oranges, but I think this is an apt metaphor. If there is infidelity in the a marriage, and the partners want to save the marriage, you cannot at any point say, "You cheated. That means I get to do whatever I want and you can't say anything about it or I will remind you of your philandering." You, as the cheated-on party, have to make some concessions. Treat the other side with dignity and respect and look to your own faults as to what triggered the philandering in the first place. It does NOT mean you condone or accept the original behavior. It DOES mean you do what you can not to provoke it.

That is if you want peace and a relationship again. If not, you point the finger and say "this is all your fault and I will never forgive you until you roll over, admit what a monster you are and do whatever I say forever to atone for your mistakes." This latter seems to be the approach hardliners want to take and it absolutely will never work.

So there you have where we are. Genocide or bust...coming from both sides.

Personally, I don't want anything to do with it. I don't see where the alliance with Israel is in the United States national interest other than assuaging guilt for the holocaust where the US was no more heroically un-antisemetic than anywhere else in europe. We need an ally in a region that hates us, sure. But the region hates us because of the ally we have in the region and the fact that we are not an honest broker (although, Im not sure anybody is or can be...more reason to be done with it).

Peace in the Middle-East is a fantasy because neither side really wants it. Why should my tax-dollars be wasted on both sides of that controversy when it is just that. An utter and total waste.

Sinistrum
06-09-2010, 11:57 PM
You will probably discount it as apples and oranges, but I think this is an apt metaphor. If there is infidelity in the a marriage, and the partners want to save the marriage, you cannot at any point say, "You cheated. That means I get to do whatever I want and you can't say anything about it or I will remind you of your philandering." You, as the cheated-on party, have to make some concessions. Treat the other side with dignity and respect and look to your own faults as to what triggered the philandering in the first place. It does NOT mean you condone or accept the original behavior. It DOES mean you do what you can not to provoke it.

Ivhon, the only way this metaphor works is if the cheating stops, and thereby what it stands for, the violence by the Palestinians, stops. It hasn't. As the party that has not negotiated in good faith, has not embraced a two state solution, and who's official position has been to enact measures that will end in the destruction of the Israeli state, it is incumbent upon them to take the first step. They have to put down their arms and extend and olive branch before Israel should even consider ceasing its military operations against them. So yeah, until the Palestinians do that, the Israelis should just hang it all. They have no reason not to.

As for why support Israel over any other country in the Middle East, thats simple. Out of all the nations in the Middle East, Israel is the only one that values things such as free speech, freedom of religion, women's rights, and political freedoms. And yes, they even value the rights of Arab Muslims, as exemplified by the several Arab political parties in the Knesset. The difference between those political parties and your average Palestinian, is that those parties at least acknowledge Israel's right to exist. The fact that out of the two, they are the only ones who have even attempted to be reasonable is another reason. Along that vein, this

They have systematically made it impossible for Palestinians to have a fair shot at economic self-sufficiency. Peace, it seems, is fine...so long as it comes with unconditional surrender and abject defeat with no chance at recovery.

Is simply not true. Once again, my two words bare this out. Camp David showed that the Israelis were willing to do the exact opposite of what you are claiming they are trying to do. They don't want unconditional surrender and they don't want to leave the Palestinian's crippled. They want to give them 95% of what they are requesting. But they don't have that option right now because the Palestinians are unreceptive to even that.

nameless
06-10-2010, 04:11 AM
Is simply not true. Once again, my two words bare this out. Camp David showed that the Israelis were willing to do the exact opposite of what you are claiming they are trying to do.

The key word here is "were." Past tense. The political climate in Israel has become increasingly hawkish since the failure at Camp David. Sharon practically went around starting riots on purpose. Israel's attitude towards peace these days seems to be "fuck it, we tried." Their frustration is understandable, but as I've said before, this situation isn't about right and wrong. It's about cause and effect. If you know a given course of action will prolong the conflict and you do it anyway, you are not seriously interested in peace. Not even if the action was justified. Not even if the other side started it.

Davian93
06-10-2010, 07:30 AM
Yes, you have, but I'll repeat myself. Your answer is two words. Camp David. After Camp David, the Palestinians have zero justification for ANY violent action what so ever. They had everything they could have reasonably wanted offered to them on a silver platter at Camp David and they turned their noses up at it in favor of intifada. There is no justification for Arafat and the PLO rejecting what Ehud Barak offered them. Camp David proved that the Palestinians aren't reasonable and that they don't want a peaceful two state solution.

