This is topic Tommorow it begins..... in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/6984.html

Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
it is the 14th of august (two days to my birthday by the way, ill be 22) and slowly but surely we arrived to the moment of truth.

2mmorow israel begins the pullout from gaza.

will the pullout go through smoothly?
will the palesitnians attack during the pullout?
will the settlers attack israeli soldiers with firearms?
will there be calm after the pullout? or will the palestinians keep launching missiles on israel and send more suicide bombers?
what will israel's response will and should be if such thing happens?


all that and next in the following weeks, stay tuned to israel.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
This is gonna sound macabre, but I'm estimating about 5-7 casualties. I don't think there will be a firearm attack, but probably a knife, blunt object, scalding oil, like that. Could be a gun though.

Hamas or Islamic Jihad will almost certainly attack some during the pullout. Maybe even the extremist Fatah splinters.

I'd be shocked if the Palestinians don't attack after the pullout.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
who knows how many more soldiers who listen to their rabbies and not to the army officers, like that terrorist from two weeks ago, exist?

i hope that if the palestinians attack during and after the pullout, we will respond in such a force, that was not released in the middle east since octover 1973
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
For once I tend to agree. If they attack during the pullout we need to react with punitive force.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
you know Ricky [Smile]

i find that you are usually the first poster in my topics [Smile]
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
How's that "punitive force" idea been working out fer you guys?
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
we never used it so far

we are using about 0.000000001% of our military prowess against the palestinians.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Not too well, but if they shoot when we're ripping our brothers and sisters off the walls and retreating, then it's hard to concieve of any circumstance where they won't. In which case, there really isn't any other alternative. Besides, Hannibal is actually right (hyperbolically so, of course [Smile] ). For all that we kill far more Palestinians than they do us, we don't even go as hard as the US does in Iraq.

Crushing Palestinian resistannce by brute force is unfeasable because of international reaction, not because the Palestinians definitely can't be cowed in and of themselves.

They're a lot less pathetic as far as national cohesion and resolve than they were back in '48, but it simply hasn't been tested.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Oh, some of them will attack, I have no doubt. As long as an idiot with an explosive and a dupe to strap it on can disrupt the peace process...idiots with explosives are going to keep strapping them to dupes.

Increased use of force against the Palestinians, so far, only seems to strengthen their resolve and hatred, but if you think there is some magical point where the violence would suddenly serve to humble them instead, feel free to ignore the lessons of history.

What's funny to me is that while the occupation of the West Bank continues with no end in sight, and the unilateral wall is being constructed far beyond the '67 borders, you guys seem to think the Palestinians owe a truce during the withdrawl from Gaza?

Why? I mean, without getting into the absolutely immoral nature of all attacks upon civilians, why shouldn't they attack while Israelis attempt a strategic withdrawl on one flank in order to better secure another?
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Truce? on attacks from Gaza, yes.

As for "far beyond" - depends on how you define far. I'm actually making a movie about the demonstrations against the land grab and the stupid route of the wall, so I know all about it. However, I have no patience for those who are against any sort of wall whatsoever. A wall is of the utmost necessity. In addition, the '67 border is not entirely applicable. we'll have to compensate the Palestinians with land elsewhere for about 1.5% of the west bank that we're gonna have to annex. Still, the route of the wall is hideously stupid and short-sightedly greedy in many places. It will have to be fixed within 1-2 years tops.

I also agree that without a pullout from the west bank, the pullout from Gaza accomplishes very little. It still does afford the Palestinians, for the first time, a well defined, continuous piece of land to govern.

I'm not saying we should roll in with tanks and bombers in response to every idiot with a Qassam rocket, but if the PA won't act strongly against such attacks, we will.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
look Jesse, we obviously cant force our existance on the palestinians, and then put road blocks and make their life hard so that our settlers could go as they please. that is aside

but the wall is a great idea, we will never have a partner in the palestinian ranks, fixing the situation on-sidedly is the only available option.

and yes, history has alot of examples where the bigger side overwhelmed the weak side to subbmision

sharon should in his speach to the nation he will make tomorrow, make it clear that if a qassam rocket will fall on israel, during and/or after the pullout, or a suicide attack will be carried out, we will flatten whole blocks in gaza with no remorse and no consideration
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
i will add my support to Rick's post,
the current wall is somewhat annexing, it should be less hostile i admit, but it will never be purley on the 67 borders, and i have no problems with israel giving palestine territories to compensate square mile for square mile

the way i see it, the palestinians can do whatever they want with their territories once we leave, but if they attack us, we whipe the out, no remorse. we will consider this an attack just like as if syria attacked us
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
it is the 14th of august (two days to my birthday by the way, ill be 22)
Wow, I had no idea you were that young. I expected you to be midle aged, don't know why.

quote:


will the palesitnians attack during the pullout?

Ricky seems to think so. It boggles my mind to think that they would, isn't this at least part of what they claim to want? That said, it wouldn't suprise me. The people actually carrying out the violence among the Palestinians strike me as fundamentally irrational maniacs.

Adam
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Adam, shall i take that as a compliment? [Smile]


they want the pullout ofcourse, but they want to make it apear a great victory on their side, as if we are running from them.
 
Posted by WarrsawPact (Member # 1275) on :
 
Yeah, people expected me to be older too...

But alas, a mere 20.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Nah, hannibal is young, I thought it was obvious personally. He's an essentially compasionate and decent person who never the less expresses a gang-banger mentality about violence and has an overly simplistic defination of "us" and "them".

I grew up in the inner city in the late 80's and early 90's, years when 20-30 thousand young men a year were dying in turf wars in the US, and I've known plenty of young men who viewed the world in the same reactionary and overly simplistic way.

The on going situation in palastine/israel is no different than any other gang war. It's the same idiotic "one of ours in the hospital, one of yours in the morgue" nonsense.

The good news is, intelligent people eventually manage to evolve ethicly, unless they make a wilfull and concious decision to use their intellect to justify their lack of personal development beyond a juvenile state.

Sharon is sacraficing some turf in order to solidify his hold elswhere. He's not the first gang leader to do so and it's not a meaningful step toward peace.

As far as the wall goes, I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but all of us know it encompasses a lot more than is "absolutely necessary".
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
The 16th Hannibal? That's my oldest son's birthday too. He'll be 16. Happy Birthday.

KE
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Jesse, if these were merely troops you'd be right, but they're not. You are ignoring what a huge obstacle to peace the settlers are AND the power of precedent. Plus, you're erring in not appreciating the effort, weich naturally gives rise to a "why bother" sentiment.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
The on going situation in palastine/israel is no different than any other gang war. It's the same idiotic "one of ours in the hospital, one of yours in the morgue" nonsense.


no its not, you are the one who tend to over simplify things, this is nothing like that, or the "circle of violance" as the CNN calls it.
it is that the palestinians, are dead serious, in obliterating us. note that after the pullout they virtually still promise nothing, they dont promise any security to israel, or that the missile attacks will stop. they dont promise going through with the road map. EVERY agreement that we EVER signed with them since 1993 they did not hold to their words.

it much more sophisticated.

israel has acted the "responsible" as you call it, and did not retaliate after very heavy attacks by the palestinians, many suicide attacks that killed 20 civilians came un answered because we "wanted to give the palestinians a chance to get a grip on things", the world it seems, lets the palestinians attack us, we get the 24 hours of sympathy, but basically the world thinks :
"ok the palestinians are poor, miserable, and divided, the palestinian government cant contain them so its your problem - eat it for the sake of the peace process"

so what i think is that - there never will be a peace process, because the palestinians even under the "reasonable" Abu-mazen, state that they will never relinquish the "right of return" (if you dont know what it is, just ask) there is no dealing with them. thats why we israelis will pullout eventually from all the territories. but if the palesitnians will attack us, we should not "eat it" we should level them, cause such an horrendous damage that they will cry about it for generations, that they should realize THEIR mistake of thinking that terrorism brought them somthing, and that dealing with us did not.

