babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Israeli citzens murdered in Egypt

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Israeli citzens murdered in Egypt
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 07 October 2004 10:19 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Another mass murder of IsraelisKnowing it was the Jewish holy days of Succoth, the murdered laid a trap wiping out literally dozens of innocent people. Clearly they were targeted because they were israelis.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 07 October 2004 10:41 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, no argument there, it is horrible.

I don't care for CNN, so I went to BBC news and Haaretz - it is top story on both: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/485939.html

I'm wondering who is behind such a concerted attack. Almost evocative of Al Qaida.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 October 2004 10:56 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No it is certainly Hamas or Islamic Jihad, in my view. After Sharon escalated the war to an international forum by the assassination in Syria last week, Hamas made noises about no longer adhereing to the policy of only conducting operations in Israel. Sharon's brinksmanship kills a bunch of innocent Israelis once again.

When are they going to lock the lunatic up?

[ 07 October 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
RookieActivist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4089

posted 07 October 2004 10:59 PM      Profile for RookieActivist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I thought the cause was still unknown. When the story first broke it was thought it was a boiler explosion.

Still, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was Hamas.


From: me to you | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 October 2004 11:12 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So lets puts this in its proper context:

THIS:

Hamas leader killed in Syria, official says

quote:
Israeli news media and The Associated Press, citing unnamed Israeli security sources, said Israel was involved in the killing of Izz al-Din al-Sheikh Khalil. Israeli officials had no comment to CNN about the death of Khalil.


Hamas threatens to target Israelis abroad

THEN THIS:

quote:
"We have let hundreds of thousands of Zionists travel and move in capitals of the world in order not to be the party which transfers the struggle. But the Zionist enemy has done so and should bear the consequences of its actions," said the statement by Izz el-Deen al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas.

THEN this most recent attack. Thanks for keeping us up to date, while trying to keep us in the dark one more time Macabee


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 07 October 2004 11:47 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tit-for-tat. Now globally. The devolution of man.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 08 October 2004 12:38 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sharon's brinksmanship kills a bunch of innocent Israelis once again.
Well that of course is ridiculous. Islamic terrorists were the murderers here not Sharon. At least that's how it is seeming to shape up. But of course its alays easier to blame the Israelis.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 08 October 2004 12:45 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did he do that? Of course he didn't. What he demonstrated was that Israel extended the battle beyond the existing borders.

It was a stupid, stupid thing to do.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Patrick Mundy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6576

posted 08 October 2004 12:59 AM      Profile for Patrick Mundy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's like saying that the United States murdered those 3,000 civilians who died on September 11th.

A spade is spade, and the killers are the one to blame.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 08 October 2004 01:02 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you for bringing that up. The United States was attacked within its borders on 9/11 and the United States claimed the right to go where ever the "enemy" is to kill them, right?

Israel has claimed the same right attacking political leaders in Syria?

Is it your argument Palestinians do not have the same rights to make their battles extraterritorial as does the US and Israel? Why not?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 08 October 2004 01:06 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Patrick:

No it is not. Cueball uses phrasing I would not, but no one is to blame for these specific acts other than those who have committed them. And they are horrible and unjustifiable.

But understanding "why" is important. Macabee points out rightly that the targets were Israelis; but everyone knows that if it simply Israelis qua Israelis that are the target, well, there's a whole country right there to target.

The reason these people were targetted is plain: it is a retaliation to Israel's internationalization of the armed conflict. That does not justify what happened today; it explains it in its grim logic.

[ 08 October 2004: Message edited by: Coyote ]


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 08 October 2004 01:07 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well said.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 08 October 2004 01:30 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Is it your argument Palestinians do not have the same rights to make their battles extraterritorial as does the US and Israel? Why not?


Battling innocent people asleep in their beds. Very brave...

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 08 October 2004 01:33 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Battling innocent people asleep in their beds. Very brave...
I've seen civilian Palestinian homes blown to rubble, Macabee. You want to take the moral high ground, here? Work to end the occupation that is killing innocents on both sides.

[ 08 October 2004: Message edited by: Coyote ]


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Patrick Mundy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6576

posted 08 October 2004 01:42 AM      Profile for Patrick Mundy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Thank you for bringing that up. The United States was attacked within its borders on 9/11 and the United States claimed the right to go where ever the "enemy" is to kill them, right?

Israel has claimed the same right attacking political leaders in Syria?

Is it your argument Palestinians do not have the same rights to make their battles extraterritorial as does the US and Israel? Why not?


Israel is responsible for killing Palestinians and Palestinians are responsible for killing Israelis if both groups do so.

I didn't bring up anything as to the United States having the right to go all over the world to hunt down those with indirect or direct links to those responsible.

--- Coyote --- I appreciate you giving a less than aggressive criticism of my point, and not implying that I'm taking a stance on the situation.

All that should be deduced from what I've said, is that the Al-Qaeda was responsible for September 11th, Israel is responsible for killing the Palestinians recently, and those who killed the Israelis at the resort hotels are responsible.

[ 08 October 2004: Message edited by: Patrick Mundy ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 08 October 2004 01:54 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Battling innocent people asleep in their beds. Very brave...
I disagre. It is as cowardly as firing a missile into a crowded block or razing the crops of farmers.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 08 October 2004 01:56 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I didn't bring up anything as to the United States having the right to go all over the world to hunt down those with indirect or direct links to those responsible.


Yes, you did by implication ... or why mention the United States at all?

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 08 October 2004 02:18 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It seems like whenever terrorists attack Israelis we get an earful about how this is "understandable" because Israel did this and that.

Of course, no one ever wants to explore the reasons why Israel attacks palestinian targets.

Sure, Sharon's policies indirectly cause more terrorist attacks on Israelis (though when Israel has had moderate Labour Party governments that were extending the hand of friendship to the Arabs, these aytrocities still went on). BUt then again, were it not for Hamas and Arafat and their unprovoked terrorist attacks, Israel would have no reason to launch any attacks on Palestinians either.

Just think, if there had never been any Palestinian terrorist attacks whatsoever over the last 10 years, there would probably be full employment in the PA, every Palestinian with a demolished home would have a home that was standing. Why doesn't Hamas wake up and realize that everytime they launch these attacks, ordinary palestinans get punished. If they cared about their own people at all, they would simply lay down all their arms and disband.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 08 October 2004 02:47 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As blathered by Stockholm:
Just think, if there had never been any Palestinian terrorist attacks whatsoever over the last 10 years, there would probably be full employment in the PA, every Palestinian with a demolished home would have a home that was standing. Why doesn't Hamas wake up and realize that everytime they launch these attacks, ordinary palestinans get punished. If they cared about their own people at all, they would simply lay down all their arms and disband.

Jesus Christ did say stuff about turning one's other cheek, but if doing it gets one killed I can see why one wouldn't be too keen on the idea.

Let me put it to you this way: You think I'd just stand there and do nothing if you just walked up to me and slapped me? Hell no. I'd sock you one back. If you then came back with an RPG, I'd damn well get my own RPG. Look up something called "proportional response" and you might get an idea for why Hamas is doing what it's doing. Here's a BIG hint to help you: Ask yourself what the IDF has been doing in the last ten years. It most certainly has not been just sitting on its fat collective butt sucking down government money and lolling about on a lawn chaise like half the US military did in the 1980s and 1990s when it was a glorified employer of last resort and not much else besides.