THIS...1 million times THIS! Camp David showed that the Palestinians were simply a rabid dog. There's only one thing that can be done with a rabid dog unfortunately.

Davian93
06-10-2010, 07:34 AM
The key word here is "were." Past tense. The political climate in Israel has become increasingly hawkish since the failure at Camp David. Sharon practically went around starting riots on purpose. Israel's attitude towards peace these days seems to be "fuck it, we tried." Their frustration is understandable, but as I've said before, this situation isn't about right and wrong. It's about cause and effect. If you know a given course of action will prolong the conflict and you do it anyway, you are not seriously interested in peace. Not even if the action was justified. Not even if the other side started it.

Um, the only reason Gaza is even being blockaded is as a result of repeated rocket attacks and suicide bomber incursions into Israel. Otherwise, they'd still have their economy, their port, their airport, etc etc. Hamas doesnt want peace, they want the death of every Jew. You can negotiate with Hamas about as much as you could negotiate with Hitler. At least Israel realizes that and isn't willing to slit its own throat to appease western sensibilities. Israel isn't trying to rule Gaza anymore...they're simply trying to avoid being attacked at random by terrorists.

Ivhon
06-10-2010, 07:46 AM
edit: posting emotionally. Bowing out.

irerancincpkc
06-10-2010, 08:18 AM
God, I hope you're right and Israel is still a strong state with defendable borders in 50 years.

Israel = Warmongers who believe they can do whatever the hell they want. Hopefully, their time will come...

Guy doesn't deserve a discussion, he deserves shame and contempt.

:rolleyes:

Sei'taer
06-10-2010, 09:49 AM
Effing Jews are badass (any group who has a popular name like Shlomo is badass)...way badasser than effing Arabs. Go Jews!

Anyway, I like 'em.




~Politically correct Taer is back on the job!~

DahLliA
06-10-2010, 09:58 AM
and another thread has far, far outlived it's purpose...

Ivhon
06-10-2010, 10:01 AM
and another thread has far, far outlived it's purpose...

I dunno...it has managed to stay pretty much on topic for 9 pages...thats pretty impressive.

Davian93
06-10-2010, 10:04 AM
Israel = Warmongers who believe they can do whatever the hell they want. Hopefully, their time will come...



:rolleyes:

Israel = Warmongers who believe they can do whatever the hell they want. Hopefully, their time will come...


Their time already came...it was called the Nazis. This is them learning to never put their safety in the hands of others EVER AGAIN.

DahLliA
06-10-2010, 10:13 AM
I dunno...it has managed to stay pretty much on topic for 9 pages...thats pretty impressive.

I was thinking more of how the quality of posts have dropped like a ton of bricks :p

Ivhon
06-10-2010, 10:17 AM
I was thinking more of how the quality of posts have dropped like a ton of bricks :p

Oh.

Sei'taer
06-10-2010, 10:54 AM
I like how Dahl posts that after I chime in...like I'm a plague or something.

DahLliA
06-10-2010, 11:31 AM
I like how Dahl posts that after I chime in...like I'm a plague or something.

yeah. you completely ruined the namecalling and personal attacks with your funny post. shame on you :p

Sei'taer
06-10-2010, 04:16 PM
yeah. you completely ruined the namecalling and personal attacks with your funny post. shame on you :p


I have this gift....

Mort
06-10-2010, 06:35 PM
I like these topics, even though they get a little out of hand at times I think I would miss them if they weren't here :) Non-Wot Would surely die ;)


My final say on the topic is this: I'm sick of the conflict as a whole, believing both are instigators into this drama in one way or another. What we should do is take our collective hand away from it all. Iron curtain the whole region, let them out when they've settled down, or killed each other. I don't fucking care anymore, just make it stop.

If they still don't want to play ball, nuke it. There's a problem solver right there.

Enigma
06-10-2010, 06:41 PM
It strikes me that both sides should realise that when you are dealing with a large body of peole you either better treat them fairly or wipe them out totally.

If you do neither and end up in a half way house of being unfair and harsh but leaving them to stew in resentment and hatred all you are going to achieve is to make sure that your children and grand children will have plenty of enemies to deal with.

I think that at times both Israel and the Planstinians have said they want peace but it tends to be peace on their terms and they they act all shocked with it doesn't work.