"Sharon is sacraficing some turf in order to solidify his hold elswhere. He's not the first gang leader to do so and it's not a meaningful step toward peace."

by that comparison GWB is the king pin isnt he?
any way, even sharon knows that a pullout from the west bank in some level is unavoidable. he merely wants it to be as little as possible - remmember that back in 1999 we ofered the palestinians 97% of the 67 borders, and we offered to the last 3 precent from inside israel to replace the city of Ariel and other large settlment blocks. the palestinians as we all know refused because they didnt let go of the "right of return" and started the intifadah. which caused 1000 dead israelis and 5000 dead palestinains. so we build the wall in order to block the palestinians from entering israel, it should have been made back in the 70's.

and by the way, in case you fear we will blcok the west bank, allready there are talks that jordan will train the palestinian millitary, and that there will be access for palestine to jordan.


Happy birthday to your son KnightEnder
 
Posted by Sancselfieme (Member # 1373) on :
 
How can you seriously expect the Palestinians to act or work as a whole? They have been fragmented by their own extremist leaders AND by Israel. They are destabalized at every turn. Any leader that attempts to take "responsibility" for the Palestinians as a whole is assaulted by both Israel AND the Palestinians.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Israel did not hinder Abu-mazer, so far, after he came to power, we didnt attack gaza in any way, even though there WERE terror attacks, and missile launches since he came to power and israelis died for nothing, our government gave abu manzen a grace period, and that period is not over yet.

Israel was also fragmented in 1948, there were lots of organizations fighing the brittish, the arabs, and each other, but we had a strong leader who cracked those organizations down, (read about the Altalena) and formed the IDF, the palestinians arent even thinking of doing that, and abu mazen is by no means a strong leader. and thats not israel's problem, israel's problem is that if the palestinians attack israel once israel does not hold palestinian territories - israel should whipe palestine, just as it whould have been the case had syria or egypt attacked israel.

and if the palestinians will do the sinister deed (like they allways do) of attacking israel during the hour of its pain (i.e - the pullout) we should also retaliate very severly.

How can you seriously expect the Palestinians to act or work as a whole?

I am not, neither all israelis, we have sobered up. we figured that the palestinians will never act as a whole, hence there is no dealing with them, hence WE are making unilateral actions.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Is it just me, or is the largest mistake israel is making in this pullout forcibly evacuating the settlers?

If I were in charge, I'd tell the settlers "Yeah, you don't HAVE to come, but if you refuse to leave this land, we're revoking your Israeli citizenship and we won't defend you if you get attacked."
 
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 2399) on :
 
Yeah, that might work. What they really need to do is draw the national borders and tolerate Jews in Palastein and Muslims in Israel. It's not that hard, Muslims and Jews live together fine in New York and Vancouver.
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
It's not that hard, Germans and Jews live in the same HUGE cities all the time.
 
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 2399) on :
 
Yes, they do and in small towns as well.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Muslims and jews also live fine within israel proper.

"What they really need to do is draw the national borders"

Well, yeah, this is kindof the hard part, isn't it?
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
Did I need to issue a sarcasm alert?
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Is it just me, or is the largest mistake israel is making in this pullout forcibly evacuating the settlers?

If I were in charge, I'd tell the settlers "Yeah, you don't HAVE to come, but if you refuse to leave this land, we're revoking your Israeli citizenship and we won't defend you if you get attacked."


I WISH!!!

but we are "hurtin their hurtin" and "suffering their suffering" (yeah right.... crazy settlers get the FXXX out of there allready) and for some reason we dont do it, if i was incharge it was the same.

as for your examples.... not those muslims and jews. the things that live in the gush katif, and the gaza settlements are so crazy and fanatic, i allmost wish they stay there with the arabs so that they could kill each other and be done with it. you know what... i wish they will stay there. good for the rest of israel too.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
today Sharon gave a speach to the nation

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3127884,00.html

he promises response in a way never seen before, if the palestinians will provoke israel after and during the pullout.

i hope he will be true to his word when (not if) the palestinians will test this promise
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Ev, would that we could do that. But then they'd get slaughtered, do some terrible laughtering of their own first, and our public wouldn't stand for it. It would poison the whole process. We'd be held responsible for their crimes in the eyes of the world, so what would be the point?

Also, you have to understand that the settlements in the Gaza Strip are insane, in that they are sprawling suburban/rural type places in the middle of the most over populated piece of land in the world. The settlements of the Qatif block basically choke off the natural expansion space of the city of Khan Younis.

Even if relations between Palestinians and Israelis were 100 times better, there's no way the Palestinian authority could tolerate their continued existence. The palestinians need the land too badly. It's also why we couldn't make a deal to leave and sell the houses. The Palestinians have no use for this type of housing, and it would only cause resentment towards the lucky few that would get them. Where 8,500 Jews have hitherto lived, at least 10 times as many Palestinians will be settled. Probably more. And still be better off than they are now.

Besides, even though the Gaza settlers aren't as whacked as some of the West Bank ones, it just wouldn't work socially. Too much bad blood. What we need right now is separation. Let both sides have a break from each other and learn that their real problems aren't due to the other side. Then we can start cooperating sensibly.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
yes what he said,


too bad that the palestinians, "say" that they want a seperation, but what they really want is to keep on living with the settlers so that they could have legitimacy to launch terror attacks on israel
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Happy birthday to me

Happy birthday to your son KnightEnder

(its the 16th in israel right now... time diference you know...)

[ August 15, 2005, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Hannibal ]
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Happy birthday Hannibal.

The oversimplification Hannibal, is the "them" and "us".

The fact is that most Palestinians simply want a reasonable material standard of living, self-determination, and liberty. They have no idea how to aquire these things and have been convinced that the existance of Israel is the reason they don't have them.

I absolutely agree that their gang leaders have played a massive role in depriving them of these things, but your gang leaders aren't at all innocent in the matter either.

Something you should be aware of, though, hannibal, is how incredibly biased coverage of the situation is in the U.S.

I don't mean the Bias you percieve, "poor suffering palestinians" ect., but the bias in regards to reporting of terrorist attacks.

I watch the news, I read the LA times, but the only reason I knew about the attack on that Druze neighborhood is because you told me. We had the exact same sort of coverage of the situation in Northern Ireland for 25 years, most Americans being aware of IRA bombing and British retaliation, but completely ignorant of the violence commited by the loyalist paramilitary terrorist groups.