-----

Incidentally, the hotel itself has been made structurally unsafe. Apparently several floors have collapsed.

I was surprised to hear of an attack in Taba, as I had never heard of a suicide bombing or a rocket attack outside Israel's borders except for the Hezbollah activities in Lebanon, which could be considered a direct military conflict due to the IDF's semipermanent occupation of the southern part of that country.

But this is the first time a direct attack on Israeli civilians has taken place outside the borders of Israel, to my knowledge. While correlation is not causation, it seems to me that there would have to be a good reason, in Hamas's eyes, to do this and apparently the extranational attack on a Palestinian-Arab in Syria was the precipitating factor.

Sorry, Macabee, but a completely dispassionate analysis still leads to the inescapable conclusion that the escalation is not the fault of the Palestinian-Arab faction in this case.

[ 08 October 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 08 October 2004 03:10 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Israel is responsible for killing Palestinians and Palestinians are responsible for killing Israelis if both groups do so.


Patrick if only life were so simple. Even in warfare there are always tacit understandings. For instance no armies used gas warfare during WW2, even though the option was open to all. Those who first act to change the manner of warfare are those who are responsible for escalating the 'game.' Had Hitler, say gassed London, there is no doubt in my mind that Churchill would have gassed Berlin, simple. In fact the terror bombing of cities at all is largely blamed on the German escalation the London Blitz. The same is true of this conflict.

This is what you are probably not aware of (Posted from another thread : )

quote:
The Palestinian ball has been booted around the Arab world for so many decades and the result was its transformation of a loose grouping of various political tendencies into an independent discreet political entity called the PLO. This entity developed parrallel power structures within all of its host countries and became as much of an annoyance to their hosts as they were to the Israelis.

Nonetheless, the fact is that the Palestinian militant organizations such as the PFLP of George Habash explicitly announced that they were not going to engage in activities outside of the Palestine/Israel region, known to them as the "internal area." And continued to modify its position under his successor, Abu Ali Mustapha in the direction of appeasing Fatah's desire to seek a truce and peace accord with Israel under Oslo. Mustapha was assassinated in 2000, under the orders fo Areil Sharon, and he was replaced by a much more radicalized leader (Sadat.)

Even the IDF report that read on the Mustapha assassination, essentially admitted that the assassination of Mustapha (the first targetted killing of a Palestinian leader) succeeded in radicalizing the PFLP, not pacifying it. The immediate response was the PFLP assassination of the (Sharon's long time friend) Israels Tourism minister and Arch-transferist, Ze'evi (AKA Ghandi.) In a large part the siege of Arafat's Ramallah compound was made with the objective of capturing the leadership of the PFLP whom organized this assassination. It succeeded.

The reason the I bring this up is because it reveals a patern to Sharon's thinking that is present in this most recent assassination in Syria. When Sharon ordered the assassination of Mustapha he knew that he was breaking an tacit understanding bewteen the parties in conflict that neither Israel nor the Palestinians would target top officials. In doing so escalated the terms of the conflict, resulting in direct attacks against Israeli leadership, that then justifed further far reaching attacks against Palestinians.

Likewise this assassination is an escalation of the conflict beyond the borders of Israel. My conclusion is that Sharon intends to internationalize the conflict in the shadow of the "US war on terror," so that his enemies become our enemies, for the express purposes of justifying a military solution to the Israeli conflict with Palestinians.

It is in a sense a form of entrapment (in the legal sense). He creates a situation were it is politcally impossible for his enemies not to respond with violence, and then when they do, he esclates the violence again.


It is Sharon who first targetted leadership, (of limite prior to the killing of Mustapha) and it is Shraon who has now escalated this conflict so that it is internationalized.

[ 08 October 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 08 October 2004 03:27 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It seems like whenever terrorists attack Israelis we get an earful about how this is "understandable" because Israel did this and that.

It seems like it is impossible for you to say anything analyitc, without saying something moralists. As a consequence, it seems you are unable read any analysis by others without immediatly trying to give it a moral value. Did you ever think that people might just be trying to figure out what is happening, as opposed to making excuses for things?

It seem like anytime even raises the possibility that Palestinians actions come from any place other than pure spite, and try to attach logic to there actions you wade in spitting and frothing.

What is it? Palestinians only operate on hatred. They don't plan? They dont think? They don't weight the options? You dont think we should try to understand it?

No. Thats right. Lets just close our eyes, walk down the alley blind and prey we get through it! And hey, if we step on a stray dog while were are doing it, and it bites us its the dogs fault not ours.

[ 08 October 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 08 October 2004 08:51 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:


I was surprised to hear of an attack in Taba, as I had never heard of a suicide bombing or a rocket attack outside Israel's borders except for the Hezbollah activities in Lebanon, which could be considered a direct military conflict due to the IDF's semipermanent occupation of the southern part of that country.

But this is the first time a direct attack on Israeli civilians has taken place outside the borders of Israel, to my knowledge. While correlation is not causation, it seems to me that there would have to be a good reason, in Hamas's eyes, to do this and apparently the extranational attack on a Palestinian-Arab in Syria was the precipitating factor.

Sorry, Macabee, but a completely dispassionate analysis still leads to the inescapable conclusion that the escalation is not the fault of the Palestinian-Arab faction in this case.

[ 08 October 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


Is that so Dr. Well it seems that you forgot this:


quote:
Thursday's bombings brought to mind the November 2002 attack in the Kenyan city of Mombasa, when three suicide bombers blew up the Israeli-owned Paradise Hotel, killing 12 people. That blast came just after assailants fired two missiles at an Israeli charter plane carrying 271 people but missed their target.



CNN

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 October 2004 09:17 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They were speculating on the news today that perhaps it was al-Qaeda and not Hamas.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 08 October 2004 09:37 AM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Well that of course is ridiculous. Islamic terrorists were the murderers here not Sharon. At least that's how it is seeming to shape up. But of course its alays easier to blame the Israelis.
Ok, You say Islamic Terrorists, but when someone says the "Jews" when Israel is involved in a crime there is a big fuss on babble for saying that, and that we must refer to these criminals as Israeli's. I would expect the same for any situation, so let's refrain from pointing fingers until we know for sure who the attckers were. And call the murderers by there equivilant labels as you would expect for the Israeli murderers.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 08 October 2004 09:46 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps, Stockholm. since you can "understand" and "appreciate" Israeli violence if not Palestinian violence, (you could also understand nuking a civilian city), you could explain, when since 1948, among the masacres, the collective punishments, the daily humiliations, the scorched earth policies, etc ..., Israel ever stopped its continued expansion into the West Bank? Maybe you can demonstrate in light of eretz Israel, the emerging apartheid state, the ongoing discrimination and racism among Israelis toward Arabs, where you get the belief that Palestinian lives would be any different if they did not resist?

How do reconcile what you say with what Haaretz reports?

quote:
Sharon himself has repeatedly said, from the day he presented the disengagement initiative, that his plan is "Gaza for the Bank" - i.e. evacuation in Gaza and building the fence and expanding the settlement blocs with American backing in the West Bank.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/485989.html

Peace has not been rejected by Palestinians. It has been rejected by Israel.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 08 October 2004 10:14 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
They were speculating on the news today that perhaps it was al-Qaeda and not Hamas.