Matoyak
06-10-2010, 09:10 PM
nuke it.Clicky Clicky (http://www.carloslabs.com/node/16)

nameless
06-10-2010, 10:29 PM
Um, the only reason Gaza is even being blockaded is as a result of repeated rocket attacks and suicide bomber incursions into Israel. Otherwise, they'd still have their economy, their port, their airport, etc etc. Hamas doesnt want peace, they want the death of every Jew. You can negotiate with Hamas about as much as you could negotiate with Hitler. At least Israel realizes that and isn't willing to slit its own throat to appease western sensibilities. Israel isn't trying to rule Gaza anymore...they're simply trying to avoid being attacked at random by terrorists.

Oy... ok. I've said it before, but since we've gotten sidetracked: it doesn't f****** matter that Hamas started it because both sides are perpetuating it. It's exactly as Ivhon said: those in power in Israel and Palestine depend on the conflict for their political legitimacy. I've compared Hamas to the IRA in an earlier post, and I still think it's an appropriate analogy. The IRA was not defeated with military force. After they realized that the UK was making serious peace overtures fringe elements of the IRA that depended on the conflict for their power stepped up the attacks in an effort to derail the peace process. The UK ignored them. No reprisals. The result? Peace. Now look at the situation with Hamas. They've tried to derail every serious peace talk with rockets, suicide bombings, intifadas, what have you, and Israel takes the bait every single time. They respond with bulldozers, blockades, embargoes, etc. The result? No peace.

When I post that Israel does not want peace, it's not because I think they enjoy constant warfare (except for a bare handful of extremist politicians who've gained power by playing on fear of more attacks). It's because they're not willing to make the necessary sacrifices to give peace a chance. They want security more than they want peace, and as a result they get neither. Another useful analogy: South Africa under Nelson Mandela. The previous regime's police enforced apartheid with wrongful imprisonment, torture, and murder of any dissenters. Any court of law on the entire planet would have happily locked every one of them in a cage for the rest of their lives. Many courts would have had them executed. What did Mandela do? Blanket amnesty, full pardon. Many of the men he gave amnesty to hated "kaffirs" every bit as much as Hamas hates Jews. Some of them secretly wanted to overthrow Mandela's government. By refraining from imprisoning them he faced the very real possibility that they would arm themselves and bide their time to someday come back shooting. He pardoned them anyway because he knew that being truly dedicated to peace entailed sacrifice and risk. No one in power in Israel or Palestine has that kind of dedication, which is why there will be no peace.

Ivhon
06-10-2010, 10:49 PM
those in power in Israel and Palestine depend on the conflict for their political legitimacy.

There is also a very powerful lobby inside the U.S. that would be disenfranchised if a lasting peace were ever established.

Sinistrum
06-10-2010, 10:52 PM
Answer me this nameless. Why is it necessary that Israel blinks first? Why are they the ones having to make sacrifices (and make no mistake about it when you say sacrifices, part of that is people's lives)? Why can't the Palestinians do what you are describing?

Ivhon
06-10-2010, 11:02 PM
Answer me this nameless. Why is it necessary that Israel blinks first? Why are they the ones having to make sacrifices (and make no mistake about it when you say sacrifices, part of that is people's lives)? Why can't the Palestinians do what you are describing?

At the risk of putting words in Nameless' mouth, I would say "no reason at all." If they would, there would be a great shot at getting somewhere.

EDIT: That looked kindof vague. Meant to say, "not necessary that Israel blink first. No reason at all the Palestinians can't do what Nameless is describing."

Point trying to be made is that it will take deep commitment from at least one and preferably both sides to achieve peace. Right now, neither side is interested in paying more than lip service to it and therefore there is no peace. And for that, both sides are at fault.

Sinistrum
06-10-2010, 11:16 PM
Right now, neither side is interested in paying more than lip service to it and therefore there is no peace. And for that, both sides are at fault.

Assuming in arguendo, that this is really the case (a point I'm not conceding at all), if both sides are on equal footing in terms of their behavior, then it falls back to their fundamental nature to be the deciding factor in who to support. Since neither side supposedly wants peace, the only end to it is when one side eliminates the other. If there has to be only a single winner, which one do you prefer? The Islamist regime who wants Sha'ria, doesn't respect other religion's right to exist, doesn't respect free speech, and doesn't view women as actual people, or the democratic regime that guarantees all of the rights we typically associate with a free society? IMHO, a good system with occasionally shitty behavior toward outsiders is infinitely preferable to a shitty system with constant bad behavior toward everyone. So even if the behaviors of Israel and the Palestinians are equivalent, Israel is still the "good guy" in this because of its nature. If a two state peace isn't possible, then Israel is the side that deserves to continue on.