Only one side in this conflict CHOSE this conflict. It's not the palestinians.

The existance of Israel, much like the existance of the US, is an accomplished fact. There is no going back. Giving Israel back to the Palestinians would be just as impossible as giving the North America back to it's indigenous peoples.

Yet, most of us today can see that "manifest destiny" was pretty damned flimsy pretext for anhilating hundreds of cultures, the theft of land, forcing hundreds of thousands of children into lives of poverty, ect.

Someday, most Israelis will realize that Zionism was an equaly flimsy pretext for commiting the same crime on a smaller scale.

You can't bring your victim back to life, but you can, at least, appologize to his family.

Shots against Bush's deeply flawed foriegn policy don't cause me any sting Hannibal...I'm the guy who left the country to avoid funding his insanity...until I figured out that I could just choose to make so little as to not have to provide him with any significant amount of taxes.

Don't get me wrong, I think the pull-out from Gaza is a great thing...but I expect some idiot with a grenade to give Sharon another excuse to do what he loves.

In any event, I honestly believe that you're a decent young man and that one of these days you're going to recognize your own racism and be repeled by it.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
ok....


"The fact is that most Palestinians simply want a reasonable material standard of living, self-determination, and liberty. They have no idea how to aquire these things and have been convinced that the existance of Israel is the reason they don't have them."

have you talked to them? how do you know what most palestinians want? and, if they have been convinced, doesnt that mean that most palestinians want israel to be destoyed?

most(if not all) palestinians defenetly want a better life standard, but its not their primary goal. their primary goal is for israel to sease to exist.


"but the only reason I knew about the attack on that Druze neighborhood is because you told me."

that gives me some points on credibility no? [Smile]

"The existance of Israel, much like the existance of the US, is an accomplished fact."

tell that to the iranis.
The only reason why we have peace with some arab countries, is that they have come to realize that, and it wasnt easy for us to make them understand.

"Someday, most Israelis will realize that Zionism was an equaly flimsy pretext for commiting the same crime on a smaller scale."

your idea of zionism is a crazed religious fanatic settler who settles in the middle of an arab populatoin. that is not what zionism is.
zionism, was started a hundred years ago as a completley secular idea. the young people who came to israel back then, founded villages of their own and worked the land, where there was virtually no one, and since they didnt know the craft very well, and wanted no one to help them, many of them failed or died.

the religious fanatics of today "hijacked" the name of zaionism, but they are not. they are facists are racitst, (even more then I)

"...but I expect some idiot with a grenade to give Sharon another excuse to do what he loves. "

so basically, you say that no matter what, we should forever live with the fact that some palestinian will suicide attack here, and laucnh a rocket there. and do nothing? because as you agree with me, the palestinian government does not have control on the palestinian people.
with no knowlage of sharons's faviorite things.
if it was up to me, Jesse, any attack on israeli (within the 67 borders) soil, whould have been respoded very decicivlly.

and by the way... you left the states? where to?
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Pullout update (what this thread was all about...) (12:31 israel time)

this is the second day, and the gloves are out.
some of the settlers, were convinced to live gaza. but other extreme settlers, god mad by this, and started damaging and blocking tracks, who came to carry the propety of the leaving settlers.

we've got burned tires, and blocked roads, and hundreds of settlers blocking the road, if they wont relent... the army and police will step in

keep you posted
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
"Only one side in this conflict CHOSE this conflict. It's not the palestinians." And you point out a Hannibalian oversimplification?
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
wow i had so many typos and grammar mistakes...
here is the post again:

some of the settlers, were convinced by the army to leave gaza, and thus the army sent tracks over to carry their belongings. but other more extreme settlers, saw this got mad, and decided to block the roads and damage the tracks.

since then the army intervened, and the roads are somewhat clearer.

i need to clarify that most of the problems are caused by settlers from the west bank who infilitrated the gaza strip, the ones from gaza strip, most of them, are in the process of leaving.

who ever will stay after midnight today, will lose 30% of the compensation moeny, and will be evicted by force. (13:40) israel time
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
thats it.

from now on, the settlers presence in gaza is illegal by israeli law.

settlers in more extreme settlements have barricaded themselves inside synagogs. unbelievable how insane these people can be
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
Hannibal, what are folks around you (not directly involved) saying, now that it's underway? That is, what's the scuttlebutt in the cities?
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
where i live? people think that the army should not have went there to evict the crazed settlers.

the army should simply notify them, when it moves all his bases away from gaza, and close it.
thus any jew who stays behind is the citizen of palestine.

thats what people around me say [Smile]
but i live in a leftish city and such are my friends and surroudings.

the majority of israel is adamant that the withraw should take place, but there are questions about whats next. there are several opinions :

the lefties think that this is only the begining and that israel should use the moment to withraw from the settlments in the west bank, or atleast to try again to negotiate with the plaestinians for some sort of an agreemnt

the centralists think that now israel has done its part, and that the ball is in the palestinian hands, if they really want to make peace, they should show maturship, take conrtol over gaza, centralize and/or dismantle the many militant groups in to one palestinian force.

the rightwingers think that israel succombed to terror, that the pullout is a major mistake, that we give alot to the palestinians and we get no assurance in return, and that now the palestinians will only bring the missiles closer to Tel-Aviv.

the religious think that the land of israel was leased to abraham by god, and thus, the israeli government have no right to deal with it, and give it away because its not theirs to give, thats why they are right now fighting over there.


all aspects of israeli politics i think agree that if the palestinians attack even with a minor incident, after and during the withrawal, we should respond in kind never seen before on the palstinias.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Hannibal, I guess you meant "we should respond in kind never seen before on... known militants and military groups" Or did you mean pretty much all Palestinians?
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
look, i know its not politically correct and all.

but i did mean all the palestinians. because basically we cant attack tha "known millitants and millitary groups" in a way never seen before.

what whould happen if syria attacked israel Donald? we will whipe them out, especially if they will attack israeli cities, and not israeli army. on that, we might simply destory their army.

so now, that the palestinians no longer need to drive israeli army away from gaza, if they attack an israeli city, we should whipe them aswell.

and dont be so pretentious, what about the B-52 carpet bombings in afghanistan? and what about the way the american army handled falujah?

if after a palestinian attack on an israeli city, we whould have leveld a block or two in gaza, upon all its residents, they whould have kept their silence for years.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
there is no room for political correctness in the ME i wish there was, but we dont have the luxary to afford it, while israeli citizens die day by day in vain
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Hannibal, there was not "nearly no one", there were hunderds of thousands of people living in Palestine when the modern Zionist movement began.

I am very aware that it was not entirely, or even mostly, a religious movement in it's inception. However, the goal for many was not simply to create Jewish communities (Kibutzes were derided by some as voluntary shtetles) but to create a soveriegn nation out of someone elses land.

The excuse that Native Americans didn't physicaly occupy or "work" very much of their land was often used to justify westward expansion in North America 150 years ago, but it falls short as a justification in either instance.

Why do you believe that Palestinians are somehow fundementally different from every other people on the face of the earth? During the warsaw uprising, teenage girls were launching themselves bodily into German troop carriers with a molotov in each hand.