If I were Hamas I'd come forward real fast to make it clear that my organization is not "tag-teaming" with Al-Q.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 08 October 2004 11:31 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What good did that do for saddam in a culture where lies supercede truth?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 08 October 2004 11:35 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It seem like anytime even raises the possibility that Palestinians actions come from any place other than pure spite, and try to attach logic to there actions you wade in spitting and frothing.

What is it? Palestinians only operate on hatred. They don't plan? They dont think? They don't weight the options? You dont think we should try to understand it?


It seem like anytime even raises the possibility that Israeli actions come from any place other than pure spite, and try to attach logic to there actions you wade in spitting and frothing.

What is it? Israelis only operate on hatred. They don't plan? They dont think? They don't weight the options? You dont think we should try to understand it?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 08 October 2004 11:36 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Kenya attack on the Paradise Hotel was Al-Queda, not Hamas.

I will assume that this was an honest mistake on Macabee's part.

quote:
One of the three suicide terrorists who killed more than a dozen people in a hotel bombing here is identified by Israeli Army Radio as Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah -- a name that matches one of the most wanted al Qaeda terrorists sought by the FBI.

The name of another of the bombers -- Faed Ali Sayam, a Kenyan Muslim -- also is similar to the name of a wanted al Qaeda terrorist. Both of the men were indicted in connection with the deadly 1998 twin U.S. embassy bombings in Africa that killed 224 people.


In other words, this Sinai bombing, if the work of Hamas, is the fulfillment of their promise to take the war outside of Israel's borders. A chilling fulfillment, at that.

[ 08 October 2004: Message edited by: Briguy ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 08 October 2004 11:42 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It seem like anytime even raises the possibility that Israeli actions come from any place other than pure spite, and try to attach logic

I for one attach pure, cold logic to Israeli actions: the seizure of large swaths of the West Bank with the water that flows beneath it and the arable soil that covers it and a complete dispossesion of the native Palestinian population which will be cast into perpetual poverty and servitude. In other words, a cheap home invasion and robbery motivated by ethnic hatred.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 08 October 2004 12:06 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is a logic to Israeli actions. But 'logics' are often dependent on the ideology they spring from. Understand the ideological viewpoint, and its blindspots (pay close attention to these) and you can trace the logic. If it can be called that.
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 08 October 2004 12:09 PM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post
Ethnic hatred? Many quotes indicating such have recently been debunked.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=73&x_article=766


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 08 October 2004 12:10 PM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post
And here's part 2...

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=83&x_article=775


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 08 October 2004 12:14 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
None of the quotes inthat site have been posted here, so what are you referring to specifically?

Ethnic hatred? That is what I call racism.

So tell me, Joel, what makes Palestinians so different, that they are not entitled to the same rights and protections, from settlers?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 08 October 2004 12:23 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
God help us - the URL beasts are upon us with their appeals to authority.

Never mind CAMERA's own dubious credibility. Never mind the clear errors in their own 'debunking'...

No use derailing this thread chasing wild water fowl...

Joel, do you know about allotropes?

Some folks got blowed up good. It's bad. Add it to the body count in Gaza and in Iraq, and it's been a bad week for "civilisation".

[ 08 October 2004: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 08 October 2004 12:33 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course, if the Arabs had simply accepted the UN partition plan in 1947 instead of launch an illegal war of aggression against Israel, imagine what we would have now:

*A Palestinian state would have existed for the last 56 years that would consist of all of the West Bank, all of Gaza, large parts of the Galilee and those territories would have been contiguous

*Jerusalem would be under international control adn would be the Palestinian capital.

I wonder how often the Palestinians kick them themselves for the fact that they clould have had all this and instead they blew it!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 08 October 2004 12:36 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And marching out of the north, the great Swedish army of King Charles X, planting their tempting non sequitors like Sirens to draw us to the rocks and with hands that wave faster than any Middle Europe has ever seen. Yes, these great men of the North are a frightening lot indeed....
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 08 October 2004 01:09 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And if Israelis sought an accomodation and the formation of a secular, democratic state that guaranteed the rights of all people as opposed to massacaring and cleansing Israel from Palestinians, imagine where we could be now throughout the entire middle-east? Imagine a multi-ethnci, multi-cultural, multi-religious thriving constitutional democracy as an example to all peoples of all the world including the mid-east. But if you imagine that, Stockholm, your entire rationale for Israeli racism, apartheid and brutality washes away. So I guess that is out of the question.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 08 October 2004 02:11 PM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post
You are peddling a lie wingnut. You know very well that Hamas and others have sworn to destroy Israel.

Jews in the state you envisage would be second class citizens, facing the choice of forced conversion, or servitude, or death.

Your "guaranteed rights"

quote:
The mistreatment of Jews in Arab lands was universal. From the beginning of Islam in 622 C.E. Islam preached an anti-Jewish gospel. In 627 Mohammed's followers killed 900 Jews in Arabia for the “sin” of refusing conversion to the new religion. The Koran, the Scripture of the Moslems, includes these verses: (Sura 2:61) “They (the Jews) are consigned to humiliation and wretchedness. They brought the wrath of God upon themselves etc.” In Sura 5:64 “the Jews” are accused of corruption, in 5:76 “the Jews” are disobedient and in 21:9798 the Jews are the enemies of Allah and the angels. Jews, throughout Moslem history, had to pay a special tax. Jews were forbidden, on pain of death, to criticize the Koran. This applied to Christians as well. Jews were forbidden to touch a Moslem woman although Moslem men are allowed to deal with Jewish women. Jews were always excluded from public office, were not allowed to ride horses or camels, could not build a synagogue higher than a mosque, nor drink wine in public. Jews were not allowed to pray, except at home, and Jews had to get off the sidewalk if a Moslem passed by. A Jew could not testify in a Moslem court. In addition, Jews and Christians had to wear distinctive clothes including a yellow badge, an idea which was adopted by the Nazi brutes in the 1940’s.

But if you imagine that Wingnut, your entire rationale for Arab racism, apartheid and brutality washes away. So, I guess that is out of the question.


From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 08 October 2004 02:23 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, that is all very well and good.

In case anyone didn't notice, Hamas is expanding it's sphere of attacks outside of Israel proper (or improper, in the case of the OT)! This is in direct response to Sharon assassinating a Hamas leader in Damascus.

There. Now the meaningless, unnuanced, out of context views of history may continue...

Edited to add: Mossad is blaming Al-Queda for now, not Hamas. That assessment is based on the style of the attack, not on any one group claiming responsibility.

[ 08 October 2004: Message edited by: Briguy ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 08 October 2004 02:33 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The lie peddlers offer up more fruit, eh?

They say with for any cult to survive they must create an external enemy. With colonial war, the occupied must be savages but never human.

The history of Jews and Arabs has been long and mostly peaceful. By comparison, Europeans have massacred Jews far more often and far greater numbers in the last two thousand years than in the entire history of Jewsih and Arab relations.

And I bet, we will find Jews killed many, many Arabs also. Won't we?

So we find Jews have been persecuted primarily by Christians. But Israel will make Palestinians pay for it and will reduce them to mere animals as the christians so often did to Jews.

And we will justify it with ancient stories of ancient deaths.

And we will pull quotes of terrible things some Palestinians once said. But we will ignore the terrible things some Israelis have said because that doesn't fit with the portrait we are painting.

