Israel - Palestine

[luutzu]

You have certainly put a lot of words in my mouth there. This is what I said and was referring to the Sam Harris article:



I said it then and have repeated it enough times that you should not need to draw such conclusions. I said I was shocked by what Israel did and that it was an overreaction. That they were in an impossible situation is beyond doubt. You simply cannot allow Hamas to fire rockets at your cities, but must do something to stop them. Was what they did correct? No, it was shocking and over the top.

None of my posts have condoned Israel's actions, but have sought to expose the role of Hamas in what is going on.

To be honest, I don't even think I was drawing any conclusion - you have already done it, i merely put it another way.

I don't think you care for the points made and facts stated by such authority as Finkelstein and Walt of Harvard regarding who started the current incursion;

Don't think you care for the conclusions I've point to, twice, that a former Israeli Foreign Minister/Historian made that with possible exception of the 1948 war, all Israeli wars had been of choice or folly;

Any respected scholar on the subject would agree with Noam Chomsky's conclusion that when given the choice of peace or expansion, like one given to Israel by Sadat of Egypt in 1971 when there's no such thing as a Palestinian Authority, Israel had always chosen expansion.

That's fine... just it's insulting to people's sense of morality and intelligence when you want to expand, when you oppress people for 47 years, and turn around blaming them for firing useless rockets, home made rockets at you.

That's just as laughable as being persecuted for your faith/race then turn around and create a country based on the same idiocies like "pure" blood, superior God...

 

[luutzu]

Bellenuit,

Just out of curiosity, did you vote for Abbott in the last election?
Assume that you did, and assume that I don't like Abbott and Abbott have stated that he's going to do nasty thing to me, he won't take my calls and won't take my money... and you voted for him.

Now, assume that I then lock you in your house, control your water, your food supplies, your fuel and electricity... and whenever I feel like it, come over and break doors and knock heads... just to show you how bad Abbott is to you.

Then now and then you try to fight back with relatively useless weapons (and I don't mean any disrespect or make light of the Israeli deaths), I then burnt half your house, kill your dog then blame you for forcing me to do nasty things...

I hope you'll be as understanding of my impossible situation if that ever happen.

And oh, imagine that my house was part of your homeland, and your home is now a shed outback; and imagine that while you certainly don't like to have lost 80% of your home to me, you grudgingly want a settlement in the shed if only I let you free to move and live, but i said no deal.

I could just see how if i were to do that, I could win the humanitarian award of the year... at least your understanding of my impossible situation.

 

[bellenuit]

Bellenuit,

Just out of curiosity, did you vote for Abbott in the last election?
Assume that you did, and assume that I don't like Abbott and Abbott have stated that he's going to do nasty thing to me, he won't take my calls and won't take my money... and you voted for him.

Now, assume that I then lock you in your house, control your water, your food supplies, your fuel and electricity... and whenever I feel like it, come over and break doors and knock heads... just to show you how bad Abbott is to you.

Then now and then you try to fight back with relatively useless weapons (and I don't mean any disrespect or make light of the Israeli deaths), I then burnt half your house, kill your dog then blame you for forcing me to do nasty things...

I hope you'll be as understanding of my impossible situation if that ever happen.

And oh, imagine that my house was part of your homeland, and your home is now a shed outback; and imagine that while you certainly don't like to have lost 80% of your home to me, you grudgingly want a settlement in the shed if only I let you free to move and live, but i said no deal.

I could just see how if i were to do that, I could win the humanitarian award of the year... at least your understanding of my impossible situation.

As I said, Israel's reaction to Hamas rocket firing was shocking and over the top. The correct response would have been to try and neutralise Hamas (Abbott in your example) with as little collateral damage to Palestinians (or to me in your example) as possible. The correct response from observers witnessing what is going on would be to call Hamas out (or Abbott in your example) for what he is advocating and doing and not simply condemn one side.

Your analogy is flawed because you are asserting that it is the Palestinian people (me) that are fighting back with useless rockets. It is Hamas (Abbott) that is firing the rockets and it is only the high success rate of the anti-missile defences that render them useless. Their rocket fire is also not in defence of the Palestinian people but to provoke a deadly response in order to garner sympathy from myopic demonstrators on the streets and on the net.

 

[Julia]

Bellenuit,

Just out of curiosity, did you vote for Abbott in the last election?
Assume that you did, and assume that I don't like Abbott and Abbott have stated that he's going to do nasty thing to me, he won't take my calls and won't take my money... and you voted for him.