Ivhon
06-10-2010, 11:41 PM
Assuming in arguendo, that this is really the case (a point I'm not conceding at all), if both sides are on equal footing in terms of their behavior, then it falls back to their fundamental nature to be the deciding factor in who to support. Since neither side supposedly wants peace, the only end to it is when one side eliminates the other. If there has to be only a single winner, which one do you prefer? The Islamist regime who wants Sha'ria, doesn't respect other religion's right to exist, doesn't respect free speech, and doesn't view women as actual people, or the democratic regime that guarantees all of the rights we typically associate with a free society? IMHO, a good system with occasionally shitty behavior toward outsiders is infinitely preferable to a shitty system with constant bad behavior toward everyone. So even if the behaviors of Israel and the Palestinians are equivalent, Israel is still the "good guy" in this because of its nature. If a two state peace isn't possible, then Israel is the side that deserves to continue on.

Not seeing any "good guys" I would remove the US from the situation (obviously never will happen). Our "ally (and I term it that because I view it as a parasitic relationship...not symbiotic)" in the region knows full well that we will end up supporting whatever they do because the pro-Israel lobby is too strong. My hunch is that Israel would all of a sudden get more serious about peace if they actually thought for a second that we wouldn't come running in when they crook their finger.

Unfortunately, we don't have the same kind of leverage with Palestine, or I would phrase it that way too.

In essence, I think the best thing the US can do to foment peace in the middle east is to get out. For the record, I tend to think that the US government is worse than useless at diplomacy or foreign policy - at least over the course of my lifetime....probably going back to the 50's. We make pretty much whatever situation we stick our too-big noses in worse.

If we could (and we can't because we need foreign oil) I would drastically reduce our overseas presence. Let Europe pay for its own protection instead of relying on us for protection, global policing and then bitching about how we do it. Let the middle east sort themselves out (the potential was there for mutually assured destruction, sure. But then the US and the former USSR managed to work things out eventually).

I also recognize that the above is idealistic and cannot be in the world that we live in - but a fella can dream, cain't he?

EDIT: the "ideals" you mention - free speech, women's rights, etc. - are not something we really care about - at least in a foreign policy sense. We care about oil and cheap t-shirts. That's it. We may throw a few platitudes out there, but so long as the oil and cheap goods come we aren't going to push at all.

EDIT EDIT: You asked a specific question based on hypothetical concessions to my viewpoint. Under the same understanding, I will allow that the Israeli government is slightly more appetizing. However, I do think that they have taken advantage of and used us for quite some time, and that makes me angry.

Davian93
06-11-2010, 08:02 AM
The IRA was not defeated with military force. After they realized that the UK was making serious peace overtures fringe elements of the IRA that depended on the conflict for their power stepped up the attacks in an effort to derail the peace process. The UK ignored them. No reprisals. The result? Peace. Now look at the situation with Hamas. They've tried to derail every serious peace talk with rockets, suicide bombings, intifadas, what have you, and Israel takes the bait every single time. They respond with bulldozers, blockades, embargoes, etc. The result? No peace.


Terrible and innacurate analogy. The IRA's stated goal was a united and independent Irish state (first in Ireland proper and then in Northern Ireland). They achieved the former after WWI and finally made peace in the latter in the 1990s. At no time was the IRA's stated goal the destruction of all Protestants or all British people. Also, its not the fringe elements of Hamas that are the problem, its their core members. Its not as if the "political wing" of Hamas is full of peaceful politicians and there are some crazy fringe elements out there perpetuating attacks (like in N. Ireland). Its a concerted effort by Hamas on all levels to effect the destruction of Israel and all Jews.

IRA Declaration of 1939:

"I have the honour to inform you that the Government of the Irish Republic, having as its first duty towards the people the establishment and maintenance of peace and order, herewith demand the withdrawal of all British armed forces stationed in Ireland. These forces are an active incitement to turmoil and civil strife not only in being a smybol of hostile occupation but in their effect and potentialities as an invading army".