Jews came to Palestine with a mission to found a state. Problem was, someone else al;ready lived there. But rather than engage them in dialogue and found a constitutional state based on rule of law and guarantees of minority rights, they instead engaged in terrorism and then the forceful removal, complete with massacres, of much of the native population.

They then founded a state based upon religous privilege, and used practices akin to those uesed in South Africa to keep the colonialsts and the natives "apart" and ensure the natives were to remain less than equal in the new state.

Subsequent actions have been to alter the "facts on the ground" in a campaign of creeping colonialism further marginalizing the native population and denying basic political and human rights while de facto annexing the valuable lands and water resources.

So the Jews of Israel become the brutes they fear. And they claim justice.

Such a lie.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 08 October 2004 03:52 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm, as to the "Everything would be wonderful for the Palestinians if they would just not fight back" thing, look at the Oslo years.
Palestinians mostly stopped killing Israelis. Israel did not stop killing Palestinians. Homes and especially farms/orchards continued to be bulldozed. Settlements expanded rapidly, despite the whole Oslo deal being predicated on a settlement freeze; often this expansion was made possible by the bulldozing of previous Palestinian communities. Arrests and torture continued. Meanwhile on the economic front, Palestinians working in Israel saw their wages squeezed. The no-Palestinians road network was rapidly expanded, cutting the West Bank into ever tinier chunks; the checkpoint system expanded with it.

And I agree with various other posters: The reason it's happening is profit. Gain. Territory and resources. The need to feel good about oneself while taking such things and brutalizing those who try to keep them is, I think, the real reason behind the religious claims and the increasing ethnic demonization.

It goes "I want this stuff. But it would be wrong to take it. Unless--God said it was OK. Then it would be all right. Oh, but the people who have it now will fight to keep it, and I'll have to slaughter them to get it. That would be wrong--unless they're just a bunch of murderous savages, not really human. Then it would be OK, I can get all the stuff I want and not feel like I'm a greedy murdering scum. Cognitive dissonance and guilt resolved, as long as I can keep my face turned away from any inconvenient truths."

It's happened in history again and again and again and again. And sorry, but it's the people doing the taking and rationalizing who are in the wrong, not the people being taken from, even if those people do real nasty stuff in the attempt to keep what's theirs. You can condemn the real nasty stuff, but the basic question of who's in the right in the situation does not change.

And yes, this occurrence is almost certainly a direct result of Sharon's decision to internationalize the fight. He's probably laughing up his sleeve at the deaths, figuring they just boosted his re-election chances.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 08 October 2004 05:12 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From Aljazeera.net:

quote:
Some Palestinians believe the triple bombings targeting Israeli tourists at seaside resorts in Egypt's Sinai peninsula on Thursday night are a backlash against the ongoing Israel military offensive in the Gaza Strip.
...
A group calling itself Brigades of the Martyr Abd Allah Azzam and claiming to be part of Al-Qaida claimed responsibility on Friday for the bomb blasts, according to an Islamist website.
...
For its part, the main Palestinian Islamic resistance group Hamas has said it had nothing to do with the Sinai bombings, although its spokesman said he was not at all surprised by the attacks.

"Hamas' resistance strategy is very clear. It is in Palestine only," Fawzi Barhum, the Hamas spokesman, told Aljazeera from Gaza on Friday.



From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 08 October 2004 05:18 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What is Al Queida? Does it exist? Did we help invent it?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
aa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5228

posted 09 October 2004 01:21 AM      Profile for aa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting articles, Rubinstein is a very knowledgable commentator on Palestinian politics.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/473991.html

http://www.israelblog.org/Articles/the_Shin_Bet_wants_you_to_join_Qaida.html


From: montreal | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 09 October 2004 02:30 AM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post
Were it to turn out that Hamas were responsible for the attack, I don't think you could call it some kind of parity, or following Israel/Sharon's lead or what have you.

For it to be parity, the attack would have had to have targeted specifically Israeli military, or possibly political leadership, or the recent Israeli attack which supposedly changed things would have had to have been against random non-combatant Palestinians (rather than Hamas leadership) outside Israel+the Pal territories.

Now mind you, I don't think any of that matters, the locations of whatever attacks don't seem terribly important to me. It's not like its worse to be killed outside your home country/country-in-waiting than it is to be killed inside it.


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 October 2004 03:54 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is true. The problem that I think is being dicussed is not the morality of the attack, or its consquences for the people killed, but the escalation of the conflict to a broad international front. This means more casualties, in more places.

Sharon has conciously escalated the Palestine/Israel conflict in an attempt polarize the war. In a sense he wants to make the war on terrorism as outlined by the Bush adminstration and his war against the Palestinians the same war. He has done this in order to bring potential allies on side because he prefers to a military, not diplomatic conclusion, which he believes will favour Israel in its attempt to soldify Israel's hold over the West Bank.

He wants to make the war against Al Queida the same war as the one he is prosecuting against the Palestinians.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
aa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5228

posted 09 October 2004 05:01 AM      Profile for aa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Abba Eban, a leading Labour "dove" and Israeli foreign minister in 1967, once desciribed Israel's policy of targetting civillians in Lebanon as "a rational prospect, ultimately fullfilled, that afflicted populations would exert pressure for the cessation of hostilities."

In 1996, Israel lauched a sweeping attach against Lebanon. Prime Minister Shimon Peres, another Labour dove, explained why Lebanese civillians were targetted and delibaratly "terrorized"--in the words of a Human Rights Watch report--Peres said: "Unless the Lebanon government will be in a position to take charge of the situation in south Lebanon, the cost of the lack of order will be paid, alas, by the people of Lebanon."

That is pretty much the rationale behind the ongoing onslought against Gaza, as several cabinet ministers proposed when the offensive picked up: http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/483526.html.

At any rate, terror is terror, a rather simple tautology, but one necassary to repeat the next time the Montreal Gazette runs an editorial "welcome" a demonstration by Gazans against the firing of Qassam rockets from their neighbourhoods, which means that the IDF would target the entire neighbourhood. Terror not only "works", but submitting to it seems like a "welcome devolopment".


From: montreal | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 09 October 2004 10:43 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sharon has conciously escalated the Palestine/Israel conflict in an attempt polarize the war. In a sense he wants to make the war on terrorism as outlined by the Bush administration and his war against the Palestinians the same war. He has done this in order to bring potential allies on side because he prefers to a military, not diplomatic conclusion, which he believes will favour Israel in its attempt to solidify Israel's hold over the West Bank.

I think you are correct cueball. Sharon has never sought an accomodation with the Palestinians and has always favored a greater Israel expanded into the West Bank without absorbing the Palestinians who live there.

He also worked politically to have the Palestinians conflict viewed as a "global" war against "militant islamism".

Sharon, being ruthless and a butcher, might be hailed a good soldier. He is not, however, a wise man. This stupid strategy, quickly adopted by another stupid man on this side of the ocean, George W. Bush and his collection of neo-con satanists, will result in two easily predictable outcomes:

1) It will drive secular opponents of Israeli policy into the Islamic camp. It must becasue they will be labelled such anyway.

2) It will result in a global war of "civilizations" or a crusade as first enunciated by Bush, pitting highly developed, militarily superior western nations in a war against under developed, mostly unarmed Islamic populations around the globe. The booty, global resources.