Now, assume that I then lock you in your house, control your water, your food supplies, your fuel and electricity... and whenever I feel like it, come over and break doors and knock heads... just to show you how bad Abbott is to you.

Then now and then you try to fight back with relatively useless weapons (and I don't mean any disrespect or make light of the Israeli deaths), I then burnt half your house, kill your dog then blame you for forcing me to do nasty things...

I hope you'll be as understanding of my impossible situation if that ever happen.

And oh, imagine that my house was part of your homeland, and your home is now a shed outback; and imagine that while you certainly don't like to have lost 80% of your home to me, you grudgingly want a settlement in the shed if only I let you free to move and live, but i said no deal.

I could just see how if i were to do that, I could win the humanitarian award of the year... at least your understanding of my impossible situation.

That's an entirely disingenuous construction and has no genuine relativity to the Palestinian/Israel problem.

I don't know enough about Hamas to make any stance,

Yet this admission does not seem to have stopped you taking a distinct 'side', as distinct from those of us who have recognised the enormous problems for both sides.

You're ignoring all the facts that just about every objective observer have said regarding who broke all the ceasefires; most importantly, you're ignoring reality and real political objectives of any leadership.

A 72 hour ceasefire was agreed to by both sides today. It was only three hours underway when it was broken.
At the time I heard that, it was unclear which side had taken the first potshot.

However, since you have above asserted who 'broke all the ceasefires' perhaps you could detail this here, with supporting evidence via reliable links.

Maybe because I didn't bother to look things up before, but I've only seen two documentaries a long time ago that talk about this conflict, and both of the one i saw simply show the daily hardships and suffering of the Palestinians under occupation.

So on the basis of watching two documentaries (do you think it's remotely possible that any documentary on this inflammatory topic could be presented with a particular bias?), you now are completely clear about who is at fault in this awful situation.

What you wrote is still there for anyone to take a look, I didn't put word in your mouth.

That's not how it appears to me as a reader of your remarks. You have misinterpreted and misrepresented what others have said in many posts.

I don't know the origin or the make up of Hamas, but from Finkelstein and Stephen Walt and others, they have said that Hamas, whatever their original intention or rhetorics, was forming a unity party recently with the PA and want to negotiate with Israel... Israel do not.

Again, so although you have done minimal investigation into the whole complex subject, you have formed a clear and unequivocal view. Oh my.

While I don't know Hamas or claim to read their minds, I think I do know enough about politics and history to say that people, if you see them as people like ourselves, don't win wars by wishing they could, would surrender and accept some kind of a settlement, some kind of a bargain that would show their people that at least they didn't completely sold them out.

People are generally realistic about the world.

Really? Religious and political extremist zealots included?

A curious observation if I may:

Generally, the left supports Hamas, the right supports Israel.

Why?

I think only the uninformed support either of them, they are both crazy.

But I think your general observation is true. It's a "Conservative vs radical" mindset again. The Israeli government is a far right religious organisation (ring any bells ?) and the Left are against anyone the Right supports.

The more idealistic on the Left don't like the Establishment crushing the "little people", and so they will support the underdog.

Conservatives don't like upstarts who challenge the "natural order" so they support the status quo.

Does that make sense to people ?

I've had the same sense as expressed by Wayne, not just on this forum, but across general society, the ABC in particular as an archetypal Left organisation.
Rumpole, yes, as a broad observation but any such complete alignment with one side or the other still leaves me puzzled considering how extraordinarily complex the whole situation is.

Agree especially with Retired Young's very rational remarks.

 

[bellenuit]

Some excerpts from the Hamas Covenant 1988.

Article 7:

Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

Article 8:

Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.

Article 11:

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?

Article 13 (On Peaceful Solutions, Initiatives and International Conferences):

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement..........

.... There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

Article 16:

It is necessary to follow Islamic orientation in educating the Islamic generations in our region by teaching the religious duties, comprehensive study of the Koran, the study of the Prophet's Sunna (his sayings and doings), and learning about Islamic history and heritage from their authentic sources. This should be done by specialised and learned people, using a curriculum that would healthily form the thoughts and faith of the Moslem student. Side by side with this, a comprehensive study of the enemy, his human and financial capabilities, learning about his points of weakness and strength, and getting to know the forces supporting and helping him, should also be included. Also, it is important to be acquainted with the current events, to follow what is new and to study the analysis and commentaries made of these events. Planning for the present and future, studying every trend appearing, is a must so that the fighting Moslem would live knowing his aim, objective and his way in the midst of what is going on around him.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

I am sure there are also Jewish holy texts that have bequeathed the same land to the Jews, but that is hardly a reason to ignore the goals of Hamas. Both sides are at fault.