And after Londonderry:

THE POLICY OF THE PROVISIONAL WING OF THE IRA, STATED BY SEAN MacSTIOFAIN, CHIEF OF STAFF, PROVISIONAL IRA, (a) People say our campaign in Northern Ireland is sectarian. I deny that. It would have to specifically anti-Protestant, but as many Catholic members of the UDR and the RUC have been shot as Protestants. They're shot because they're active agents of British Imperialism. They can resign and they'll be perfectly safe. The only Protestants we've deliberately killed have been members of the UVF who attacked Roman Catholic areas. In the end all loss of life in Northern Ireland rests with the Unionists, and with the British Government. They've brought the persent situation about. We've given our terms for a truce. Our truce terms are: (1) That the British Army suspend all operations, withdraw from Catholic areas, pending their total withdrawal from the North. (2) That Stormont be ablolished. (3) That a guarantee is given for the holding of free elections. (4) That all internees and political prisoners be released, North and South. (5) That compensation be paid to all those who've suffered as a result of British occupation. People say, if the British Army is withdrawn from the North there'll be a Protestant backlash. We've been blackmailed with this threat for years. If it comes then we'll have to deal with it, but the best defence against it is a strong IRA...What I think you would see if there was a declaration of intent to withdraw by the British, would be an exodus of the more bigoted elements in the North.

Yeah, total destruction of British and Protestants, eh?


When you make an analogy, try to base it in some knowledge of the situation. N. Ireland and the IRA has no similarity to Hamas/Gaza.

Sinistrum
06-11-2010, 08:35 AM
Ok Ivhon, then what about our obligations to the U.N.? More specifically, what about the Genocide Convention and the phrase "never again?" I mean, unless you dispute Hamas' stated goal of the destruction of the Israeli people, its pretty clear that us packing up and leaving Israel to its own devices would not end well. I'd wager that instead of just the Palestinians attacking it, the entire Arab world would a la what happened with the 48, 67, and 76 wars given the level of Anti-Semitism present in it. And without our help, I doubt it would survive that. And neither would the Arabs, when you take into account Israel's nuclear arsenal.

So basically, your solution would end in the complete annihilation of the entire Middle East and the geneocide of at least one people who's already gone through one genocide in the last century. How is that somehow better than the current situation?

Furthermore, when I asked the question about which you would prefer, I didn't ask it to elicit the unofficial U.S foreign policy motivation for everything. I asked it specifically of you. If you had to choose between the Palestinians and the Israelis, which one would you take? While I do want you to answer that (which you kind of did but not as directly as I would have liked), it was also a rhetorical question designed to demonstrate why I support Israel, even assuming your criticisms of its behavior are true. I couldn't care less about U.S. realpolitique reasons for doing what it does on the foreign stage.

However, I do think that they have taken advantage of and used us for quite some time, and that makes me angry.

And if you're fighting for your survival, are you going to really care who or what you use in order to ensure it or if someone resents you for it? Do they use us? Absolutely. Do I think we can blame them for it. Not really. As one of my favorite characters from Lost said. "I ask for no forgiveness father for I have not sinned, I have only done what I needed to do to survive."

Sei'taer
06-11-2010, 09:22 AM
Terrible and innacurate analogy. The IRA's stated goal was a united and independent Irish state (first in Ireland proper and then in Northern Ireland). They achieved the former after WWI and finally made peace in the latter in the 1990s. At no time was the IRA's stated goal the destruction of all Protestants or all British people. Also, its not the fringe elements of Hamas that are the problem, its their core members. Its not as if the "political wing" of Hamas is full of peaceful politicians and there are some crazy fringe elements out there perpetuating attacks (like in N. Ireland). Its a concerted effort by Hamas on all levels to effect the destruction of Israel and all Jews.



And after Londonderry:



Yeah, total destruction of British and Protestants, eh?


When you make an analogy, try to base it in some knowledge of the situation. N. Ireland and the IRA has no similarity to Hamas/Gaza.

Thank you, Dav, for saving me the trouble of pointing that out.

Ivhon
06-11-2010, 09:39 AM
Ok Ivhon, then what about our obligations to the U.N.? More specifically, what about the Genocide Convention and the phrase "never again?"

I believe you are on record as having the opinion that the UN is irrelevant and we should have no obligation to it. I happen to agree. Israel also takes that stance. Nor have we done anything but selectively paid any attention to the Genocide Convention as evidenced by our complete absence in Africa. So...Im not sure about this argument. Seems like a selective application.

I mean, unless you dispute Hamas' stated goal of the destruction of the Israeli people, its pretty clear that us packing up and leaving Israel to its own devices would not end well. I'd wager that instead of just the Palestinians attacking it, the entire Arab world would a la what happened with the 48, 67, and 76 wars given the level of Anti-Semitism present in it. And without our help, I doubt it would survive that. And neither would the Arabs, when you take into account Israel's nuclear arsenal.