However, it is a war the west can't win because as the war expands and attacks on western citizens engaged in the extraction of resources and sabotage exapnds on a global scale, the West will be forced to pull back and our economies will begin to suffer om a large scale.

Consider the first battle of this new gloabl war:

quote:
The U.S.-led invasion has resulted in the loss of an average of 2 million barrels a day of Iraqi oil from world markets. That is a significant number with huge consequences for economies around the globe. Instead of rosy promises by the neoconservatives of the Bush administration who pushed for the invasion ? partly on the premise that they would turn it into America's private gasoline-pumping station ? the contrary has occurred.


The world has lost Iraq's oil.


The impact is slowly taking its toll as the price of everything related to petroleum rises (from the food on the supermarket shelves to the gasoline in your car to the plastic chairs on your lawn).



Source

What happens when Islamic peoples around the world begin to recognize that a war is being fought, they are the enemy, and thei national resources is the treasure and their own governmenst are complicit?

A terrorist act in Syria, a car bombing, could yet be the car bombing heard 'round the world.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 09 October 2004 05:04 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Never mind CAMERA's own dubious credibility. Never mind the clear errors in their own 'debunking'...


I have heard this allegation of CAMERA on numerous occassions but have yet to see any proof of it.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
aa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5228

posted 09 October 2004 05:40 PM      Profile for aa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maccabee,

Camera devotes much of its energy to such noble work as trying to get outlets like the NYTimes, LATimes and other loyal organs of the PLO to use "terrorist" for "militant"--now Ruters are a "PR Firm for terrorists-- or "fence" for "wall", and stuff like that.

And they really are into explaining away the Israeli governments atrocities or just trying to make people think that the racicm of Israel's government is okay. See for instance their latest "investigation", in which they debunk "false quotes" attributed to Israeli leaders:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=83&x_article=775

The point is, these quotes are either "false" or they "dont represent the mainstream."

See their "background" on the conflict. Under the header of "Excessive Force", one can learn that Israel refused to evacuate a wounded soldier during a riot in the West Bank because they "wanted to save Palestinian lives" The soldier died of his injuries, the army was accused of abondoning him because they didnt want to risk more of their soldiers, but that is not the case according to CAMERA. Also, the gist of he case is that the US killed alot of people in Somalia, so what the IDF is doing is allright.

See their sensitive eulogy to Rachel Corrie under the heading "International Activists", the whitewashing of official racism against Palestinian-Israelis under the heading of "Israeli Arabs", and the revalation that settlements are allright according to international law, under "Settlements".

These are, to the letter, the positions of the Israel Foreign Ministry, and thats about it. As if to suggest a sense of humour, CAMERA declares:

A non-partisan organization, CAMERA takes no position with regard to American or Israeli political issues or with regard to ultimate solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict.


From: montreal | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 09 October 2004 05:42 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's what they declare? Well, yu have to figure if they are willing to lie at the outset, and offer a fairly obviousl lie, well, once a liar ...
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 09 October 2004 06:46 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Please note:
I deplore this tragedy as I deplore so many others in this region including those Israel commits. (It does not 'justify' blowing people, just anybody who happens to be there, to smithereens.)

Stockholm

How did you come up with your fiction? Or were you exploring space in the last 20 years (being incommunicado)?
How about reading some of the material at the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem?
(Macabee might also find it more informative than camera's rhetoric.)
Here's the section about settlements:
http://www.btselem.org/english/Publications/Summaries/Land_Grab_2002.asp
If you want more go here and open the "Subjects" box on the bottom:
http://www.btselem.org/index.asp


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 09 October 2004 08:19 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aa:
Maccabee,

Camera devotes much of its energy to such noble work as trying to get outlets like the NYTimes, LATimes and other loyal organs of the PLO to use "terrorist" for "militant"--now Ruters are a "PR Firm for terrorists-- or "fence" for "wall", and stuff like that.

And they really are into explaining away the Israeli governments atrocities or just trying to make people think that the racicm of Israel's government is okay. See for instance their latest "investigation", in which they debunk "false quotes" attributed to Israeli leaders:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=83&x_article=775

The point is, these quotes are either "false" or they "dont represent the mainstream."

See their "background" on the conflict. Under the header of "Excessive Force", one can learn that Israel refused to evacuate a wounded soldier during a riot in the West Bank because they "wanted to save Palestinian lives" The soldier died of his injuries, the army was accused of abondoning him because they didnt want to risk more of their soldiers, but that is not the case according to CAMERA. Also, the gist of he case is that the US killed alot of people in Somalia, so what the IDF is doing is allright.

See their sensitive eulogy to Rachel Corrie under the heading "International Activists", the whitewashing of official racism against Palestinian-Israelis under the heading of "Israeli Arabs", and the revalation that settlements are allright according to international law, under "Settlements".

These are, to the letter, the positions of the Israel Foreign Ministry, and thats about it. As if to suggest a sense of humour, CAMERA declares:

A non-partisan organization, CAMERA takes no position with regard to American or Israeli political issues or with regard to ultimate solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict.



Here is the quote I was questioning:


quote:
Never mind CAMERA's own dubious credibility. Never mind the clear errors in their own 'debunking'...
I asked for PROOF thatb there were "clear errors in their own debunking...".

While your response was detailed and quite interesting it had, sadly, nothing whatsoever to do with what I requested. Thanks anyway.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 09 October 2004 09:09 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Macabee

Here's but one example of camera's, shall we say, 'inaccurate reporting'. (I did not bother to read the entire page; it's propaganda IMHO)

Quote:
"False Assertion: The settlements are built on Arab land and are therefore illegal under international law.

Fact: While ownership of the land and the legality of Jewish settlements are sometimes disputed, there is no international law that prohibits Israel from building settlements.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=10&x_article=259

Let's compare this to what B'Tselem has to say:
"International Law

The establishment of settlements on the West Bank violates international humanitarian law, which establishes the principles applying during war and occupation. Moreover, the settlements lead to the infringement of international human rights law.

International humanitarian law prohibits the occupying power to transfer citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit the occupying power to undertake permanent changes in the occupied area, unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.

The establishment of the settlements leads to the violation of the rights of the Palestinians as enshrined in international human rights law. Among other violations, the settlements infringe the right to self-determination, equality, property, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement...."

http://www.btselem.org/english/Publications/Summaries/Land_Grab_2002.asp

If you want to know more about the ways it's done, read this section:
Taking Control of the Land:
http://www.btselem.org/english/Publications/Summaries/Land_Grab_2002.asp
There's lots more on their site but I guess you can find that out for yourself if you so desire.

Particulalry interesting are the "Conclusions" on the same page.
"...Conclusions

Israel has created in the Occupied Territories a regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality. This regime is the only one of its kind in the world, and is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa...."


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
aa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5228

posted 09 October 2004 09:11 PM      Profile for aa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sadly, I don't quite know what to say to that, Maccabee....
From: montreal | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 10 October 2004 05:52 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aa:
Sadly, I don't quite know what to say to that, Maccabee....
Well aa I would start by reading the rest of the article. While I may disagree, it is an argument that is strongly put forward. It in no way proves that CAMERA lies. In fact it proves tha CAMERA while not an unbiased source is nonetheless straight forward about its position and articulates it publicly.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
aa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5228

posted 10 October 2004 06:14 PM      Profile for aa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lie 1: "Fact: While ownership of the land and the legality of Jewish settlements are sometimes disputed, there is no international law that prohibits Israel from building settlements. "

Lie 2: "Furthermore, even if the Geneva Convention would apply, it would not outlaw Israeli settlements, since the relevant Article 49 was intended to outlaw the Nazi practice of forcibly transporting populations into or out of occupied territories to death and work camps, and cannot be applied to Israel because Israelis were not forcibly transferred."