If you make moves toward Genocide, not only will the US be forced to stop propping up your financialy insolvent nation, but the response from the Palestinians will make the intafada look like a tea party.

The more you punish Palestinian civilians, the more suicide bombers you recruit.
 
Posted by lessismore (Member # 2092) on :
 
I’ve been following the thread and those like it for some time. Trying to figure out how I really feel about and am a little surprised by my conclusion. I find the idea of war repellent, wasteful and stupid, but what may be worse is this constant “toying” with war – its war but not really. Like putting on a bandage on here and ripping off another their before the wound has healed….
I guess I don’t hold out much hope for peace. It may have even gotten to a point where the struggle itself, in that it gives meaning, is required for identity. Still I hope the Palestinians take this opportunity and demonstrate that they want to make peace. (Even if it is a trap set by Sharon, as some are suggesting, the Palestinians don’t have to step in it? Sadly that may be in the hands of a few who “know” they are right.)

There comes a time when all the wishful thinking about war must be recognized for what it is, if war is decided then let it be War. All third parties should leave and let it be decided, (it’s even possible that it has been the third party interferences that has kept this particular struggle alive so long.)
I know even that is to simplistic.

Reminds me of the ‘Intelligent Design and Science’ debate: Palestinian is at war with Israel however it does not have the structure for outright war therefore Israel can’t go to War to put an end to it. It’s a no win.

The Palestinians need a Gandhi.

Happy Birthday Hannibal may your future and that of Israel and Palestine be safe.
 
Posted by lessismore (Member # 2092) on :
 
quote:
The excuse that Native Americans didn't physically occupy or "work" very much of their land was often used to justify westward expansion in North America 150 years ago, but it falls short as a justification in either instance.
Ok, but how does that change anything today? Past justifications from any side are not helpful and the arguments are clouding the current problems.

[QUOTE] During the Warsaw uprising, teenage girls were launching themselves bodily into German troop carriers with a molotov in each hand [\QUOTE] And the Germans put a quick stop to that. What are you trying to say here?

Jesse how would you solve the problem today, no if only’s or could of’s, what action would you take today.
 
Posted by KidA (Member # 1499) on :
 
quote:
have you talked to them? how do you know what most palestinians want? and, if they have been convinced, doesnt that mean that most palestinians want israel to be destoyed?

most(if not all) palestinians defenetly want a better life standard, but its not their primary goal. their primary goal is for israel to sease to exist.

Well, my landlord is Palestinian, and I'm fairly close to him, his family, and one of his close friends (also Palestinian) is a close friend of mine who I see almost every day since he works in the conveniece store in the bottom floor of my building. We talk about politics, life, etc. on a regular basis.

(I should tell you that my landlord is the nicest landlord in the known universe. Not only is he not crooked, which is a rarity in NYC and probably anywhere, but he is also generous. He gave me and my wife rent below market just because we seemed responsible, he fixes things when they break, he offers us free food and beer whenever we throw parties in the back lot behind the store.)

All of these folks have family in Palestine. Their position - they want Gaza, West bank, and East Jerusalem. They will happily live next to Israel once that's been achieved.

BTW, nearly half the folks in my building are Jewish. They are friends with our landlord as well.

Sorry Hannibal, but I'm a little perturbed that you seem to be ready and willing to "wipe" these people and their families.

Sooner or later you'll need to learn this - the only differences between you and a Palestinian are the shoes you walk in. People are made what they are by experience.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
"pretentious?" [Smile] Hey Hannibal, tell me what you really think. But before getting all the big guns out, you might entertain that I was sincerely asking for a clarification. And happy birthday, of course [Wink]

I do think, though, that blowing up a couple of blocks of palestinian "civilian" flesh would be way counterproductive in the long run. You think such a military operation would stop the palestinians dead in their tracks for years... maybe, though I expect it would take at least a second or third response for it to really sink into the determined palestinian nutjobs' (and their handlers') heads.

But in the meantime (and as Jesse so aptly pointed out) you will reap what you sow. I know that there is an impression (well, more than an impression, really) that the international community acts in an effectively anti-Israeli fashion. But Israel does have its allies and supporters - moral, financial, and military. The question is whether Israel can risk losing these at the very same time as it enrages the rest of the world.

This is all aside from the fact that part of the reason for getting the settlers out is to remove friction points between the communities. I suppose lubricating the friction points with the blood of dozens or hundreds of palestinian dead would be one way to achieve that, but I doubt it would work, myself.

And one has to wonder what effect these murders would have on the rest of Israel's immediate neighbours...

Did I say murders? Oops, I guess I did - but that is exactly how such an attack would be viewed by, oh, 99% of the world, so why quibble? The only reason Israel has retained what little of the moral high ground there exists in the region is because its reactions to suicide attacks have been proportional and directed. Levelling a couple of some of the most densely-populated city blocks in the world will pretty much erase any good will that has accrued over the past couple of generations.

Understand, I'm not saying that I would decry this action solely because it is inherently evil. Far more importantly, it would be childish, short-sighted, wasteful and utterly self-defeating. You believe otherwise. Oh well.
 
Posted by Zyne (Member # 117) on :
 
Happy thoughts for all of you, my Israeli friends.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
look, things obviously cant stay the way they are, which means that right now, the palestinans attack israeli cities, with suicide bombers or with rockets, and israel does nothing. we havnt made a targeted "assasination" attack on one of their terrorist leaders since abu-mazen came to power because we want to give him a chance to stablize his control.

but he allready made it clear he is not going to dismantle the militant groups, or even combine them to his forces, its comfortable for him that when he signed a deal of sease fire, there are still palestinians who can attack israel, while israel cant retaliate.

kidA, you asked the wrong questions, ask your land lord, about the right of return, see what he answers. have you forgotten allready? in 1999 our P.M Ehud Barak, offered the palestinians the 1967 borders, and east jerusalem as their capital. we know thats what the palestinians desserve. and they refuted it. they honestly do want to destory israel. i know that it sounds childish that i keep repeting that, but thats how it is.

you all keep say that israel has some "moral" support or higher ground then the palestinians and that it shouldnt lose it, that is so "worth nothing" you see, first of all, the world allready is not in favor with israel, no matter what we do the europeans will allways be in favor of the palestinians. our moral, isnt that high by their standards, as they even tried to put Sharon on trial last year, in the international court. and last, whats good with the world's high opinion of us, when basically we are getting killed in our own cities, and we dont have the rights to retliate?


i am not saying that we should do it NOW, like germany invaded poland. i am saying that enough is enough, had we wanted, we'd leveld the place, the palesitnians think that they "won" over the gaza strip because of their armed struggle. because of that, they will obviously keep their armed struggle to take all of israel. if they attack us now, we should level a couple of blocks kill a couple of tousands, and they will be quite. in the middle east, things are based on fear.

the palestinians are the ones who seek friction with israel, we are now pulling out from gaza, and they will keep on launching rockets on us, its just a question of time, it will happen. enough is enough.

what good is moral if 50 years from now people will remmember the israelis -- "oh they were really nice folks, with a very high moral - even when they were killed by the scores, they didnt retaliate because the ones who killed them hid behind little children"

nobody is talking about genocide here - after all we cant reach to kidA's landlord [Smile] . in the palestinians eyes, we are now weak and defeated. they think that they won, it will only encourage them to keep attacking us. do you see how twisted this point of view is? instead of consolodating their gaines, building gaza and concerning for their inner problems, which are a plenty, they WILL keep on attacking israel. just for that stupidity they deserve a couple of blocks leveled.

now Jesse, when the zionists started coming to israel, it was very scacly populated, they really did came to places where there was no one. not even on a seasonal basis.
cities were founded where the palestinians did not go, over swamps, you know that most of Gush-Dan where now 2 million israelis live on, was swamps 100 years ago? no palestinian went there, nobody in his right mind came there.
the zionists also worked on land that they bought fair and square from the automan empire. now the palestinians were living here prior, they had to know the rules of the automan empire, since it ruled the place for 400 years.
 