Now some may argue that Hamas has renounced wanting all disputed lands, including Israel itself, to be under Islamic Sharia control and will accept a 2 State solution. However, they have refused to amend their charter to accomodate that saying that was impossible to do (one wonders why). But in any case, as followers of Taqqiya, they are fully aware that lying to achieve political objectives that promote Islam is acceptable. Some interesting reading on this:

Taqqiya - An Tactic of Lying, Concealment

Islamists interpret their scripture to say that they are allowed to lie about the nature of Islam in order to further their political goals.

http://www.clarionproject.org/understanding-islamism/taqqiya-tactic-lying-concealment

 

[bellenuit]

This may or may not be true, but he seems to have received it through several sources....

Israeli-Palestinian cease fire lasts four hours, broken by Hamas rockets and kidnapping an Israeli soldier

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...as-rockets-and-kidnapping-an-israeli-soldier/

One source....

Robert Serry, the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, condemned Palestinians for breaking the agreed-to ceasefire, which was supposed to last for 72 hours.

And a point I make over and over again (from the blog author)....

One might almost think that Hamas doesn’t want a cease-fire, but prefers the carnage to continue so that it can gain the approbation of the West that comes from Israel’s retaliation. What other explanation is there for breaking this agreement by firing rockets and kidnapping a soldier?

 

[luutzu]

That's an entirely disingenuous construction and has no genuine relativity to the Palestinian/Israel problem.

Yet this admission does not seem to have stopped you taking a distinct 'side', as distinct from those of us who have recognised the enormous problems for both sides.

A 72 hour ceasefire was agreed to by both sides today. It was only three hours underway when it was broken.
At the time I heard that, it was unclear which side had taken the first potshot.

However, since you have above asserted who 'broke all the ceasefires' perhaps you could detail this here, with supporting evidence via reliable links.

So on the basis of watching two documentaries (do you think it's remotely possible that any documentary on this inflammatory topic could be presented with a particular bias?), you now are completely clear about who is at fault in this awful situation.

That's not how it appears to me as a reader of your remarks. You have misinterpreted and misrepresented what others have said in many posts.

Again, so although you have done minimal investigation into the whole complex subject, you have formed a clear and unequivocal view. Oh my.


Really? Religious and political extremist zealots included?


I've had the same sense as expressed by Wayne, not just on this forum, but across general society, the ABC in particular as an archetypal Left organisation.
Rumpole, yes, as a broad observation but any such complete alignment with one side or the other still leaves me puzzled considering how extraordinarily complex the whole situation is.

Agree especially with Retired Young's very rational remarks.

The scenario sounds like a bad fiction I agree, but maybe give me some credit for trying to analogise it with actual history and current events.

As they say, sometimes the truth are stranger than fictions... and what Israel has done is a joke if it weren't so tragic.

---
I didn't say my view was formed on the basis of those two documentaries. I remember clearly saying that those were the only thing i look at a while back, probably before the internet, or at least before anything like youtube was around... And also, since they only show the side of the Palestinians, I don't know why the Israeli does what it does.

I did say that from those two documentaries, I did NOT form any opinions except for the normal reaction one gets when one see a person's home being torn down because of something their son did. If you read again, I have said that even then, I thought maybe Israel was tough but was only trying to defend itself.


Maybe I'm just a genius, and I assure you I am not, but the subject is quite simple to understand.

That is, once you accept the possibilities that maybe the Jewish Israeli people are also human and could lie, could commit atrocities, could fight wars, could take people's land as any other race in the history of the world (yes, Palestinians included) has when they have the might to do so... then it's quite simple to accept facts and arguments made by renown scholars and political scientists and Human Rights reports.

I don't read on this subject, I youtube the subject and go to the lectures given by such people as Noam Chomsky, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Norman Finkelstein...

So you can fault me in not going to the primary sources, that I get my info second or third hand. That's fair enough, but not important because if you listen to their arguments, the facts they presented and the logic of their conclusions make perfect sense.

How do i know? I guess because I know a thing or two about people and about world affairs, know when I'm being sold a lemon and know when I'm listening to intelligent arguments.

So while I can't give you a report or a link to each case of Israel not accepting peaceful settlements, you can search the lectures and the debates given by the people above.

One reason one I saw is by Noam Chomsky:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV3YnZnL99M

Skip to minute 55 where he concludes the three possibilities to the conflict, and what has been the policies of Israel-US to now: To take what is valuable in the land of Palestine, leave the Palestinians isolated in cantons/enclaves and so they are theoretically independent and no civil rights movement, no responsibilities.

also minute 137 - 141: Answer to an example of Israel-US and Egypt's peace settlement.

Combine that with what former US president Jimmy Carter said in his interviews on his book "Palestinian Peace, not Apartheid". Where a former US president said what he observed in the West Bank is Israeli building walls not on the 1967 borders, but on what is left of Palestinian West Bank - taking a further 10% of the West Bank thereby... where the border/wall then goes over Israeli settlements, where the Israeli settles and choose the best and most fertile land in the WB and segregate it into small enclaves by roads and check points - this was in his interview with a Canadian show in 2010 or so.

With Chomsky, at minutes 17 he quoted an Israeli leadership as saying something like "we have to make sure the Palestinian will know they will get nothing from us, that they will live like dogs or get out". Chomsky points out that those who can have gotten out, those who cannot must stay and enjoy life there I suppose.

You can listen to various lectures by Norman Finkelstein... he give numerous examples of Israeli's peaceful intentions. Again, sometime Finkelstein can use strong language, but I agree with Prof. John Mearsheimer's opinion of him is that his insights are remarkably accurately, just maybe his language and wording could be tone down a bit on such controversial topics.

You can again argue that I don't check out these people's sources to verify their conclusions before agreeing with them... but I tend to only ask that kind of questions when the conclusions are just preposterous and suspect.

Example, Mearsheimer points out that if you're a nuclear power, no one is going to start a war with you. That nuclear weapons are generally build for deterrent/defensive measures, not offensive... that makes sense and I believe I have spent some time to explain why I think it make sense - quoting JFK and all.

I don't need to go and read books to verify whether or not Israel was fighting defensive wars of survival because it is obvious to me that if you're a powerful military with the most advance weapons and unrelenting support from the world's only super power, your safety is pretty much assured when your neighbours are all militarily weak, when the Palestinians have no serious arms, no navy, no airforce, no anti aircraft weapons...

And it is self evident that Israel now controls the entirety of historic Palestine.

And if you need examples, I have point to Miko Peled's lecture - the son of a famous Israeli general etc. - where Peled said he read war room transcripts between his father and other Israeli generals recommending war against unprepared Arab states in 1967; you can also see confirmation of this by Chomsky above.

----
Except for some sarcasm now and then, I think I have made a balanced argument based on my understanding of materials from well researched and well reasoned arguments and conclusions by renown experts and scholars on the subject and on political and military matters.

I mean you could argue that I tend to fight for the little guy, but I came to the topic without any interests to support one side or the other... In fact, if anything I ought to dislike the Palestinians because two Arab looking men broke into my house while me and my family were at home and if it weren't for my parent seeing confronting them the moment they just broke in, I seriously don't know what would happen to us.

---

With regards to Hamas... as far as i'm concern, if they're not there, the same thing will just happen regardless - just different reasons from Israel.

You can say I'm pro Hamas or pro terrorism, I'm just pro peace and justice and abhor violence of any kind.

But it is true that I do not take these label of terrorists seriously. I'm neutral so have the luxury to see that soldiers do what they do, armies do what they do... to call them militants, terrorists or the Defence Forces, the good guy and the bad... that's too simplistic to me.

And lastly, I'm more interested on the matter now because as a citizen of the "western power", I am uncomfortable hearing how Mearsheimer and Walt point to evidence from the 911 Commission where they found that the mastermind of that terrorist attack does so in part, and it is a major but not the only reason, because of the hatred of western policies and supports of Israel's policies on the Palestinians.

In other words, I don't want injustice done in my name or with my support and where potential blowbacks from such acts my family, myself, you and us might have to pay for.

 

[luutzu]

Link to Chomsky's discussion regarding the latest Hamas-PA's unity party and the peace process that ended - May 2014.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEpn68BZIOY

 

[luutzu]

Some excerpts from the Hamas Covenant 1988.

Article 7:

Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

Article 8:

Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.

Article 11:

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?

Article 13 (On Peaceful Solutions, Initiatives and International Conferences):

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement..........

.... There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

Article 16:

It is necessary to follow Islamic orientation in educating the Islamic generations in our region by teaching the religious duties, comprehensive study of the Koran, the study of the Prophet's Sunna (his sayings and doings), and learning about Islamic history and heritage from their authentic sources. This should be done by specialised and learned people, using a curriculum that would healthily form the thoughts and faith of the Moslem student. Side by side with this, a comprehensive study of the enemy, his human and financial capabilities, learning about his points of weakness and strength, and getting to know the forces supporting and helping him, should also be included. Also, it is important to be acquainted with the current events, to follow what is new and to study the analysis and commentaries made of these events. Planning for the present and future, studying every trend appearing, is a must so that the fighting Moslem would live knowing his aim, objective and his way in the midst of what is going on around him.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

I am sure there are also Jewish holy texts that have bequeathed the same land to the Jews, but that is hardly a reason to ignore the goals of Hamas. Both sides are at fault.

Now some may argue that Hamas has renounced wanting all disputed lands, including Israel itself, to be under Islamic Sharia control and will accept a 2 State solution. However, they have refused to amend their charter to accomodate that saying that was impossible to do (one wonders why). But in any case, as followers of Taqqiya, they are fully aware that lying to achieve political objectives that promote Islam is acceptable. Some interesting reading on this:

Taqqiya - An Tactic of Lying, Concealment

Islamists interpret their scripture to say that they are allowed to lie about the nature of Islam in order to further their political goals.

http://www.clarionproject.org/understanding-islamism/taqqiya-tactic-lying-concealment

You might be interested to look at how non-Jewish Israelis are being treated in Israel; how black Jewish migrants are treated; how African refugees are treated and be labeled "infiltrators" by whiter, purer Jewish Israelis.

I don't know if Arab states are also as racist, but Israel certainly do not look and sound like a kind and progressive state to me.

 

[bellenuit]

You might be interested to look at how non-Jewish Israelis are being treated in Israel; how black Jewish migrants are treated; how African refugees are treated and be labeled "infiltrators" by whiter, purer Jewish Israelis.

I don't know if Arab states are also as racist, but Israel certainly do not look and sound like a kind and progressive state to me.

You simply don't get it, do you? Criticism of Hamas is not endorsement of Israel, its policies or the attitudes of its citizens.

I don't know if Arab states are also as racist

Then you really know very little. I'm done discussing this issue with you. You must be living in a complete vacuum.

 

[luutzu]

You simply don't get it, do you? Criticism of Hamas is not endorsement of Israel, its policies or the attitudes of its citizens.



Then you really know very little. I'm done discussing this issue with you. You must be living in a complete vacuum.

The premise is true and I agree, just it's somewhat dishonest since you clearly endorse Israeli policies.

I mean, if i say that a person being beaten up is sad and make my heart cry, but the beater is put in an "impossible situation" to have to do the beating. What am I really saying? That his hand was forced, that he didn't want to beat people up, just it's impossible not to do something.

Anyway, Chomsky just reminded me why I got into stocks in the first place. Back to it.

 

[IFocus]

I think only the uninformed support either of them, they are both crazy.

But I think your general observation is true. It's a "Conservative vs radical" mindset again. The Israeli government is a far right religious organisation (ring any bells ?) and the Left are against anyone the Right supports.

The more idealistic on the Left don't like the Establishment crushing the "little people", and so they will support the underdog.

Conservatives don't like upstarts who challenge the "natural order" so they support the status quo.

Does that make sense to people ?

Thats a fair assessment I think.

Israels ruling party has moved significantly to the right and the latest actions, public statements from high level ministers reassert that.

I dont hear much support backing Hamas as they hardly represent ideals from the left but think there is a lot of sympathy for the Palestinians and their plight.

 

[bellenuit]

The premise is true and I agree, just it's somewhat dishonest since you clearly endorse Israeli policies.

I mean, if i say that a person being beaten up is sad and make my heart cry, but the beater is put in an "impossible situation" to have to do the beating. What am I really saying? That his hand was forced, that he didn't want to beat people up, just it's impossible not to do something.

What you are really saying is that you will do every thing possible to tarnish me because you don't like the opinion I express and you appear to be working to some agenda. This became obvious when you continuously misconstrue what I have said which from the outset has been to call out Hamas as deserving of condemnation and not just Israel. You now, in spite of all I have written, claim that I was endorsing Israeli policies.

But I am aware of your subtle ploy. In response to me saying:

I think that article encapsulates what many of us feel about this conflict. Shocked with the overreaction of Israel, but somewhat understanding of the impossible situation they are in.

But you claimed that this is what I said, or as far as you remember this is what I said:

"I could be wrong in that you really didn't mean what you imply, but I think that when you say something like... it's heart breaking that a person is kill but the killer was in an "impossible situation", that it was either kill or be kill, that it was a fight for survival or Shoah... I don't think my conclusion was unfounded"

It was just now when trying to figure out your agenda that I bothered to check out what Shoah meant. It is the modern Hebrew word for the Holocaust. Why would you have tried to suggest that I was using Hebrew words?

But I have taken a look back though your posts and what do I find? You obviously know a lot about Middle Eastern politics which makes it obvious that you are well read and have done a fairly extensive study in that area. But then you come out with: "I don't know enough about Hamas to make any stance". Yeah, I'm sure you don't. You tell us you have only seen a few TV shows on Palestine, but then cite all this stuff that you have seen on TV about racism and hatred in Israel towards Palestinians. you provide lots of examples of various people from Israel criticising their own people, their own government etc., which is probably true, but belies your apparent ignorance of anything bad associated with the Palestinians or Arabs in general. What about this clanger:

"I don't know if Arab states are also as racist, but Israel certainly do not look and sound like a kind and progressive state to me."

You seem to know everything that is bad about Israel and the Israelis, but express complete ignorance when it comes to what may be bad on the non-Israeli side, particularly when they encompass some of the most intolerant nations on earth and atrocities committed in those countries against others, whether they be religious or ethnically based are in the news daily. And never mind the large scale murderous campaigns that are daily headline news, but we have horrendous stories of poor migrant workers from countries like the Philippines, Indonesia and Bangladesh being tortured and abused by employers of all sorts in Arabic countries. Poor Indonesian maids being whipped, raped, scalded and receiving other abuse from Saudi families. Bangladeshi and Indian workers not being paid for months on Dubai building sites and often kept in slavelike conditions with their passports held preventing return home, not that they can afford the fares.

But you, who has such a deep understanding of events in the ME and knowing the minutest detail of what is wrong in Israel, don't know anything about that other stuff.

 

[wayneL]

I think only the uninformed support either of them, they are both crazy.

But I think your general observation is true. It's a "Conservative vs radical" mindset again. The Israeli government is a far right religious organisation (ring any bells ?) and the Left are against anyone the Right supports.

The more idealistic on the Left don't like the Establishment crushing the "little people", and so they will support the underdog.

Conservatives don't like upstarts who challenge the "natural order" so they support the status quo.

Does that make sense to people ?

A the face of it that seems a reasonable assessment. But conservative and radical are relative assessments. Many leftist regimes are also conservative, in that they have 'establishments' that don't like challenges to the status quo.

The extremes of boths sides are ideological rather than pragmatic, the underdogs relative to who is top dog.

I wouldn't discount the religious influence, but not all of the right are religious, nor are all of the left agnostic atheist.

There must be something deeper.

 

[luutzu]

What you are really saying is that you will do every thing possible to tarnish me because you don't like the opinion I express and you appear to be working to some agenda. This became obvious when you continuously misconstrue what I have said which from the outset has been to call out Hamas as deserving of condemnation and not just Israel. You now, in spite of all I have written, claim that I was endorsing Israeli policies.

But I am aware of your subtle ploy. In response to me saying:

I think that article encapsulates what many of us feel about this conflict. Shocked with the overreaction of Israel, but somewhat understanding of the impossible situation they are in.

But you claimed that this is what I said, or as far as you remember this is what I said:

"I could be wrong in that you really didn't mean what you imply, but I think that when you say something like... it's heart breaking that a person is kill but the killer was in an "impossible situation", that it was either kill or be kill, that it was a fight for survival or Shoah... I don't think my conclusion was unfounded"

It was just now when trying to figure out your agenda that I bothered to check out what Shoah meant. It is the modern Hebrew word for the Holocaust. Why would you have tried to suggest that I was using Hebrew words?

But I have taken a look back though your posts and what do I find? You obviously know a lot about Middle Eastern politics which makes it obvious that you are well read and have done a fairly extensive study in that area. But then you come out with: "I don't know enough about Hamas to make any stance". Yeah, I'm sure you don't. You tell us you have only seen a few TV shows on Palestine, but then cite all this stuff that you have seen on TV about racism and hatred in Israel towards Palestinians. you provide lots of examples of various people from Israel criticising their own people, their own government etc., which is probably true, but belies your apparent ignorance of anything bad associated with the Palestinians or Arabs in general. What about this clanger:

"I don't know if Arab states are also as racist, but Israel certainly do not look and sound like a kind and progressive state to me."

You seem to know everything that is bad about Israel and the Israelis, but express complete ignorance when it comes to what may be bad on the non-Israeli side, particularly when they encompass some of the most intolerant nations on earth and atrocities committed in those countries against others, whether they be religious or ethnically based are in the news daily. And never mind the large scale murderous campaigns that are daily headline news, but we have horrendous stories of poor migrant workers from countries like the Philippines, Indonesia and Bangladesh being tortured and abused by employers of all sorts in Arabic countries. Poor Indonesian maids being whipped, raped, scalded and receiving other abuse from Saudi families. Bangladeshi and Indian workers not being paid for months on Dubai building sites and often kept in slavelike conditions with their passports held preventing return home, not that they can afford the fares.

But you, who has such a deep understanding of events in the ME and knowing the minutest detail of what is wrong in Israel, don't know anything about that other stuff.

I don't have any agenda. I'm Vietnamese for crying out loud.
I live in a area where there's a lot of Arab/Lebanese people but I am new to the area and don't have any Arab friends.. actually I don't have any friends as you can tell, haha...


It might appear that I have a thing for Hamas, but I don't think it's fair to take the fact that I neither defend nor support them to mean that I am on their side... I just don't know enough about them or what they've done, or bothered to look up their histories etc etc..

To me, they're a non-entity in what we're talking about.

To call out their acts of terror, to call them a terrorists... I don't look at such things for the same reason I don't look at the "terrorist" activities the Jewish Israeli did to fight the British, then the Palestinians before 1947.


They were elected by the Gazans, I do know that they kill a few of their fellow Palestinians - the Fatah leaderships in Gaza to get to power - do I support that? No!

I mean, you can blame Hamas if you like, and yes they're evil and criminals... what about the West Bank? As far as i've heard, there's no Hamas organisation in the WB, there's the Palestinian Authority right? So what's the explanations given for Israeli occupation and annexation of those territories?

What has been Israeli policies before Hamas? The same.

So Hamas is a non-entity as far as I'm concern.

---
There's racism in every culture, every country. And I've heard, I think it was from Prof. Walt, that surveys of Arabs have indicated they all pretty much hated the Israelis and almost all hated US policies. And if you look what the things the US and Israel has done to them or their people, it's easy to see why.

At the same time, I've said before, that Walt pointed out that the surveys show most Arabs prefer "western values", prefer democracies to the tyrants and religious fundamentalisms that are forced on them by tyrants whose power is backed by US might.

You might want to think that the Saudi Arabian citizens, the Arabs, there love the Saudi king or whatever they have there... but the Royal family in Saudi Arabia is only there because of the US... This is from the second Chomsky lecture cited above, where he also said that during the Iraqi wars, the Saudi have made it clear to the US that they don't mind and will support it etc etc.

So to say that all Arab nations and all Arab people are the same is just wrong; or to say that all Arab nation will wipe Israel off the map if they given the chance... That might be true but it's only true because when you are weak and the other is strong, they will take your country and subjugate your people - it's not true because they're the Arabs and they will only take over Israel because Jews live there.

As Chomsky also pointed out in that lecture at the end... the Arabs and the world doesn't care about what happened or what is happening to the Palestinians... and the reason they don't care is because the Palestinians have nothing to offer them... no oil, no gas, no money... to befriend a Palestinian is to befriend a beggar you have to feed, clothes, house and to get to do that, you'll have to go up against a mighty power backed by a super mighty power.

Who in their right mind would do that?

So all these claims about Arabian hordes and Israel fighting for survival, not only is it groundless given Israel and the Arab nations' history and dealings with Israel, it's nonsensical as a matter of logic and national self interest.

----

To your point about me looking at the racism in Israel and not in Arab countries. It's just my assumption that probably most Arabs dislike the Israeli Jews. No need to see why or if that's true.

I look at some clips surveying Israelis Jewish opinions because I was curious how it's like in Israel, what the Israeli think... And as I've said, I don't take these to represent the view of the Jewish people or even Israeli policies... though the little more that I look, the more racism I see in political and judiciary systems and laws.

You know, when the Israeli claims they're democratic, that they represents my values of justice and a fair go, where they say an Arab Israeli lives free and fair and could even be Israel's PM... I thought to take a look and see... and the results, while not conclusive, is Israel's policies and laws are racist.

I mean, beat up the Palestinians for all I care... I'm old enough and will slowly not be surprised at the things people do... but if Israel does it, don't do it in my name, don't drag my family and my country's values into it.


I saw a documentary titled "Why we Fight" in 2002/3... and in it an analysts/historian talks about "blowback" - a CIA term for retaliations for operations they have done. He was saying that 911 was a blowback, just on US soil.
You can assume that it's also in Bali, in London...

I am never excusing that terrorism or violence... and in many ways, I'm happy for myself and my children that the Western powers have to prop up dictators and control to world... because as far as i'm concern, that's good for me and my children.. .and I hope the US and the Western powers continue to dominate and China and Russia and all other powers remain weak lest my kids have to go to war...

I like to think i'm like this Australian diplomat I saw in a documentary a while back about how Australia draw its Exclusive Economic Zone using funny geographic and legal maths to take most of Indonesian or East Timor's claim to the gas fields. He said it's immortal and wrong and he feel terrible, but it's in Australia's national interests so he does it.

So Israel can lie and do what they do for their national interests, just don't use my name or lie to me about doing it to project my values and how we're both alike. Why? Because it's morally offensive what they're doing, doing it in my name, I get no benefit from it but might one day have to pay the price for their greed.

 

[SirRumpole]

There must be something deeper.

I'm sure there is, but you made a very general statement which could only be answered with a very general reply.

For example, if we consider other religious caliphates (which Hamas want to form out of Palestine/Israel), would we consider those either Left or Right wing ?

Saudi Arabia could be considered Right wing as it is ruled by a small number of very rich people, while Iran could be considered Left Wing as it is ruled by a large council, with an appointed Head of State (maybe similar to China). Both are highly religious autocracies and I wonder whether our traditional definitions of Left and Right actually apply in either case.

 

[DeepState]

So Israel can lie and do what they do for their national interests, just don't use my name or lie to me about doing it to project my values and how we're both alike. Why? Because it's morally offensive what they're doing, doing it in my name, I get no benefit from it but might one day have to pay the price for their greed.

Here is a video from an important source of knowledge, YouTube. It is even set to music. It relates to a lie the Western alliance, including Australia's Prime Minister, concocted in our name in order to invade another sovereign state. It resulted in the deaths of over 7,000 military personnel. It led to the deaths and permanent wounding of many many more who just wanted to get on with their lives, but had their doors kicked in routinely and much worse. It has left a power vacuum which has now destabilized the country, region, and created blowback of enormous proportion....

Where did you say you lived?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjJ6COsJQcc

Forget about Israel. This is in your backyard.

 

[Macquack]

Israel has invaded another country and has weapons of mass destruction.

I think we should go in and kick Benjamin Netanyahu ass, the same way we gave it to Saddam Hussein (who did not even have weapons of mass destruction).

 

[noco]

Israel has invaded another country and has weapons of mass destruction.

I think we should go in and kick Benjamin Netanyahu ass, the same way we gave it to Saddam Hussein (who did not even have weapons of mass destruction).

So you believe that Hamas are the good guys?

We are hearing a lot about Israel and Palestine where 1270 have been killed in 23 days but we have not heard much about Syria where 1500 were killed yesterday in one day.

Muslims fighting Muslims.

 

[Macquack]

So you believe that Hamas are the good guys?

We are hearing a lot about Israel and Palestine where 1270 have been killed in 23 days but we have not heard much about Syria where 1500 were killed yesterday in one day.

Muslims fighting Muslims.

There you go again, "I hate all muslims".

One atrocity at a time, please.

Also, you "cut and paste" everything else, so how about some links to the number of deaths that you have provided?