Lie 3: "Fact: The intifada was not launched because of the settlements. At Camp David, Barak had offered to withdraw from 100 percent of the Gaza Strip and over 95 percent of the West Bank, with compensation to the Palestinians with land in Israel’s Negev. Most of the settlements would have been closed. Arafat spurned the offer and did not even make a counter-offer."

You know the saying "three strikes and your out"?


From: montreal | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 10 October 2004 06:23 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Well aa I would start by reading the rest of the article. While I may disagree, it is an argument that is strongly put forward. It in no way proves that CAMERA lies. In fact it proves tha CAMERA while not an unbiased source is nonetheless straight forward about its position and articulates it publicly.

"Look over there! Waaay over there! Away from the elephant in the room!" *Waves hands vigorously and with much moment*


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 October 2004 06:23 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Negev? Isn't that a desert? "I'll trade you this farm land for this dust? How about Yasser ol' buddy?"
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 October 2004 06:31 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Letter, Oct. 7.

Irving Weisdorf states "Canadian soldiers who gave their lives in the last war would turn over in their graves at the cowardice of the Concordia administration" (in banning a speaking engagement by former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak.)

I served in the Gaza area in 1966 and personally was in the burial parties for two Canadian peacekeepers who we buried in the Gaza War Cemetery.

I am sure these Canadian soldiers are turning over in their graves at the horrific brutality of the Israeli army as soldiers kill the innocent women and children, destroy the homes, the farms and the infrastructure of the occupied Palestinian lands.


Toronto Star


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
aa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5228

posted 10 October 2004 08:06 PM      Profile for aa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thats sickening. To think that Canadian soldiers would "turn in their graves"...they died fighting an oponent whose practices led to the drafting of teh Fourth Geneva Convention, that Convention which the Israeli government violates every day.
From: montreal | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
aa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5228

posted 10 October 2004 08:10 PM      Profile for aa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I haven't read the Star letter by Irving, but did it include the part about "Muslim terrorists" in Concordia?

http://canadiancoalition.org/forum/messages/2796.shtml


From: montreal | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
lacabombi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7014

posted 10 October 2004 11:26 PM      Profile for lacabombi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Battling innocent people asleep in their beds. Very brave..


Israel decided to take the battle internationally. But it cannot dictate its terms too.


From: Ontario | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 11 October 2004 12:26 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lacabombi:


Israel decided to take the battle internationally. But it cannot dictate its terms too.



Whether it did so or not is no excuse for murdering innocent people in a hotel. These were non-combatants targeted specifically by these terrorists for murder.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
lacabombi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7014

posted 11 October 2004 01:06 AM      Profile for lacabombi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Macabee,

Israel cannot dictate morality, if there is any morality in killing.

May I ask you a question, Macabee?

Would it have been OK with you if suicide bombers targeted military Israelis, in or outside Israel and the occupied territories ?

By the way, Papa Sam, Israel's patron and model, had dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagazaki. Should the talk still cintinue about distinction between military and civilians ? Or is it only when "our" civilians (sleeping or awake) are victimized ?


From: Ontario | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Save Timber Wolves
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5676

posted 11 October 2004 01:13 AM      Profile for Save Timber Wolves     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

Is it your argument Palestinians do not have the same rights to make their battles extraterritorial as does the US and Israel? Why not?


If they want to seek out Israeli armed forces and engage them, fine. Slaughtering innocent civilians is not just retributions for a highly targeted, effective, selective assassination of a murderer.

From: Ottawa | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Save Timber Wolves
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5676

posted 11 October 2004 01:14 AM      Profile for Save Timber Wolves     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
I've seen civilian Palestinian homes blown to rubble, Macabee. You want to take the moral high ground, here? Work to end the occupation that is killing innocents on both sides.

[ 08 October 2004: Message edited by: Coyote ]


Never with people in them, Coyote.


From: Ottawa | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 October 2004 02:34 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Never? Drive a D9 do you?

If they 'accidentally' ran over Rachel Corrie in front of a building, you don't think they might burry a few people inside, 'accidentally,' once in a while? I mean if they couldn't see Rachel in a bright orange rain jacket, think its just possible they can't see through the walls of the buildings?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
lacabombi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7014

posted 11 October 2004 09:47 AM      Profile for lacabombi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

If they want to seek out Israeli armed forces and engage them, fine. Slaughtering innocent civilians is not just retributions for a highly targeted, effective, selective assassination of a murderer.


What God-given right does Israel or any agressor, invader, occupier or colonizer of others have to dictate on the oppressed, occupied, agressed and colonized the terms of retaliation ?

In fact, rationally speaking, you are saying that occupying other people's territories, defying international law and treating the occupied like dirt is closer to a certain standard of "morality" than when these people react and target civilians. Wake up! There is no morality in either and there is no obligation on the oppressed to observe such self-serving hiearchy of morality.

What is in it for Palestinians when "they seek out and engage Israeli armed forces" ? Defeat, of course. Since the power imbalance is more than obvious.

You might as well have said: "The Palestinians just have to accept the occupation and subjugation and submit."


From: Ontario | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 October 2004 09:54 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's a reasonable point of view. There is this schematic moral overlay, which is often used to hide the political reality.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
lacabombi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7014

posted 11 October 2004 10:08 AM      Profile for lacabombi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Whether it did so or not is no excuse for murdering innocent people in a hotel. These were non-combatants targeted specifically by these terrorists for murder.


Macabee, could you please answer my question:

What qualifies you or me to dictate on the occupied and oppressed the terms of their defence/retaliation/liberation ?


From: Ontario | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
lacabombi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7014

posted 11 October 2004 11:35 AM      Profile for lacabombi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am still awaiting Macabee's answer as to What qualifies him or me to dictate on the occupied the terms of their defense, retaliation, liberation.
From: Ontario | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 11 October 2004 11:48 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The operation required of we defenders of Israel is to confuse means and ends. "Terrorism" must be cast as the "end", not the "means". Answering your question would require a far more nuanced discussion of means and ends than we are given on our talking-points bulletins. Moreover, even addressing your question would required us to admit that there is a "cause" behind Palestinian struggle, and that would be unthinkable for us.
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 11 October 2004 11:49 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I asked for PROOF thatb there were "clear errors in their own debunking...".

In order to derail another thread.

Sorry, homey don't play that way.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 11 October 2004 12:51 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Save Timber Wolves:

Never with people in them, Coyote.


"According to Ben Gurion, any loss of Jewish life must be compensated for in a disproportionate way. Arabs had to learn that Jewish blood was of far higher value than their own. To achieve the best possible results a young, assertive, aggressive and ambitious commander named Ariel Sharon was called upon. He was asked to form a small special commando unit whose role was to show the Arab enemy the extent of Israel's determination to win under any circumstances.