Posted by fotwennytime (Member # 1037) on :
 
leveling city blocks is inhuman. beat me, rape me, kill me dead, i do not have the right to destroy innocents. kill my family, friends , neighbors, and countrymen, i do not have the right to destroy innocents. all of the tragedies that have been suffered on both sides, do not justify more tragedy. i hope for the sakes of everyone involved, that someday palestinians and israeli's can see each other as branches in the same human family.

that said, i do think, from what ive heard, that the israeli military has been very restrained. i think that the training necesary for israeli soldiers to not shoot on sight any palestinian with a bulging coat aproaching an israeli gathering place, or not return fire when being fired upon, must be very well executed. the faith that these men and women place in thier governments ability to rule is amazing.

as hannibal and ricky pointed out its a very difficult situation, but as jesse pointed out using terror tactics against terrorists is pointless. if fear alone were enough to persuade people, there would be no non combatants in israel or palestine. there has been enough bloodshed to persuade most rational people to leave.

please dont interperet that to mean that i think either side is truly irrational, only that both sides seem to be acting on faith, and an inborn sense of there own moral superiority. a non religious mathematician (i think) would be looking for a nice flat in holland, rather than holding out waiting for the next attack or retaliation, to see if thier families are lessened by collateral damage.

of course this is all from my extremely naive worlview and my idealistic ramblings. at least i know that where i live, and where i grew up is so far away from this conflict, that i have very little chance of truly understanding the things being felt on both sides. my best wishes to you all, may you find the peace deserved by all innocents.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Hannibal, it is simply false that we have not attempted a targetted assasination since Abu Mazen came to power. We have, several times. Other assertions you have made in this post are grossly inflated, but I don't have the time or energy to go into it.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Ricky, there was only one attemped assasination which unforitonatly failed, before Abu mazen, there was one almost every day.

also, [Smile] you allways think i over inflate, i dont think so, but feel free to qoute me and we can talk about it.

fotwennytime, nice post, i feel i need to tell you that i am not a beliving man, far from it, i blame religion on everything that happend in this conflict, and still I, and many israelis think what i think. understand that i dont want israel to kill palestinians, or anything of the sort, i am merely pointing out that now the palestinians have the ball in their hands.

if they really want a country of their own, then they've got gaza for their own, they can start build and unite their dissidant people, they can basically do whatever they want. and if i was in command in palestine that's what i'd do.
and if the palestinians, now that they've got gaza, will keep attack israel, we should retaliate in such an overwhelming force that they will cry for ages. as you said we are very restrained, and very trained.
also... about living in holland, i donno, there was a terror attack in london, whould you have believed that such a thing could happen? then why not in holland too?


I have actually wanted to post another update...
the crazed settlers do it again, a settler in the west bank decided to take a rifle and spray some palestinians, so far reports say he killed 3 palestinians. he is the second jewish terrorist, after last month's attack in the israeli druze village.

link :

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3129128,00.html

[ August 17, 2005, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: Hannibal ]
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
Did I read properly that the terrorist settler was captured? I'd like to know how that happened. Something tells me a Palestinian gunman would not be in such good shape.
 
Posted by Koner (Member # 1390) on :
 
quote:
Did I read properly that the terrorist settler was captured? I'd like to know how that happened. Something tells me a Palestinian gunman would not be in such good shape.
Yes the Israeli terrorist was captured by ISRAELI police/military. Have you ever heard of a Palistinian terrorist being captured by Palistinian police? Do the Palistinian authorities even try to find Palistinian terrorists? Something tells me that the Israeli gunman would not be in such good shape had the Palistinians found him first.

That is the difference between civilized and uncivilized peoples. The civilized people at least try to police themselves.

[ August 17, 2005, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Koner ]
 
Posted by KidA (Member # 1499) on :
 
quote:
kidA, you asked the wrong questions, ask your land lord, about the right of return, see what he answers. have you forgotten allready? in 1999 our P.M Ehud Barak, offered the palestinians the 1967 borders, and east jerusalem as their capital. we know thats what the palestinians desserve. and they refuted it. they honestly do want to destory israel. i know that it sounds childish that i keep repeting that, but thats how it is.

Ah, yes. You are correct that my memory edited out the "right of return" issue, which I did ask about, and which they did affirm the was a major (perhaps the major) demand. When you say "destroy" Israel, I'm geussing that you mean ending it's status as a Jewish state. And this is where the debate enders territory where I cannot tread without utter confusion. I argue with myself about this constantly.

Where does the "religion" of Judaism end, and the issue of "culture" begin? It seems that there are many "secular" Jews who still favor a Jewish state. I'm very slow to comprehend issues like this, since I'm a lifelong atheist, was brought up without any religion whatsoever, and have know idea what it feels like to believe that one is connected to land and community by God (my perception is that it is always by threat of physical force). I know it's a difficult question, I don't expect anyone to come up with an answer that can satisfy everyone.

I totally understand that Jews have a very special and troubled history, and that they continue to be a target worldwide. But what a trap! Our understanding of this, and the help the west gives to Israel, has paradoxically led to a perpetration (not, I wish to make clear, the origination) of the worst bigotries, and "world conspiracy" theories.

I support the right of Israel to exist, within, as you say, the 1967 borders. However, as Ricky will hopefully back up here, the 1999 debate were extremely flawed, with Barak and Araft bearing roughly equal responsibility for the failure of the talks. Each side is so suspicious of the other.

My main point, Hannibal, is that decades of conflict has led each side to dehumanize the other. Neither side is a monolith - each culture is a composed of individuals with their own opionions and experiences - but neither side can see this anymore in the other.

Israel was and is necessary. I can see that very clearly.

And yet, as my Palestinian freind said once, with a shrug: "If your land is taken by force, you take it back by force."

I can see why Amos Oz described the conflict as being betweem "right and right" - therefore defining it as tragedy. How the blazes do you overcome that? I can only see one solution - and it involves both sides realizing that as human beings, they have more in common with one another than differences - i.e., that the differences of power, economics, religion, do not mean that they are fundamentally different as people. How do you get there? I am at a loss. (I've heard of some cross-border exchange programs for school kids - a good start, I suppose).
 