See my point about mutually assured destruction in the previous post. I agree that the scenario you outline could happen - it also could be avoided as it was between the US and USSR. Right now both sides know that they can antagonize provoke and take potshots without end-game results because both sides know that the US will step in before it gets that far. We are enablers in a sense

So basically, your solution would end in the complete annihilation of the entire Middle East and the geneocide of at least one people who's already gone through one genocide in the last century. How is that somehow better than the current situation?

Because it forces both sides to confront utter annihilation and make the determination if they really want that. See above as to why that is not the case now. Of course, Iran getting a nuke changes things...but we pretty much blew any chance of preventing that when we committed to our play war in Iraq.

Furthermore, when I asked the question about which you would prefer, I didn't ask it to elicit the unofficial U.S foreign policy motivation for everything. I asked it specifically of you. If you had to choose between the Palestinians and the Israelis, which one would you take? While I do want you to answer that (which you kind of did but not as directly as I would have liked), it was also a rhetorical question designed to demonstrate why I support Israel, even assuming your criticisms of its behavior are true. I couldn't care less (EDIT: You made a happy Camel :D ) about U.S. realpolitique reasons for doing what it does on the foreign stage.

EDIT: I kinda do care about realpolitik reasons for doing things. Not claiming it makes me better or anything.

And if you're fighting for your survival, are you going to really care who or what you use in order to ensure it or if someone resents you for it? Do they use us? Absolutely. Do I think we can blame them for it. Not really. As one of my favorite characters from Lost said. "I ask for no forgiveness father for I have not sinned, I have only done what I needed to do to survive."



I guess we agree to disagree on the last point. If you are expecting me to pull your bacon out of the fire, I have a right to expect you to toe MY line. I don't buy the "Ohhh...its ok that you manipulate the political system of my country, flout whatever you feel like flouting because I understand you are fighting for your survival. Here's a few hundred million more." We do not allow any other country on the planet to do this to us - except perhaps Saudi Arabia because they have us bent over and spread on oil - which is another situation I would love to see rectified.

And on the other hand, I suspect that the Palestinians legitimately feel that they are fighting for their survival too. Whether or not you or I see it that way. So what they do is ok, too, right?

Essentially, I think we both agree that this situation is at an impasse of sorts. We differ in that you think we owe it to one side to end the other. I think we have made a more-than-reasonable good faith effort which both sides have flipped us off on which makes me want to say "Ok...figure it out yourselves." I think that if you remove the enabling presence of the US from the equation, that they actually CAN figure it out themselves because one side knows it will be over-run and the other side knows it will be turned to glass if they don't.

Sinistrum
06-11-2010, 10:07 AM
I think you are underestimating the religious fanaticism of the Palestinians Ivhon. I think when confronted with the prospect of an End Game result, their response will be something akin to "paradise here I come." And I think anyone who disagrees with this assessment needs to seriously think about the psychology behind the very idea of suicide bombings and human shields before they offhandedly dismiss my characterization of the Palestinians. When a culture deals out death to both its enemies and itself in such a flippant and senseless manner, it can hardly be described as a rational actor. And the effectiveness of MAD is entirely dependent upon rational actors who value their own lives above killing their enemies.

As for the U.N., the main thrust of my argument that it is irrelevant is its lack of enforcement of things such as the Genocide Convention. Its not that I don't think we have no obligation to enforce it. I would very much like it if we would. It just stands out as the clearest example of the impotence and therefore irrelevance of the U.N. Its people with your political leanings who like to pretend it is otherwise and therefore, in making my argument, I was adopting your view point in assuming the U.N. is relevant.

And on the other hand, I suspect that the Palestinians legitimately feel that they are fighting for their survival too. Whether or not you or I see it that way. So what they do is ok, too, right?

Once again, Camp David proves this false. They may think that way, in some twisted, distorted bizarro logic, but that is not the truth of the matter. Israel has an objective claim to having its survival threatened. Its written in stone in the Hamas charter and plastered all over the Arab media.

Davian93
06-11-2010, 11:15 AM
And without our help, I doubt it would survive that. And neither would the Arabs, when you take into account Israel's nuclear arsenal.