In 1953, Palestinians crossed the Israeli border near the Jordanian village of Quibya and murdered a Jewish mother and her two children. Sharon and his commando unit, now called the '101', were called to action. They were ordered to enter the village, to blow up the houses, and inflict as much damage on their inhabitants as possible. Sharon was very much the right man for the job. The raid was a complete success. Similar to the recent violence in the Jenin refugee camp where homes were destroyed with their inhabitants inside, Quibya was reduced to a pile of rubble. More than fifty houses were destroyed, and 61 civilians mostly women and children were killed. A UN observer visiting the site concluded that the villagers had been forced to stay in their houses, which were then blown up. The Quibya massacre was internationally condemned. In an Israeli parliamentary debate, Moshe Sharet, the moderate foreign minister, called for an official statement of regret for the action. Ben Gurion thought differently. During a radio broadcast the next day, he denied IDF involvement in the raid and blamed it on retaliating Israeli villagers pushed beyond endurance. As we know, Sharon's military career did not suffer, quite the opposite. Sharon and the '101' became the role model for the new Hebrew military man, a soldier who murders, attacks beyond enemy lines, who goes far beyond orders even if it means disregarding all concept of humanity. Not only did Sharon's career not suffer, he was seen as the most promising young Israeli officer and he was swiftly promoted within army ranks, inspiring other young officers to follow in his footsteps."

http://www.counterpunch.org/atzmon0813.html

Then came Sabra and Shatilla. Don't tell me that Sharon was just playing traffic cop for the Phalangist murderers. Read the Kahane Commisson report, so named because the head is a former Israeli Supreme Court judge.
http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/kahan-commission-contents.html

A quote from the section on Sharon's responsibility:
"...As a politician responsible for Israel's security affairs, and as a Minister who took an active part in directing the political and military moves in the war in Lebanon, it was the duty of the Defense Minister to take into account all the reasonable considerations for and against having the Phalangists enter the camps, and not to disregard entirely the serious consideraton mitigating against such an action, namely that the Phalangists were liable to commit atrocities and that it was necessary to forestall this possibility as a humanitarian obligation and also to prevent the political damage it would entail. From the Defense Minister himself we know that this consideration did not concern him in the least, and that this matter, with all its ramifications, was neither discussed nor examined in the meetings and discussion held by the Defense Minister. In our view, the Minister of Defense made a grave mistake when he ignored the danger of acts of revenge and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population in the refugee camps... We do not accept the contention that the Defense Minister did not need to fear that the Phalangists would commit acts of killing because in all outward aspects they looked like a disciplined and organized army. It could not be inferred from the Phalangists' orderly military organization that their attitude toward human life and to the non-combatant population had basically changed. ..."

http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/kahan-commission-part9.html

Of course the events of last few years are all to familiar to those of us who watch the news.

Please let me repeat what I said above: I am appalled by both sides blowing up just anybody who happens to be in the way. And past wrongs, or anything else, don't justify it.

[ 11 October 2004: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
aa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5228

posted 11 October 2004 03:42 PM      Profile for aa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can I take this oppurtunity, now that Sharon and the Kahan commsion have been mentioned, to express a personal annoyance that has nothing to do with the thread?

People keep saying that Sharon was found "indirectly responsible" by the Commciion. The commision actually found that Sharon bore "personal responsibity". "Personal Responsibilty!" Okay, the report was a total white wash, and that was bad enough, but people insist on whitewahing the whitewash.

Sorry about that.


From: montreal | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 11 October 2004 04:24 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aa:

People keep saying that Sharon was found "indirectly responsible" by the Commciion. .

Indirectly as in letting the Phalangistes do the actual killings.

I am obviously not a fan of Sharon and was just trying to be extra careful with my wording.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 11 October 2004 04:27 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Save Timber Wolves:

Never with people in them, Coyote.


Bullshit.

Over a hundred Palestinians have died in this Gaza razing. Justify that to me. Justify the children dying. Justify the fact that you don't care about Palestinian lives.

I despise and denounce the killing of civilians on all sides; you only care about one. That is because yours is a fundamentally racist world-view.

Edited to repeat the question: Why can't you people ever do any research? Why do you just come here and push out bile? There are so many resources online that provide actual information and data, amongst the best being B'Tselem, where you can find actual data about what is happening, who is dying, where they are dying, etc. The fact is that Palestinian civilians make up, by far, the vast majority of casualties in this conflict. Who do you people think are killing them?

At least have some honesty. If you are never going to condemn, in any serious way, the killing of Palestinians by the occupation then admit it. Tell us you think it is alright for Israel to murder Palestinians, and quit dodging it. Otherwise, read a book or something, and try to contribute beyond grunting.

[ 11 October 2004: Message edited by: Coyote ]

[ 11 October 2004: Message edited by: Coyote ]


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
aa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5228

posted 11 October 2004 04:33 PM      Profile for aa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, lets be careful with the wording: "We have found, as has been detailed in this report, that the Minister of Defense bears personal
responsibility." (see "Recommendations and Closing remarks" of the report).

From: montreal | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 11 October 2004 04:38 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 11 October 2004: Message edited by: Coyote ]


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 11 October 2004 09:25 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This attack still has not been blamed on nor claimed by Hamas. Don't let Macabee's continued obfuscation and lies distract from that fact. Hamas has yet to follow the IDF's escalation, if indeed they plan to.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 11 October 2004 09:45 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aa:
Yes, lets be careful with the wording: "We have found, as has been detailed in this report, that the Minister of Defense bears personal
responsibility." (see "Recommendations and Closing remarks" of the report).

What exactly are you getting at? What's your purpose? "personal" or "indirect": What's the difference? I linked to the report, not that I expect people to actually read it.

So 'indirect' was my word and not from the report. Did you read my post? Just what have I done for you to continue jumping on me over one word?

Oh the joy of posting on sites like this!

I've got more on file re Sharon. Instead of bickering over 'personal' vs 'indirect' you could have written about some more of his 'patriotic' deeds.

Is it a fact, or isn't it, that the IDF and Sharon didn't enter the camp and didn't participate in the mass murder? It was the Phalangistes who did the killing and it was Sharon who should have kept them out.

That's why I called it 'indirect'

Priorities aa, priorities.

[ 11 October 2004: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
aa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5228

posted 11 October 2004 11:47 PM      Profile for aa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, I wasn't referring to you on impugning "indirect responsibilty" to Sharon. I was expressing a general annoyance, you shouldn't take it personally. Did you refer to "indirect responsibilty"? I didnt read that in your post.

As for priorities, calling things by their name doesn't signal a lack of commitment to priorities. In this case, it could signal a frustration with attempts to lminimize someone's responsibilty for a crime against humanity (again, I am not reffering to you). Which is why Israel apologists insist on the "indirect wording", rather than the "personal responsibilty" sentence. After all, we're talking about the leader of our "sister democracy"


From: montreal | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 12 October 2004 12:41 AM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
aa

sorry I guess I was a little too sensitive and/or misunderstood you.

The reference to priorities was because I thought you were attacking me for using the word 'indirect', which by the way does not exclude 'personal responsibilty'.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
aa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5228

posted 12 October 2004 01:47 AM      Profile for aa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No worries. And "indirect responsibilty" vs "personal responsibilty" is a worthless distinction under international law anyways. If your occupying a country, and your allies are masscring a population under your nose (and thanks to the light emitted by IDF flares), and then bury the bodies with bulldozers you've provided; well, that would make it responsibilty, period.