Posted by KidA (Member # 1499) on :
 
Koner said:

quote:
That is the difference between civilized and uncivilized peoples. The civilized people at least try to police themselves
That is a very ignorant remark, totally ignoring the imbalance of power between the two societies.
 
Posted by Koner (Member # 1390) on :
 
[
quote:
That is a very ignorant remark, totally ignoring the imbalance of power between the two societies
Its neither ignorant nor ignoring the balance of power between those two societies. Its fact. The Palastinians do absolutely NOTHING to those members of its society that carry out terrorist acts against the Israelis. In fact they seem to do very little to even discourage them their terrorist activities.

You don't see Israeli citizens lobbing missles at Palistian settlements. You don't see Israelis blowing themselves up in the hope of killing a few Palasitinians who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. What you do see from Isreal is measured attacks against Palastinian militant safehouses in retaliation for terrorist acts against its citizens.

Now when an Israeli grabs a gun and shoots a few random Palistinians in an act of terror what did you see? The Israeli's taking the appropriate action of arresting the gunman. I would hope that they will prosecute him for the murders he commited but as it only happened today its still too early to tell what exactly will happen.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
"the crazed settlers do it again, a settler in the west bank decided to take a rifle and spray some palestinians, so far reports say he killed 3 palestinians - Hannibal"

Sooo... does that mean the Palestinians get to level a couple of Israeli blocks, or will you guys do that yourselves? [Wink]
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Koner you the man,

even though we have scum like the settlers, we still try to bring them alive to the court, to be tried legally. and we DO fight them and bring them to justice, wereas the palestinians not even think of outlawing their terrorist organizations.

KidA, is there any arab country which you consider good? with good life quality and freedom status? NO
now look at israel? the most advanced country in the middle east, and more advanced them several western countries aswell. so why should we "arabise" our country and ruin it, seems to me we only lose from this agreement

another thing.... we israelis... as childish as it might be, HATE the palestinians, we dont like them, and the palestinias as childish as it might be... they HATE US too, (and i use hate, but its much more then that)

and why is that? because we are two different people and we need to seperate ourselves in two different countries with firmly stated borders. so what the palestinians want? listen carefully to their "sophistication"

they want A) to have a palestinian state, governed by palestinians, this state will be over Gaza and the West Bank there will be no jews in this land, only palestinians. but the palestinians also want B) the "right of return" which means... ASIDE to the palestinian land for the palestinians... they want millions of palestinian refugees to go to live in ISRAEL, which means that the palestinians gain two countries and we lose everything.

the only way for our two VERY different people to live in some sort of agreeable peace, is if there will be a firm border between our peoples.


so no... they dont want a country of their own they want to destroy israel
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hannibal:
even though we have scum like the settlers, we still try to bring them alive to the court, to be tried legally. and we DO fight them and bring them to justice, wereas the palestinians not even think of outlawing their terrorist organizations.

Like you try to bring rock-throwing Palestinian teenagers to court? I've given a lot of slack to Israeli soldiers in those situations, but I'm just wondering...

Will Israel arrest their terrorists and then cut them loose via the back-door like the PA has? The PA often makes a big show about arresting Pals, then quietly discharges them a few months later. Time will tell.

These resisting settlers are now enemies of Israel, just as much as the Palestinians. Let's see Israel use an equally heavy hand on these SOBs, and she will be vindicated for using force against Arabs.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Of course, these resisting settlers are citizens of israel, while the palestinians are not.

So...I doubt israel will use an equally heavy hand, but that shouldn't be construed as taking away the necessity of dealing with people by force, whose aim is destroying your country by force.
 
Posted by Sancselfieme (Member # 1373) on :
 
Well I've been following the news so far and it looks like the only deaths have been acts of terrorism against the Palestinians so far. A strange turn of events.

Israeli Soldiers Clear Out Gaza Strip

quote:
In the West Bank, an Israeli settler grabbed a gun from a security guard in the Shilo settlement and started shooting Palestinians, killing three and wounding two before being arrested. The killings aroused fears of Palestinian retaliation and the disruption of the evacuation mission.

Sharon condemned the shootings as acts of "Jewish terror" aimed at stopping the pullout. He said the violence was "aimed against innocent Palestinians, out of twisted thinking, aimed at stopping the disengagement."

Later, Palestinians fired a mortar shell toward the Morag settlement, but no injuries were reported. The Islamic militant group Hamas threatened to avenge the shootings but said it had an interest in seeing the withdrawal proceed.

quote:
In Kfar Darom, several hundred settlers went on a rampage, pushing large cinderblocks off a bridge and trying to torch a nearby Arab house, witnesses said. Israel troops brought the fire under control and tried to push the settlers back into Kfar Darom as Palestinians threw stones.


quote:
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas urged restraint, telling Islamic preachers in his Gaza office: "We should let them go peacefully in order not to give them any reason to delay the evacuation."

The Palestinians have deployed thousands of troops to prevent any attacks on settlers or Israeli soldiers during the withdrawal.

I did not think a few thounsand people could cause the Israeli government so much trouble, they are quite extreme.

quote:
A 54-year-old West Bank woman opposed to the pullout set herself on fire Wednesday in southern Israel, suffering life-threatening burns over 70 percent of her body, officials said. She had the smell of gas on her, a paramedic said.

In the hardline outpost of Kerem Atzmona, irate settlers shouted at soldiers: "Nazi!""Refuse orders!" and "Jews don't expel Jews!" Soldiers dragged the flailing residents from their homes and loaded them onto buses, as children cried in the homes.

Several soldiers were hit by white paint bombs, and protesters smashed a bus window.

Some teenage activists - many of them West Bank activists - showed fierce resistance. Troops dragged dozens of protesters, some as young as 12, onto buses and took them away. "I want to die!" screamed one youth as he was hauled off.




[ August 17, 2005, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Sancselfieme ]
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
now you know why i oppuse religion?

look what we have to deal with?

the Drake, i myself, and israel dont owe you nothing, so you can keep your vindication to yourself.

israel will not relise any terrorist via the back door like the palestinians do, because israel is a normal country, we dont bring rock throwing palestinians to court, we dont even arrest them, the people we arrest are hard core terrorists.

the fact that you dont know how extreme the settlers are, shows how little you know of the situation, they are ultra extreme. they are indeed the enemies of israel, problem is they have about 20 parliment sits in the knesset to support them. it is fXXXing unbelivable, some times i truly think the country is going down the drain
 
Posted by Sancselfieme (Member # 1373) on :
 
By the way your country DOES owes the US a lot. We have provided you enormous aid every single year and international soft-power and hard-power support. Not to mention all the military technology and gifts which we normally wouldn't just let another country puchase, let alone have for free. Israel is the most stable democracy in the middle east so far and for that reason alone I think it is wise to support them, but don't think for a second that your country does not owe it's continued existance and prosperity to the US. If Israel expects this kind of support in the future they will learn to accomodate our few requests and not drag our name through the mud. One of those requests is that Israel, as the bigger, superior, and hopefully morally-correct party do everything in its power to stop unnecessary provokations that will lead to further bloodshed. Frankly, I think your government didn't assign enough troops to this pullout and these incidents could have been easily avoided.