Exactly. Lets consider what nearly happened the last time that Israel felt isolated with their backs to the wall. It was Yom Kippur, 1973. In the first 12 hrs, Syrian tanks had overrun Israeli positions in the Golan, Egyptian tanks had crossed the Suez and were rapidly advancing through the Sinai. Israeli high command ordered air strikes to slow the advance and their first waves of attack fighters were shot out of the sky by a blanket of Soviet air defense missiles given to Syria and Egypt. Israel had put all their eggs into their Air Force over heavy artillery. Both countries invading (the United Arab Republic actually) far outgunned them when it came to artillery. Israel figured then (and now) that it was smarter to put its money in a jet that could strike Damascus and Cairo in the same day instead of a howitzer with limited tactical use. Israel was basically getting its ass handed to it as a result of this situation. Their main weapon in the air force was ineffective, their front lines overrun and some estimates had Syrian tanks outside Tel Aviv within 24-48 hrs. At this point, Israel sent out an alert to arm its A-4s with tactical nukes to stop the invasion. They had no other choice as Nixon/Kissenger wasn't supporting them, they were being overrun with in a country of no strategic depth, were suffering huge casualties (casualties so high that the exact numbers weren't released for several months after the war ended to keep morale high) and it looked like their country would be destroyed. Only the bravery of their reserve units and a fierce countertattack that succeeded prevented them from nuking both Syria and Egypt. It was only after Nixon/Kissenger were told that Israel was about to nuke those two countries that American aid was airlifted into Israel and they were able to continue their counter attack to take by the Golan and Sinai. Had we sat back and done nothing, Israel would have wiped two countries off the earth to save themselves because Never Again.

Israel remembers 1973 very clearly. They came very close to losing...far closer than most realize. They won't allow it to happen again. That was only against 2 Arab countries...what happens if we isolate them again and let all of them attack?

Ivhon
06-11-2010, 11:26 AM
I think you are underestimating the religious fanaticism of the Palestinians Ivhon. I think when confronted with the prospect of an End Game result, their response will be something akin to "paradise here I come." And I think anyone who disagrees with this assessment needs to seriously think about the psychology behind the very idea of suicide bombings and human shields before they offhandedly dismiss my characterization of the Palestinians. When a culture deals out death to both its enemies and itself in such a flippant and senseless manner, it can hardly be described as a rational actor. And the effectiveness of MAD is entirely dependent upon rational actors who value their own lives above killing their enemies.

Im not going to offhandedly dismiss your characterization. I would counter that it is one thing for destitute, jobless, misinformed and manipulated young men with nothing to lose to throw their lives away. The mullahs that control them are not quite so cavalier, I have noticed. I don't recall any reports of clerics carrying out suicide bombings. Bin Laden takes quite a bit of care to make sure he stays alive, etc. When the powers-that-be actually face the real possibility of their own annhihilation and loss of that power, I think they would play a different tune

As for the U.N., the main thrust of my argument that it is irrelevant is its lack of enforcement of things such as the Genocide Convention. Its not that I don't think we have no obligation to enforce it. I would very much like it if we would. It just stands out as the clearest example of the impotence and therefore irrelevance of the U.N. Its people with your political leanings who like to pretend it is otherwise and therefore, in making my argument, I was adopting your view point in assuming the U.N. is relevant.

Well, I happen to agree with you that the UN is impotent and largely irrelevant. Not to hijack too much - you believe we should be involved in Dharfour and other areas of the world like that? I don't recall having heard you say that before - but I may simply have disregarded it or forgotten it.



Once again, Camp David proves this false. They may think that way, in some twisted, distorted bizarro logic, but that is not the truth of the matter. Israel has an objective claim to having its survival threatened. Its written in stone in the Hamas charter and plastered all over the Arab media.

Not sure it matters that much. Certainly there is a sizeable element in Israel and particularly in the US (The Pro-Israel lobby here is more hawkish than in Israel itself...they have that luxury since none of their children are going to get killed...kinda like the mullahs, above) that believes that Arabs should be wiped off the earth. Now, it isn't put down on paper like Hamas does. But Im not sure I place that much importance on a piece of paper. For example, it becomes much more difficult to play the "OMG we are targets of genocide again hepl hepl" strategy when you officially are calling for genocide.

GonzoTheGreat
06-13-2010, 07:48 AM
Answer me this nameless. Why is it necessary that Israel blinks first? Why are they the ones having to make sacrifices (and make no mistake about it when you say sacrifices, part of that is people's lives)? Why can't the Palestinians do what you are describing?Because it has been proven that it does not work if the Palestinians do it. They actually tried it a few times, while Ariel Sharon was prime minister. They announced a cease fire* and kept to it. Israel then kept killing Palestinians until the latter decided to abandon the peaceful approach as useless.
As far as I know, Israel has never tried a cease fire where they said that they would not attack, but would only defend against ongoing attacks.

So I will give a counter-question: what reason could there be for the Palestinians to believe that Israel will react with anything other than violence if the Palestinians blink?

* Temporary, admittedly. But it was an opening, and it might have gone further.

the silent speaker
06-13-2010, 09:48 PM
I would counter that it is one thing for destitute, jobless, misinformed and manipulated young men with nothing to lose to throw their lives away. The mullahs that control them are not quite so cavalier, I have noticed.
While I would agree that the people doing the sending are only willing to martyr other people for their cause, not so much themselves (and I was particularly charmed by the ones who, a few years ago, sent a ten-year-old with a delivery that they didn't tell him was intended to explode; thankfully that incident was stopped without loss of life), I disagree with your characterization of the ones who do the going as "destitute, jobless, misinformed and manipulated". These are the Palestinians' best and brightest, more often college-educated than not, throwing their lives away in the hope of taking Jews with them. Of all the Palestinians, suicide bombers are often exactly those with the most to lose.

P.S. I know you don't mean it this way, Ivhon (and if I thought you did mean it this way I wouldn't bother saying it), but saying things like "we will end up supporting whatever they do because the pro-Israel lobby is too strong" sounds to me uncomfortably like "the Jews control the government." The pro-Israel lobby is a lobby like any number of others, no more and no less powerful that any other lobby of comparable size, funding and efficiency. If it is slightly more efficient than most lobbies of comparable size, which I will not concede solely on the basis of anecdata, that is because most of its members are on it in support of the same cause -- support for what they at least perceive to be the most just position for this country's Middle East policy -- rather than the more usual case of everybody on a lobby supporting the coordinated but never quite identical causes of their own personal enrichment. Talking about that as something to be curbed does not sit well with me.

Ivhon
06-13-2010, 10:49 PM
While I would agree that the people doing the sending are only willing to martyr other people for their cause, not so much themselves (and I was particularly charmed by the ones who, a few years ago, sent a ten-year-old with a delivery that they didn't tell him was intended to explode; thankfully that incident was stopped without loss of life), I disagree with your characterization of the ones who do the going as "destitute, jobless, misinformed and manipulated". These are the Palestinians' best and brightest, more often college-educated than not, throwing their lives away in the hope of taking Jews with them. Of all the Palestinians, suicide bombers are often exactly those with the most to lose.

P.S. I know you don't mean it this way, Ivhon (and if I thought you did mean it this way I wouldn't bother saying it), but saying things like "we will end up supporting whatever they do because the pro-Israel lobby is too strong" sounds to me uncomfortably like "the Jews control the government." The pro-Israel lobby is a lobby like any number of others, no more and no less powerful that any other lobby of comparable size, funding and efficiency. If it is slightly more efficient than most lobbies of comparable size, which I will not concede solely on the basis of anecdata, that is because most of its members are on it in support of the same cause -- support for what they at least perceive to be the most just position for this country's Middle East policy -- rather than the more usual case of everybody on a lobby supporting the coordinated but never quite identical causes of their own personal enrichment. Talking about that as something to be curbed does not sit well with me.

Points taken on the nature of the lobby vs those that are for personal enrichment. Don't mean to insinuate that the pro-Israel lobby is controlling government. It does control policy so far as the middle east is concerned...and IMO that is not always in the best interest of the US.

However, the same can be said of the influence of any number of lobbies over policy in their particular milieu's. Need I point fingers at the energy lobby whoring up the minerals branch of the EPA, the banking lobby, the insurance lobby, the oil lobby, sugar lobby, pick a union (to be fair to those on the other side of the aisle) and on and on.

Specifically to the pro-Israel lobby, I do find them to be extremely hawkish - which I take dimly since they are risking the lives of Israeli soldiers and citizens in Israel - not their own or their childrens. Very easy to scream "no compromise, no quarter" when you arent the one getting shot.

All in all, it is a tricky and delicate issue to even talk about - much less solve - considering how emotional it is for so many people. Yet another reason why Im glad Im not President (on that note, Obama is following the trend of so many Presidents before him by going gray RAPIDLY)