Last year, I debated Alan Dershowitz for an hour over radio. He kept insisting "no no, indirect! indirect!". I read him the quote from the Kahan commision, verbatim. He replied: "no, in direct! in direct!" and snarled something like "thats another one of your lies!" He's very funny.


From: montreal | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
KM
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7085

posted 12 October 2004 04:07 AM      Profile for KM     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lacabombi:
I am still awaiting Macabee's answer as to What qualifies him or me to dictate on the occupied the terms of their defense, retaliation, liberation.

Ok I'm not Macabee or a dictator but I don't think people need a special type of qualification in order to form an opinion on whether killing civilians is justifiable. I don't think it is justifiable for the occupied or the occupiers, or anyone else for that matter. Whether it occurs because of racial hatred, to occupy land, terrify undesirables into leaving their homes, out of revenge, to achieve political aims.. Human life is sacred, whether it is Palestinian or Isreali.

I also think that trying to validate the violence on both sides only undermines the efforts being made for peace, which will only come about through dialogue. I read somewhere that there was a road show about a Palestinian and Israeli talking for peace.. you know stuff like that needs to be supported.. like the meetings between parents who have lost children on both sides.

I just think that the only way to help is by supporting local Palestinian and Isreali peace groups. We never even hear about those in the media..


From: Canada | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 12 October 2004 08:48 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well said, KM. I was going to post a long explanation of why this is so, taking in how language is used to present the actions of one group as 'defensive' while the other can only engage in 'terrorism', but really, what's the point when it'll only power the merry-go-round through another turn?
From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 12 October 2004 09:57 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ok I'm not Macabee or a dictator but I don't think people need a special type of qualification in order to form an opinion on whether killing civilians is justifiable. I don't think it is justifiable for the occupied or the occupiers,

Well, when I turn my imagination to a world where Canada was being invaded, occupied, and settled, and while in doing so Canadians were being assissanated, bulldozed, missiled, murdered, etc . . . I have no problem coming up with a justification for killing the invaders, be they part of the invading military, or the invading settlers.

Especially after half a century of having the world ignore the genocide of my people.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
KM
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7085

posted 12 October 2004 03:30 PM      Profile for KM     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I dunno what I'd do if Canada were occupied, but I'm not so sure I'd begin plotting to kill the civilian population. My own grandparents lived through a brutal occupation their entire lives and didn't shoot children or encourage children to blow themselves up.

Not all Palestinians are suicide bombers and not all Isrealis are shooting up small children, so clearly there's a segment of society that doesn't resort to these actions in times of suffering. I hope I am in the section of society that works peacefully for peace, or complains bitterly until I'm heard

African Americans were slaves for centuries and they didn't plan the large scale slaughter of white civilians (at least I don't think they did) or brutally murder women and children to achieve emancipation. When you look at the hell that Europe's Roma have endured for centuries, including slavery, massacres, exiles, no homeland, poverty, constant house evictions etc.. and yet today they are not killing innocent people out of revenge or their suffering, but have been working tirelessly but peacefully in Europe's democratic institutions, despite being largely ignored (although this is finally changing).

Organized violence like this happens when people validate it and give it moral authority.

So I'm not sure that Palestinians and Israelis are motivated in their actions purely on feeling oppressed or terrorized. I think there is a culture of racism and violence in both communities that is fed by the powerful elites in both societies.

So I think maybe in the absence of so much hate and violence propoganda on both sides, there would be more alternative ways of reaching peace. This violence only works against both sides, widening the divide and spinning out into more violence.

~ my opinion is that they have no choice but to talk to each other until they find a peaceful solution. Maybe I'm a wishful thinker tho

quote:
Well said, KM. I was going to post a long explanation of why this is so, taking in how language is used to present the actions of one group as 'defensive' while the other can only engage in 'terrorism', but really, what's the point when it'll only power the merry-go-round through another turn?

Thanks for the compliment. Everything is about language in my opinion

[ 12 October 2004: Message edited by: KM ]


From: Canada | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 12 October 2004 04:01 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do a google search on slave rebellions, you might be suprized.

And I am not advoating killing innocent women and children, but I don't consider settlers on occupied land as "innocent". Whether they are "guilty" enough to deserve to be retaliated against with deadly force would of course depend upon the deadly force being directed at your own innocent women and children.

It's a new world, but it was not the occupied that made it that way . . . the Palestinains tried to organize protest marches, but they were met with armed IDF . . . the protestors, rather than simply give up stood their ground and were met with dealdy force. Meanwhile at first they were told they should be protesting in the streets, and the world ignored or blamed the Palestinians as Irael stoler more of their land and killed more of their innocents . . . then when refused to "keep quiet" they were shot at by the IDF . . . again they were told they shouldn't be protesting and throwning stones at armoured tanks, they were blamed for putting their children in harms way as the IDF mowed them down, in the meantime the Israelis stole even more of their land, oppressed them even more, kiled more and more of their innocents . . . then after finally getting the Israelis to the table they learned that the world wanted to give Israel all the good land and resources of the area and leave them with only worthless land, so they refused to play along . . . again the Israeli response was to steal more of their land, stronger oppression, and kill more and more of their innocents . . . so they decided that the only way to get what you want is through violence!!! I wonder where they got that idea? Must be written somewhere in the Koran I suppose??

Now, I am not saying that the answer to all injustices is to jump right into the killing of your occupying enemies and their familes, but if that's what they are doing to you, and the only world response to your non violent attempts of protest is to look the other way while your enemy kills you, then what options do you have?

Killing of the innocent is not a great answer, but it seems to be working for Israel, so why should we be suprized, shocked, or even appaled when the Palestinians learn this horrible lesson?

There is an alternative though, we made it happen in South Africa, do we have the will to make it work in the ME? Until we do, or until the USA comes to its fucking senses (impossible in my opinion) then what other alternatives are there?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
KM
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7085

posted 12 October 2004 04:49 PM      Profile for KM     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well I don't think the U.S. government is sentient, I think they operate purely on greed, you know like a goblin. So I don't think they can or will be part of real peace anywhere on earth. But ordinary people can work around U.S. government influences to bring about peace in their communities. This has happened in South America and Africa. Increasingly people are simply ignoring local or foreign governments all together and doing what they can at the ground level.

But if it did happen in South Africa, why can't it happen in Palestine-Israel? I just think that fueling the hopelessness undermines any real chances that something can happen like what happened in South Africa - I'm taking your word of course this was a really good thing, as I don't know much about South Africa other than that apartheid was ended somehow and I'm assuming everything is happy there now

I should probably stay away from analogies. Someone once said that all analogies are bad analogies.

The only alternatives I see are peaceful ones. I don't think violence is working for Israel. I think if Israel keeps this up, pretty soon Iran will launch a missile into Tel Aviv and there won't be anymore Israel. And their military campaigns only create more Palestinian hate and retaliations. And violence isn't working for Palestine either as Israelis are increasingly taking more brutal retaliations and occupying more land under the veil of "defence". Any perceived gains from violence are either temporary or illusiory.

p.s. As for religion you mentioned, if you ask me all religions can be used to justify any type of violence. I mean, have you ever read those books? (sorry if I offended any of the faithful here).


From: Canada | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca