The IDF has found that Hizbullah is preventing civilians from leaving villages in southern Lebanon. Roadblocks have been set up outside some of the villages to prevent residents from leaving, while in other villages Hizbullah is preventing UN representatives from entering, who are trying to help residents leave. In two villages, exchanges of fire between residents and Hizbullah have broken out. (Hanan Greenberg) (07.18.06, 21:41)
So the pro-Israel contingent here seems to run the gamut from center-right "Palestinians should respect their rulers" (like Vitamin) all the way to the Final Solution. That's fucking disgusting. And either way, history has proven time and time again that these are all unrealistic solutions. Guzzo should watch his step when quoting leaders talking about "We will triumph"
Here are some documents for interested people to read. It's from a journal called Israel Studies Forum, and it's not written by antisemites, but mainly by Israelis who were born in Israel and even served on the IDF. Unlike 100% of the people arguing on the board.
To add, personally, I think the Western Powers have just as much culpability in this as do Israel's policies. It's very convenient for everyone to blame either the Arabs, or both the Israelis and Arabs for the mess over there. But of course there's a history of oppression that pre-dates Israel. I think the first person to use chemical weapons on civilians were the Brits on Palestine, under the auspicies of Winston Churchill, who I think refered to them as niggers.
For those confused about the israeli strategy I interepret the ferocity of the action as being as much a message to the UN and the lebanese government as it is about attacking hezbollah. It seems to me theyre saying 'If you dont honour your pledge and do something about hezbollah we will, and you arent going to like what we're going to do about it'.
i.e. "If you can't sort out the (foreign-supported) terrorists in your country after we've destroyed your army and infrastructure, we'll quite happily kill your civilians with little discrimination".
while i'm not condoning the amount of civilians that Israel has killed, i think the people who keep citing these death numbers are not looking at the big picture. if the lebanese tolerated hizbolah before, isn't it possible that the events of the past few weeks might change their allegences? remember, the only reason israel is trying to get rid of hizbolah is because they have been targeted. maybe Ehud is right, this could be a defining moment for israel. when groups like hamas and hizbolah refuse to compromise or negotiate, casualties might be the only way to get through to them. would suicide bombers still be treated like heroes, if every time they killed an israeli, the israeli government came back and killed ten times the amount of palestenians? obviously, that would be barbaric, but i think that line of thinking might have something to do with israel's current strategy.
while i'm not condoning the amount of civilians that Israel has killed, .... if every time they killed an israeli, the israeli government came back and killed ten times the amount of palestenians? obviously, that would be barbaric, but i think that line of thinking might have something to do with israel's current strategy.
I think this was Al Capone's strategy.
I just read that the Irish lost 47 soldiers during their UN "peacekeeping" mission the last time Lebanon was a war zone. That was very generous of them.
So the pro-Israel contingent here seems to run the gamut from center-right "Palestinians should respect their rulers" (like Vitamin) all the way to the Final Solution. That's fucking disgusting. And either way, history has proven time and time again that these are all unrealistic solutions. Guzzo should watch his step when quoting leaders talking about "We will triumph"
Here are some documents for interested people to read. It's from a journal called Israel Studies Forum, and it's not written by antisemites, but mainly by Israelis who were born in Israel and even served on the IDF. Unlike 100% of the people arguing on the board.
This post is further evidence that you don't know what words mean. How you could possibly interpret my response to your trifling analogy earlier as an endorsement of a "final solution" for Palestinians? I have said now twice in this discussion, that Israel's current response amounts to the collective punishment of many innocent Lebanese victims. But for you to bend and twist the positions of Israel's supporters to mean that they want obedient Palestinians to consent in their cleansing is as incoherent as it is offensive. Notice that the adbuctions and missile launches that provoked the current war occurred from de-occupied territory. Notice that in the last year the Israeli polity has abandoned its claim to the remaining territory--excepting the Golan Heights--it won in the six day war. Notice that the current "resistance" does not propose a two state solution, but seeks to eliminate all of Israel. It is for this reason that no one could quite understand what you were talking about when you criptically posted a map of Ireland. This is not because we are all dense. This is because your insight into the current conflict is about as deep as an episode of Behind the Music. Repeating debating points from 15 years ago that no longer apply does not make you enlightened, it makes you a groupthinker, and a fairly crude one at that.
This post is further evidence that you don't know what words mean. How you could possibly interpret my response to your trifling analogy earlier as an endorsement of a "final solution" for Palestinians?
This post is further evidence that you don't know what words mean. How you could possibly interpret my response to your trifling analogy earlier as an endorsement of a "final solution" for Palestinians?
Re-read my post, then breathe, then re-read.
Alright I am slightly less baffled by your position. But again you have misinterpreted mine. I am not saying they should respect their rulers, I am saying that Hezbollah and Hamas launched attacks from territory abandoned by Israel. You may favor a negotiation with these irrendist forces. But I don't understand why you exempt Hezbollah and Hamas from the consequences of their decisions to wage war in the absence of occupation. I think Israel is hitting the wrong people indiscriminately. But how can anyone negotiate with Hamas and Hezbollah now. There would not be a Good Friday Accord if a Catholic plebiscite voted in 1998 for a representatives who sought to reclaim the entire United Kingdom and launched a new round of attacks on the heals of a British de-escalation. I still say your original analogy does not apply.
Furthermore, I would like to find out from Guzzo, Paulnice and others whether it's fair to say they endorse a Palestinian final solution. Indeed, I would bet all of them probably supported the disengagement, which disproves your thesis.
Have you ever been to or met people from the countries that you espouse this cleansing to take place in? I would be sad not to know my homie from Syria. I understand outrage, but to blame a whole culture for the misdeeds or misdirection aof disprapprotionate minority is just sad. I am sorry but the blind hatred that you spew on this board via your anger is scary and sad to me. It puts you on equal footing as the people you espouse to hate.
Please. To even suggest that I am on "equal footing" with the people I "espouse to hate" tells me that you have absolutely no clue as to what this extremist, wacko sub-culture is all about.
And oh yes, peep the keyword... "SUB-culture".
As in, how many times do I have to explain to you that I am NOT dismissing an entire culture, race or religion of peoples - but rather a HUGE contingent of extremists that still number in the many MILLIONS out of a BILLION + muslims throughout the entire globe? (need I remind you that a "disprapprotionate minority" of .... oh let's just say, conservatively speaking, ONE BILLION musims.... is still in the tens - if not hundreds - of MILLIONS?)
Are we so fucking P.C. now that the very act of calling out wacko muslims constitutes the ravings of a racist, hate-filled and disturbed man who ultimately seeks the genocide of every muslim on earth?
Icon for tunnel vision?
It has nothing to do with being P.C., it has everything to do is there is no way to draw that line. Who exactly are the whackos you want destroyed and how you identify them? What are the criteria? Because as far as I can tell whackos whether they are christian jewish or muslim exist in every culture religion and tend to blend in very well with the general population. And why are you singling out muslim whackos? What about right wing over zealous born again christians that bomb abortion clinics or government buildings or send mail bombs. Well maybe we could start with the muslims... maybe give them an identifying mark? Then round them up? Maybe put them in camps? C'mon you are on a slippery slope with your logic.
What I find very interesting is that we obviously have the Israeli contingent supported in this thread as well as a more moderate view, but as far as Ic an tell there has been NO muslim viewpoints from a Muslim voiced. But of course I guess they are mostly whackos so thier opinion doesn't count...
Have you ever been to or met people from the countries that you espouse this cleansing to take place in? I would be sad not to know my homie from Syria. I understand outrage, but to blame a whole culture for the misdeeds or misdirection aof disprapprotionate minority is just sad. I am sorry but the blind hatred that you spew on this board via your anger is scary and sad to me. It puts you on equal footing as the people you espouse to hate.
Please. To even suggest that I am on "equal footing" with the people I "espouse to hate" tells me that you have absolutely no clue as to what this extremist, wacko sub-culture is all about.
And oh yes, peep the keyword... "SUB-culture".
As in, how many times do I have to explain to you that I am NOT dismissing an entire culture, race or religion of peoples - but rather a HUGE contingent of extremists that still number in the many MILLIONS out of a BILLION + muslims throughout the entire globe? (need I remind you that a "disprapprotionate minority" of .... oh let's just say, conservatively speaking, ONE BILLION musims.... is still in the tens - if not hundreds - of MILLIONS?)
Are we so fucking P.C. now that the very act of calling out wacko muslims constitutes the ravings of a racist, hate-filled and disturbed man who ultimately seeks the genocide of every muslim on earth?
Icon for tunnel vision?
It has nothing to do with being P.C., it has everything to do is there is no way to draw that line. Who exactly are the whackos you want destroyed and how you identify them? What are the criteria? Because as far as I can tell whackos whether they are christian jewish or muslim exist in every culture religion and tend to blend in very well with the general population. And why are you singling out muslim whackos? What about right wing over zealous born again christians that bomb abortion clinics or government buildings or send mail bombs. Well maybe we could start with the muslims... maybe give them an identifying mark? Then round them up? Maybe put them in camps? C'mon you are on a slippery slope with your logic.
What I find very interesting is that we obviously have the Israeli contingent supported in this thread as well as a more moderate view, but as far as Ic an tell there has been NO muslim viewpoints from a Muslim voiced. But of course I guess they are mostly whackos so thier opinion doesn't count...
Way to put words in his mouth. I can do the same thing. I can say you just compared Islamic Extremists to Jews. Or I can say that you are comparing Paul to Hitler.
xian extremists have nothing to do with whats currently going on over there. Yeah, they are nuts, and if they are bombing abortion clinics then they need to be rounded up. People always bring these xian wackos up when talking about muslim wackos, like there are xian wacko sympathizers on here. So fucking corny. this whole "you wouldn't do that to the christians... WOULD YOU??!?" puuuhlease. I would.
And then when Paul tried to make the point that muslim wackos make up a small portion of muslims in general you do the whole "But of course I guess they are mostly whackos so thier opinion doesn't count..." If you are going to argue with him that at least pay attention. JESUS.
And whats the fucking point anyways? Because they are religious then they aren't dangerous? Or we shouldn't take them out because they are religious? Bullshit.
Is your point that its hard to take these people out because they blend in with the general population? Conceded. Yeah thats difficult, and I have no answer for that. So I guess we just give up then. OK.
33 - I know a fair amount of Muslim dudes some of whom have very questionable ties and allegiances.
NONE of them, save the most extreme, believes in the annihilation of Israel. Some of them believe whatever is shown on Al Jazeera, and others are completely against terrorism, no matter if it's Al Qaeda or Al Aqsa. Kinda like Americans. Many Muslims I know hated their own society at home because of everything from business owners paying government extortion/kickdowns to women not being able to leave the house or drive a car without the senior male family member's permission. I mean, there is no honest discourse about this. I can't stand behind it. My mother has toured the middle east and my girlfriend grew up in Saudi Arabia. Shit is FUCKED. I can sympathize with the pro-Palestinian posse but nobody I've talked to has even come close to addressing the root causes of this shit, which are massive social, economic, and political oppression.
All of you who think Israel is evil, where's your solution? Should Ashkenazic Jews repatriate to Europe, Russia, USA and give up Israel? Should they give Palestinians a state consisting of Gaza & West Bank and 50% of Jerusalem? I'm seriously interested because it is one thing to fight against occupation, quite another to attack another country over its own border. And I'm also interested to know what people think about the New Caliphate idea.
Lastly, I think that the more rational among us (who initially supported Israel's reaction) have since qualified any such support with a firm "WTF ARE THEY DOING??" But don't let that stop you from calling us names...
I am not calling for the annhilation of anyone or thing. Get that straight. Everyone I know and I mean everyone just wants to live a quality life, raise kids etc. I am taking issue with the black and white nature of Paul's posts.
and in response to Dizzy:
All I am saying is that there is no blacka nd white answere. There is no way to "just take out the crazies". If so then Bush would be the most popular president ever. In addition once you start down that path you have to DECIDE who is a "whacko" and who isn't... And again what is the criteria? Is it becuase someone's ideas don't mesh with yours or is it their lifestyle doesn't mesh with yours?
Religion has nothing to do with it, race doesn't culture doesnt. It is all about the person or persons that are in control of deciding who goes and who doesn't and really I don't have enough faith in a majority of people to trust that type of responsability in any person or persons hands.
Step back, breathe, and look at it from multiple perspectives instead of an overtly "I'm right, you're wrong, end of story" opinion.
And I have said since the start of this thread... Its not about Israel not reacting its about HOW they react. I am not surprised at all that the current situation has escalated, this is how almost every conflict goes throughout history. No one will win because everyone involved thinks/feels they are right in their actions.
In addition once you start down that path you have to DECIDE who is a "whacko" and who isn't... And again what is the criteria? Is it becuase someone's ideas don't mesh with yours or is it their lifestyle doesn't mesh with yours?
Start with the guys that have bombs strapped to their chest and go from there....
Should they give Palestinians a state consisting of Gaza & West Bank and 50% of Jerusalem? I'm seriously interested
In the short term, that could be effective IF those areas remained stable enough to rear a generation that is less ignorant, bored and angry. But from purely geographic terms, that seems problematic--especially the Jerusalem part.
During the Fall I was hopeful that things would get better. I was ready to even tip my hat to the neocons. I thought Sharon was moving in the right direction. And when they pulled from Gaza, we should have beefed up Palestinian aid to rebuild the infrastructure and create some decent jobs. But Hamas was elected and well, you know...
Should they give Palestinians a state consisting of Gaza & West Bank and 50% of Jerusalem? I'm seriously interested
In the short term, that could be effective IF those areas remained stable enough to rear a generation that is less ignorant, bored and angry. But from purely geographic terms, that seems problematic--especially the Jerusalem part.
I hate to make my previous post seem like a trap, but that's what was offered at Oslo. I am down with it. The Palestinians said "no - we want the whole pie."
Should they give Palestinians a state consisting of Gaza & West Bank and 50% of Jerusalem? I'm seriously interested
In the short term, that could be effective IF those areas remained stable enough to rear a generation that is less ignorant, bored and angry. But from purely geographic terms, that seems problematic--especially the Jerusalem part.
I hate to make my previous post seem like a trap, but that's what was offered at Oslo. I am down with it. The Palestinians said "no - we want the whole pie."
All of you who think Israel is evil, where's your solution? Should Ashkenazic Jews repatriate to Europe, Russia, USA and give up Israel?
No.
Should they give Palestinians a state consisting of Gaza & West Bank and 50% of Jerusalem?
Yes.
I'm seriously interested because it is one thing to fight against occupation, quite another to attack another country over its own border. And I'm also interested to know what people think about the New Caliphate idea.
This is more likely to happen if Western Powers condone or participate in the destruction of moderate muslim societies (Lebanon, Afganistan, Palestine) while cozying up to fundamentalists and dictatorships (like Saudis, Pakistan, Taliban) and not having a clue how to handle the real wackos (Iranian govt)
Personally, this is where I think the Middle East Power Vacuum concept is totally valid.
Lastly, I think that the more rational among us (who initially supported Israel's reaction) have since qualified any such support with a firm "WTF ARE THEY DOING??" But don't let that stop you from calling us names...
JP, I don't think anyone on this board has a problem with Israel existing, it's the messianic tenets of Zionism that some people disagree with. The PC aspect of this is that it's OK to call out "Islamofascists" or even Xian fundies, but nobody points out that Zionism contains the same intolerant views and leads down the same path of legislative discrimination, ethnic cleansing, or worse.
As far as name-calling, whatever, that's subjective. But I don't see any pro-Zionist moderates calling out extremists who have mentioned at least 3 times in this thread that mass murder is an acceptable solution. That's dangerous.
Should they give Palestinians a state consisting of Gaza & West Bank and 50% of Jerusalem? I'm seriously interested
In the short term, that could be effective IF those areas remained stable enough to rear a generation that is less ignorant, bored and angry. But from purely geographic terms, that seems problematic--especially the Jerusalem part.
I hate to make my previous post seem like a trap, but that's what was offered at Oslo. I am down with it. The Palestinians said "no - we want the whole pie."
Should they give Palestinians a state consisting of Gaza & West Bank and 50% of Jerusalem? I'm seriously interested
In the short term, that could be effective IF those areas remained stable enough to rear a generation that is less ignorant, bored and angry. But from purely geographic terms, that seems problematic--especially the Jerusalem part.
I hate to make my previous post seem like a trap, but that's what was offered at Oslo. I am down with it. The Palestinians said "no - we want the whole pie."
This is debatable.
So debate! Or do you not have time before the Critical Mass rally???
This is more likely to happen if Western Powers condone or participate in the destruction of moderate muslim societies (Lebanon, Afganistan, Palestine) while cozying up to fundamentalists and dictatorships (like Saudis, Pakistan, Taliban) and not having a clue how to handle the real wackos (Iranian govt)
Personally, this is where I think the Middle East Power Vacuum concept is totally valid.
What? Are you saying that Afghanistan was a "moderate muslim society" before the west "condoned and participated" in the ousting of the Taliban. Hasn't the destruction of the most radical Taliban regime led to the creation of the more moderate Karzai government? In Palestine, the Bush administration worked closely with Israel to coordinate the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and prior disengagement plan, the immoderate Hamas forces were freely elected. And finally in Lebanon, I agree the west should not condone its random destruction right now. But clearly, the west's role in forcing Syria to withdrawal its forces was a step towards moderating this Muslim and Christian country?
JP, I don't think anyone on this board has a problem with Israel existing, it's the messianic tenets of Zionism that some people disagree with. The PC aspect of this is that it's OK to call out "Islamofascists" or even Xian fundies, but nobody points out that Zionism contains the same intolerant views and leads down the same path of legislative discrimination, ethnic cleansing, or worse.
As far as name-calling, whatever, that's subjective. But I don't see any pro-Zionist moderates calling out extremists who have mentioned at least 3 times in this thread that mass murder is an acceptable solution. That's dangerous.
Messianic Zionism in Israel is now a dead idea, barely supported by what remains of Likud. And Zionism does have these tenets that can lead to ethnic cleansing, but despite the best efforts of the apologetic left in Europe and America to warn of this pending disaster--the exact opposite happened. Instead of ethnic cleansing in the wake of the Iraq war, as many on the left warned of, the Israelis began disengagement. But what has this bought them? Land for war.
And I am happy to criticize those who still defend limitless occupation on the Zionist side. But why can't you quite muster that the ideology of Hezbollah and Hamas also lead to ethnic cleansing. I have already called out some who excitedly wrote about "laying waste" to Lebanon. But none of this explains your incoherence. The rockets launched and abductions that started this conflict are not acts of "resistance." They are acts of war.
Should they give Palestinians a state consisting of Gaza & West Bank and 50% of Jerusalem? I'm seriously interested
In the short term, that could be effective IF those areas remained stable enough to rear a generation that is less ignorant, bored and angry. But from purely geographic terms, that seems problematic--especially the Jerusalem part.
I hate to make my previous post seem like a trap, but that's what was offered at Oslo. I am down with it. The Palestinians said "no - we want the whole pie."
This is debatable.
So debate! Or do you not have time before the Critical Mass rally???
The Palestinians had a golden opportunity after the Oslo accords and after the murder of Rabin. Instead they launched a wave of terrorist attacks and Arafat et al just sat there. Bibi and the Likud stance was well known. But as a result of these attacks, Peres was sent packing and Bibi moved forward with full public support. The Palestinians could pretty much kiss a dick at this point.
Should they give Palestinians a state consisting of Gaza & West Bank and 50% of Jerusalem? I'm seriously interested
In the short term, that could be effective IF those areas remained stable enough to rear a generation that is less ignorant, bored and angry. But from purely geographic terms, that seems problematic--especially the Jerusalem part.
I hate to make my previous post seem like a trap, but that's what was offered at Oslo. I am down with it. The Palestinians said "no - we want the whole pie."
This is debatable.
no, it's really not.
everyone's got their own account of this event: Shlomo Ben-Ami, Clinton, Ross, Rob Malley. It's hard to get ahold of accurate maps because they weren't officially printed. The proposals that the Israelis made became a political liability for them following Arafat's rejection.
What is clear is that Arafat's team produced no counter-offer whatsoever, and that the violence that followed was planned at a high level to pop off soon after the talks failed (Sharon's Temple Mount visit was provocative to be sure; but don't beleive the hype).
To put things into perspective, Barak returned from Camp David/Taba without a peace deal, and as a result was politically dead in the water. He didn't even have a majority in Parliament anymore.
Arafat, on the other hand, came back to a ticker tape parade in Gaza, thousands of Palestinians cheering for his "brave" refusal to make peace.
The rockets launched and abductions that started this conflict are not acts of "resistance." They are acts of war.
It's an attack, like previous ones, but it's not war. If reports are correct Hezbollah has some new missiles that can reach Tel Aviv perhaps. If Hezbollah wanted a real war missiles would be reigning down all over Israel, not just the north, and Israel would be plowing into Southern Lebanon up to Beirut probably.
crossing into someone's territory and abducting two soldiers and killing another three is an act of war. so is launching a missile from one territory into another. It's not a big giant awful war, but these are acts of war.
crossing into someone's territory and abducting two soldiers and killing another three is an act of war. so is launching a missile from one territory into another. It's not a big giant awful war, but these are acts of war.
Vitamin
So everytime Palestinians launch missiles into Israel that counts as a war? They shoot missiles, Israel will usually shoot some artillery. It's over in one day, and that's a war? Acts of war and having an actual war with someone seem to be two different things.
crossing into someone's territory and abducting two soldiers and killing another three is an act of war. so is launching a missile from one territory into another. It's not a big giant awful war, but these are acts of war.
Vitamin
So everytime Palestinians launch missiles into Israel that counts as a war? They shoot missiles, Israel will usually shoot some artillery. It's over in one day, and that's a war? Acts of war and having an actual war with someone seem to be two different things.
What would you call it....unexpected rude interruptions???
crossing into someone's territory and abducting two soldiers and killing another three is an act of war. so is launching a missile from one territory into another. It's not a big giant awful war, but these are acts of war.
Vitamin
So everytime Palestinians launch missiles into Israel that counts as a war? They shoot missiles, Israel will usually shoot some artillery. It's over in one day, and that's a war? Acts of war and having an actual war with someone seem to be two different things.
What would you call it....unexpected rude interruptions???
It's an attack, which Israel has had many of.
Do you really think that when this is over in a week or two, and people start writing articles and perhaps books on it, they're going to call it the "Hezbollah-Israeli 3 week war"? They're probably not. Nor are they going to call each one of those Palestinian missile attacks, the July 2006 one-day Palestinian-Israeli missile war, the June 2006 one-day Palestinian-Israeli missile war, etc.
To get regional with you Rock, when Pancho Villa was raiding Southern Texas and the U.S. finally sent General Pershing after him into Mexico, do they call that the Pancho Villa-U.S. war of 1916? Actually, I take that back, they just might in Texas.
Comments
The IDF has found that Hizbullah is preventing civilians from leaving villages in southern Lebanon. Roadblocks have been set up outside some of the villages to prevent residents from leaving, while in other villages Hizbullah is preventing UN representatives from entering, who are trying to help residents leave. In two villages, exchanges of fire between residents and Hizbullah have broken out. (Hanan Greenberg)
(07.18.06, 21:41)
Here are some documents for interested people to read. It's from a journal called Israel Studies Forum, and it's not written by antisemites, but mainly by Israelis who were born in Israel and even served on the IDF. Unlike 100% of the people arguing on the board.
Psychoanalysis of Zionism
last 2 pages are definitely worth reading.
Brief Review of Rory Miller's "Ireland and the Palestine Question"
Basically: Irish often identified with Palestinians, and Israelis often identified with the Irish.
The Miscarriage of Peace: Israel, Egypt, the United States, and the "Jarring Plan" in the Early 1970s
Interesting discussion of the Occupied Territories being obsolete miltary-strategic positions based on ground warfare.
I got tons more if anyone cares.
while i'm not condoning the amount of civilians that Israel has killed, i think the people who keep citing these death numbers are not looking at the big picture. if the lebanese tolerated hizbolah before, isn't it possible that the events of the past few weeks might change their allegences? remember, the only reason israel is trying to get rid of hizbolah is because they have been targeted. maybe Ehud is right, this could be a defining moment for israel. when groups like hamas and hizbolah refuse to compromise or negotiate, casualties might be the only way to get through to them. would suicide bombers still be treated like heroes, if every time they killed an israeli, the israeli government came back and killed ten times the amount of palestenians? obviously, that would be barbaric, but i think that line of thinking might have something to do with israel's current strategy.
I think this was Al Capone's strategy.
I just read that the Irish lost 47 soldiers during their UN "peacekeeping" mission the last time Lebanon was a war zone. That was very generous of them.
This post is further evidence that you don't know what words mean. How you could possibly interpret my response to your trifling analogy earlier as an endorsement of a "final solution" for Palestinians? I have said now twice in this discussion, that Israel's current response amounts to the collective punishment of many innocent Lebanese victims. But for you to bend and twist the positions of Israel's supporters to mean that they want obedient Palestinians to consent in their cleansing is as incoherent as it is offensive. Notice that the adbuctions and missile launches that provoked the current war occurred from de-occupied territory. Notice that in the last year the Israeli polity has abandoned its claim to the remaining territory--excepting the Golan Heights--it won in the six day war. Notice that the current "resistance" does not propose a two state solution, but seeks to eliminate all of Israel. It is for this reason that no one could quite understand what you were talking about when you criptically posted a map of Ireland. This is not because we are all dense. This is because your insight into the current conflict is about as deep as an episode of Behind the Music. Repeating debating points from 15 years ago that no longer apply does not make you enlightened, it makes you a groupthinker, and a fairly crude one at that.
Re-read my post, then breathe, then re-read.
Alright I am slightly less baffled by your position. But again you have misinterpreted mine. I am not saying they should respect their rulers, I am saying that Hezbollah and Hamas launched attacks from territory abandoned by Israel. You may favor a negotiation with these irrendist forces. But I don't understand why you exempt Hezbollah and Hamas from the consequences of their decisions to wage war in the absence of occupation. I think Israel is hitting the wrong people indiscriminately. But how can anyone negotiate with Hamas and Hezbollah now. There would not be a Good Friday Accord if a Catholic plebiscite voted in 1998 for a representatives who sought to reclaim the entire United Kingdom and launched a new round of attacks on the heals of a British de-escalation. I still say your original analogy does not apply.
Furthermore, I would like to find out from Guzzo, Paulnice and others whether it's fair to say they endorse a Palestinian final solution. Indeed, I would bet all of them probably supported the disengagement, which disproves your thesis.
It has nothing to do with being P.C., it has everything to do is there is no way to draw that line. Who exactly are the whackos you want destroyed and how you identify them? What are the criteria? Because as far as I can tell whackos whether they are christian jewish or muslim exist in every culture religion and tend to blend in very well with the general population. And why are you singling out muslim whackos? What about right wing over zealous born again christians that bomb abortion clinics or government buildings or send mail bombs. Well maybe we could start with the muslims... maybe give them an identifying mark? Then round them up? Maybe put them in camps? C'mon you are on a slippery slope with your logic.
What I find very interesting is that we obviously have the Israeli contingent supported in this thread as well as a more moderate view, but as far as Ic an tell there has been NO muslim viewpoints from a Muslim voiced. But of course I guess they are mostly whackos so thier opinion doesn't count...
unrelated, but why did you cut that JP Robinson track short on the impalaville? Mellow has been subsequently harshed by events.
Way to put words in his mouth. I can do the same thing. I can say you just compared Islamic Extremists to Jews. Or I can say that you are comparing Paul to Hitler.
xian extremists have nothing to do with whats currently going on over there. Yeah, they are nuts, and if they are bombing abortion clinics then they need to be rounded up. People always bring these xian wackos up when talking about muslim wackos, like there are xian wacko sympathizers on here. So fucking corny. this whole "you wouldn't do that to the christians... WOULD YOU??!?" puuuhlease. I would.
And then when Paul tried to make the point that muslim wackos make up a small portion of muslims in general you do the whole "But of course I guess they are mostly whackos so thier opinion doesn't count..." If you are going to argue with him that at least pay attention. JESUS.
And whats the fucking point anyways? Because they are religious then they aren't dangerous? Or we shouldn't take them out because they are religious? Bullshit.
Is your point that its hard to take these people out because they blend in with the general population? Conceded. Yeah thats difficult, and I have no answer for that. So I guess we just give up then. OK.
NONE of them, save the most extreme, believes in the annihilation of Israel. Some of them believe whatever is shown on Al Jazeera, and others are completely against terrorism, no matter if it's Al Qaeda or Al Aqsa. Kinda like Americans. Many Muslims I know hated their own society at home because of everything from business owners paying government extortion/kickdowns to women not being able to leave the house or drive a car without the senior male family member's permission. I mean, there is no honest discourse about this. I can't stand behind it. My mother has toured the middle east and my girlfriend grew up in Saudi Arabia. Shit is FUCKED. I can sympathize with the pro-Palestinian posse but nobody I've talked to has even come close to addressing the root causes of this shit, which are massive social, economic, and political oppression.
All of you who think Israel is evil, where's your solution? Should Ashkenazic Jews repatriate to Europe, Russia, USA and give up Israel? Should they give Palestinians a state consisting of Gaza & West Bank and 50% of Jerusalem? I'm seriously interested because it is one thing to fight against occupation, quite another to attack another country over its own border. And I'm also interested to know what people think about the New Caliphate idea.
Lastly, I think that the more rational among us (who initially supported Israel's reaction) have since qualified any such support with a firm "WTF ARE THEY DOING??" But don't let that stop you from calling us names...
and in response to Dizzy:
All I am saying is that there is no blacka nd white answere. There is no way to "just take out the crazies". If so then Bush would be the most popular president ever. In addition once you start down that path you have to DECIDE who is a "whacko" and who isn't... And again what is the criteria? Is it becuase someone's ideas don't mesh with yours or is it their lifestyle doesn't mesh with yours?
Religion has nothing to do with it, race doesn't culture doesnt. It is all about the person or persons that are in control of deciding who goes and who doesn't and really I don't have enough faith in a majority of people to trust that type of responsability in any person or persons hands.
Step back, breathe, and look at it from multiple perspectives instead of an overtly "I'm right, you're wrong, end of story" opinion.
Start with the guys that have bombs strapped to their chest and go from there....
In the short term, that could be effective IF those areas remained stable enough to rear a generation that is less ignorant, bored and angry. But from purely geographic terms, that seems problematic--especially the Jerusalem part.
During the Fall I was hopeful that things would get better. I was ready to even tip my hat to the neocons. I thought Sharon was moving in the right direction. And when they pulled from Gaza, we should have beefed up Palestinian aid to rebuild the infrastructure and create some decent jobs. But Hamas was elected and well, you know...
I hate to make my previous post seem like a trap, but that's what was offered at Oslo. I am down with it. The Palestinians said "no - we want the whole pie."
You're right.
Yes.
This is more likely to happen if Western Powers condone or participate in the destruction of moderate muslim societies (Lebanon, Afganistan, Palestine) while cozying up to fundamentalists and dictatorships (like Saudis, Pakistan, Taliban) and not having a clue how to handle the real wackos (Iranian govt)
Personally, this is where I think the Middle East Power Vacuum concept is totally valid.
JP, I don't think anyone on this board has a problem with Israel existing, it's the messianic tenets of Zionism that some people disagree with. The PC aspect of this is that it's OK to call out "Islamofascists" or even Xian fundies, but nobody points out that Zionism contains the same intolerant views and leads down the same path of legislative discrimination, ethnic cleansing, or worse.
As far as name-calling, whatever, that's subjective. But I don't see any pro-Zionist moderates calling out extremists who have mentioned at least 3 times in this thread that mass murder is an acceptable solution. That's dangerous.
This is debatable.
So debate! Or do you not have time before the Critical Mass rally???
What? Are you saying that Afghanistan was a "moderate muslim society" before the west "condoned and participated" in the ousting of the Taliban. Hasn't the destruction of the most radical Taliban regime led to the creation of the more moderate Karzai government? In Palestine, the Bush administration worked closely with Israel to coordinate the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and prior disengagement plan, the immoderate Hamas forces were freely elected. And finally in Lebanon, I agree the west should not condone its random destruction right now. But clearly, the west's role in forcing Syria to withdrawal its forces was a step towards moderating this Muslim and Christian country?
Messianic Zionism in Israel is now a dead idea, barely supported by what remains of Likud. And Zionism does have these tenets that can lead to ethnic cleansing, but despite the best efforts of the apologetic left in Europe and America to warn of this pending disaster--the exact opposite happened. Instead of ethnic cleansing in the wake of the Iraq war, as many on the left warned of, the Israelis began disengagement. But what has this bought them? Land for war.
And I am happy to criticize those who still defend limitless occupation on the Zionist side. But why can't you quite muster that the ideology of Hezbollah and Hamas also lead to ethnic cleansing. I have already called out some who excitedly wrote about "laying waste" to Lebanon. But none of this explains your incoherence. The rockets launched and abductions that started this conflict are not acts of "resistance." They are acts of war.
The Palestinians had a golden opportunity after the Oslo accords and after the murder of Rabin. Instead they launched a wave of terrorist attacks and Arafat et al just sat there. Bibi and the Likud stance was well known. But as a result of these attacks, Peres was sent packing and Bibi moved forward with full public support. The Palestinians could pretty much kiss a dick at this point.
no, it's really not.
everyone's got their own account of this event: Shlomo Ben-Ami, Clinton, Ross, Rob Malley. It's hard to get ahold of accurate maps because they weren't officially printed. The proposals that the Israelis made became a political liability for them following Arafat's rejection.
Ben-Ami's interview with Ha'aretz is good though.
And FMEP purports to have some accurate projections of the final proposals.
What is clear is that Arafat's team produced no counter-offer whatsoever, and that the violence that followed was planned at a high level to pop off soon after the talks failed (Sharon's Temple Mount visit was provocative to be sure; but don't beleive the hype).
To put things into perspective, Barak returned from Camp David/Taba without a peace deal, and as a result was politically dead in the water. He didn't even have a majority in Parliament anymore.
Arafat, on the other hand, came back to a ticker tape parade in Gaza, thousands of Palestinians cheering for his "brave" refusal to make peace.
It's an attack, like previous ones, but it's not war. If reports are correct Hezbollah has some new missiles that can reach Tel Aviv perhaps. If Hezbollah wanted a real war missiles would be reigning down all over Israel, not just the north, and Israel would be plowing into Southern Lebanon up to Beirut probably.
crossing into someone's territory and abducting two soldiers and killing another three is an act of war. so is launching a missile from one territory into another. It's not a big giant awful war, but these are acts of war.
Vitamin
So everytime Palestinians launch missiles into Israel that counts as a war? They shoot missiles, Israel will usually shoot some artillery. It's over in one day, and that's a war? Acts of war and having an actual war with someone seem to be two different things.
What would you call it....unexpected rude interruptions???
It's an attack, which Israel has had many of.
Do you really think that when this is over in a week or two, and people start writing articles and perhaps books on it, they're going to call it the "Hezbollah-Israeli 3 week war"? They're probably not. Nor are they going to call each one of those Palestinian missile attacks, the July 2006 one-day Palestinian-Israeli missile war, the June 2006 one-day Palestinian-Israeli missile war, etc.
To get regional with you Rock, when Pancho Villa was raiding Southern Texas and the U.S. finally sent General Pershing after him into Mexico, do they call that the Pancho Villa-U.S. war of 1916? Actually, I take that back, they just might in Texas.