[ August 17, 2005, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Sancselfieme ]
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Hannibal, have you ever BEEN to the occupied territories? As a civilian, not a soldier. Seeing things from the side (or goddess forbid from the Palestinian perspective)?

I don't think you have.

Along with arresting real terrorists, We arrest people EVERY DAY that have nothing whatsoever to do with terror. quite a few are people who are making enormous efforts to keep to non-violent struggle, and to convince others in their society to do the same. Our people on the ground invent trumped up charges against these people and except in very rare cases, pay no price for this even when a judge eventually rules that they were lying.

You have NO IDEA how arbitrary, callous, and petty our rule in the occupied territories is. It's not nearly as murderous as some depict it, but it is evil and infuriating in many little and big ways.

Most of the time, btw, these people are released after a week or two or three in jail, but they recieve no compensation and are often arrested again before long.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
the incident, took place in the west bank, not in gaza, there were no incidents there. and no one expected this 40 year old family man who drives and eats launch with his workers to suddenly go on a shooting spree and kill them.

your government doesnt give anything to israel for free, you give us money, of which we can buy only american goods with, we PAY it back in payments, american companies, KNOW that we CANT use the money anywhere else so they charge double price for those goods. so YOUR money returns to YOUR industry TWICE - once when we buy with it, and once when we pay it back. you dont let our LOCAL industries grow, and ween out of your dependency, you basically make us more and more dependent on purpose.

Frankly, i think your government and the european governments are very good at telling israel how to react, and what to do, but when some one attacked you we all know what you did. and we experience it for 56 years, way way before we controlled the palestinian territories.
so dont take it on the occupation.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
"You have NO IDEA how arbitrary, callous, and petty our rule in the occupied territories is. It's not nearly as murderous as some depict it, but it is evil and infuriating in many little and big ways. "

i agree 100%, thats why we need to get the hell out of there and build a wall.

we cant errect settlements over there, and use the settlements as an excuse to blockade the palestinians.
 
Posted by Sancselfieme (Member # 1373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hannibal:
the incident, took place in the west bank, not in gaza, there were no incidents there. and no one expected this 40 year old family man who drives and eats launch with his workers to suddenly go on a shooting spree and kill them.

your government doesnt give anything to israel for free, you give us money, of which we can buy only american goods with, we PAY it back in payments, american companies, KNOW that we CANT use the money anywhere else so they charge double price for those goods. so YOUR money returns to YOUR industry TWICE - once when we buy with it, and once when we pay it back. you dont let our LOCAL industries grow, and ween out of your dependency, you basically make us more and more dependent on purpose.

Frankly, i think your government and the european governments are very good at telling israel how to react, and what to do, but when some one attacked you we all know what you did. and we experience it for 56 years, way way before we controlled the palestinian territories.
so dont take it on the occupation.

Even if this were the case, which I don't think it is, it's still free money and services, just probably not as much as you would like to have. But hey, if your government thinks it's so abusive why not just stop accepting the money and also start paying back all the aid we've ever given you. Then you can do what you want without having to answer for us. I don't think you would like funneling half your country's GNP into defense to make up for the lack of weapons and technology we give you.

We DO tell Israel how to react sometimes because
1. We have chosen to help Israel out in numerous ways, if they want any of that help to continue they will comply.
2. Israel is an embodiment of western-style democracy in a fragile region and should serve as a model for the democratic transformation we wish to occur there. We will act accordingly to make sure they act this way.
If you don't like the above two reasons then
3. We are more powerful than Israel.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
"it's still free money and services, stop accepting the money and also start paying back all the aid we've ever given you" you didnt listen? we do pay, it will take years till we finish paying.

what about all the money you gave to the european countries? you gave them much more, and they dont give a S--- about what you think, and they even dont intend to pey their debts.

3. We are more powerful than Israel.
OOOoooOOOooo

that could have been the grandest display man kind have made over this planet, but we whould probably lose yes, even if it whouldnt be as easy as invading iraq [Smile] , i think some one started a thread about this a while back


so you say that israel should let its citizens die, for nothing, because if not, the united states will destroy israel? what a mighty ally you are
 
Posted by Sancselfieme (Member # 1373) on :
 
No, you are wrong, Israel gets the most foreign aid that the US gives out, and I don't think we expect to get it paid back.

As I understand it, there are only slight restrictions surrounding the use of jyst the money we give you (I think it is 12 billion). We do not have stipulations for your overall budget, so even if we were requiring you to spend that 12 billion on our goods and services, you don't have pay us back anything.

quote:
so you say that israel should let its citizens die, for nothing, because if not, the united states will destroy israel? what a mighty ally you are
Yes that is what I am saying! [Roll Eyes] What I was obviously saying is that we expect Israel to police itself better than the Palestinians and not let its people go out and become terrorists themselves. Your country is supposed to be a beacon of democracy and order in the middle of a chaotic region, and unless Israel wants to be ultimately treated as a terrorist or unreasonably-agressive state, it should behave itself.

[ August 17, 2005, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: Sancselfieme ]
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
Here's a good question. Why not just leave the settlers there to be butchered by the Arabs? Then build your wall.

And no, Israel certainly doesn't have to curry the favor of one random American like me - or anyone else. Israel must do what Israel must do. However, one should not also be surprised at negative reactions to a perceived softness with regard to fanatical settlers. Because if anything, one must stamp out this behaviour even more zealously within their own population.

Allies of the US are allies because we recognize mutual self-interest, just like all of our allies. Israelis certainly don't owe some debt of gratitude, like those military supplies were some kind of Hannukah presents. Israel has paid us back with our influence in the area, bombing Middle East nuclear facilities, intelligence, and lots of other mutual benefits.

Even if the US and Israel should drift apart, like the US and France, we will largely have respect for each other.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Drake, I answered that earlier in the thread.

quote:
Ev, would that we could do that. But then they'd get slaughtered, do some terrible laughtering of their own first, and our public wouldn't stand for it. It would poison the whole process. We'd be held responsible for their crimes in the eyes of the world, so what would be the point?

Also, you have to understand that the settlements in the Gaza Strip are insane, in that they are sprawling suburban/rural type places in the middle of the most over populated piece of land in the world. The settlements of the Qatif block basically choke off the natural expansion space of the city of Khan Younis.

Even if relations between Palestinians and Israelis were 100 times better, there's no way the Palestinian authority could tolerate their continued existence. The palestinians need the land too badly. It's also why we couldn't make a deal to leave and sell the houses. The Palestinians have no use for this type of housing, and it would only cause resentment towards the lucky few that would get them. Where 8,500 Jews have hitherto lived, at least 10 times as many Palestinians will be settled. Probably more. And still be better off than they are now.

Besides, even though the Gaza settlers aren't as whacked as some of the West Bank ones, it just wouldn't work socially. Too much bad blood. What we need right now is separation. Let both sides have a break from each other and learn that their real problems aren't due to the other side. Then we can start cooperating sensibly.


 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Drake, i have no answer for your question, i wish we had. i honestly dont know why we needed to force them, if it was up to me, had they wanted to stay? cest-la-vie welcome to palestine for them.

"we expect Israel to police itself better than the Palestinians and not let its people go out and become terrorists themselves. Your country is supposed to be a beacon of democracy and order in the middle of a chaotic region, "

Israel does all those things. but how much do we need to take? the world hates us, we cant get lower then this. i dont care that this is the case, i am just saying, if they allready think that we slaughtered palestinians in Jenin what does it matter, anoter slaughering?

that the israeli civilian population is being attacked by palestinian terrorists, whom the palestinian goverment, has no intention to stop, doesnt matter to them.

how whould you react if mexico launched rockets on your southern cities? how whould any country react when its civilian population is attacked by another?
only israel is expected to act "morally" when no one else even gets as half as moral as we do. why do we need to suffer this?

and all i am saying is that, now, if the palestinians supposedly wanted peace with us and a country of their own, they allready have a major part of it to control and maintain, it could be good training for them. and if the palestinians attack us now, that it is ovious that can do LOTS of things that they should do. it merely proves that that they dont seek peace with us, and thus we can retaliate severly on them. no need to enter to gaza again, just a squad of F-15s

how did america handled the resistance in falujah? shall we use the same "non distractive" method? we can be more efficient and less harmfull to surroundings , much more, unforitonatly it doesnt deter the palestinians. what deters them is fear.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Hannibal, once upon a time a Mexican revolutionary named Pancho Villa *DID* attack one of our towns.

We behaved like civilized people and tried to hunt him down, we didn't just invade some random mexican town and murder an equal number of civilians.

Fear sure has done a great job of detering them palestinians so far. Hell, until some proto-Israelis gave em a good old dose of fear, they didn't even know they WERE palestinians.

An answer? Step one is as simple as it is impossible.

"We're sorry we chased you out of your villages at gun point, we're sorry we stole your land when you fled from conflict as civilians are prone to do, but there isn't any going back from this point. We're not going to compensate you in cash for the homes and livestock you lost, but rather in material improvements to your infrastructure and educational opportunites. We're attempting to purchase land from our neighbors equal to the 80% of present day Israel we never paid cash for, and will allow the future Palestinian state to use or distribute this land as they see fit.

Whatever technical assistance we can provide in planning sanitation and irragation, we are at your disposal.

For the present, Israel and Palestine must remain divided by a strong and well defended border for the security of both our peoples. Perhaps, some day, we can loosen those borders, but this is not the time.

Those who were themselves denied the right of return and have immediate family still living in the state of Israel may petition the Israeli government for reunification and return, and provided that they do not have a personal history of violence which poses an unreasonable security risk, will be allowed to immigrate"

Or, do you think at most 10-15 thousand people who are at least 57+ years old would destroy Israel as a Jewish state?

We have three posibilities. 1) the genocide of the Palestinian people 2) ontinued violence 3) an attempt by Israel to redress the wrongs it committed against several hundred thousand families.

No one but The Creator will ever forgive us for things we are unwilling to apologize for.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
you blame israel for everything that happned to the palestinians.

you know that Gaza, was an egyptian territory, and that the West Bank was a jordanian territory, those two countries never took responsibility over the palestinians, and kept them under crappy conditions in refugee camps on purpose. they have as much part of this as israel, even more.
you see, when israel was founded (unlike now when palestine is being founded) the last thing we wanted to do, was to go to war with the 100 million arabs who surround us, so we extended our hand in peace, and told the native arabs to stay in their homes and remain citizens of israel, (it didnt bother them to be citizens of the british empire, or of the automan empire before) at this stage nobody did anything to them.
but arab countries, decided to wipe israel out, they promised the palestinians a quick vicotry, and URGED them, to leave their homes, just to return in a short while after we are destroyed. those countries included Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon etc. during the battles many palestinians fled israel, but the motivators for this were not israeli. had the other arab countries didnt attack israel back then, the palestinians whould have HAD a state of their own, and even have palestinians in the state of israel.
the arab countries lied to the palestinians, and eventually even annexed the territories promised to them under the UN resolutions, and then kept the palestinians under hellish conditions, just to presure israel.

and you blame it all for israel, WE need to rebuild gaza,

as for the rest of your post :

"Whatever technical assistance we can provide in planning sanitation and irragation, we are at your disposal."

you dont understand the situation, ANY thing we will help them to make, they will destroy, they hate us so much they whouldnt want it. honestly it is the truth, the last thing the palestinian leadership want to do is to have israel to help them.

"We behaved like civilized people and tried to hunt him down, we didn't just invade some random mexican town and murder an equal number of civilians."

we dont either... we know exactly where they shoot the rockets from, but we dont retaliate because its from a densly populated area, understand that they can launch the rockets from within windows, and from porches, or roofs of buildings. i am simply suggesting that we will stop restraining ourselves.

and what about your "Dulitle Raid" after the attack on purl harbour? what about the leveling of drezden, hambourg, berlin, what about the A-bombs? and the fire-bombings on tokyo? you knew that most buildings there are made of wood, and specifically used incednary bombs to increase the fire. how civilized you are. what about the naplam bombs in vietnam?

"An answer? Step one is as simple as it is impossible. "

as i cleared before, the arab countries have inflicted much more harm then us, had they did not attack israel, even the palestinians who stayed within israel could have stayed.
at the most, i am willing to agree to a joined statment signed by israel and all the participants of the war of indipendence, and i whould like to see whats written before i sign on it.


"Or, do you think at most 10-15 thousand people who are at least 57+ years old would destroy Israel as a Jewish state?" and their children, and their children's children.
and what about a million palestinians who live in the palestinian territories and want to move to israel?

no that simply wont cut it, the palestinians are about to have a country of their own, the palestinians place is there. if they want family reunification, they can all move to the palestinian land, and reunite there, not in israel.

why do they want it so much? because they know that living in palestine will be crap, and living in israel is great in relation to their countries, 60 years ago, when living in israel was crap too, they didnt mind, but now seeing israel as it is, they dont want to live in palestine but in israel. and we dont allow this.


"We have three posibilities. 1) the genocide of the Palestinian people 2) ontinued violence 3) an attempt by Israel to redress the wrongs it committed against several hundred thousand families."

as i said, israel is not the sole element in the palestinians situation, and it is not even the main element, responisbility for their situation is on the arab nations.
i did not say we should genocide them and i did not say that violance should continue.

for israel there is one posibility : to withraw back to the 1967 borders, as much as possible (removing the city of Ariel for instance... thats a problem) building a concrete wall between israel and palestine.
the palestinians have two possibilities...
1) joice in the fact that finally they are starting to have a territory of their own and start building their country
2) they can keep on attacking israel, even though they DO have a country of their own - which is a Casus-Beli, and thus israel is entitled to reply in full force, just as if, it was an attack by syria.

i am sure that if syria decided to attack israeli cities, you whouldnt say anything had israel leveled them in 3 days.
and again, that brings us back to fear, you see, the syrians dont attack us, because they know we will destroy them in less then a week. the palestinians have no problem to keep attecking us indefenetly because they know our hands are tied behind our backs, once they'll know what the syrians know (learend during 67, 73, and 82) they will keep to themselves aswell
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
so it begins, "phisical" eviction of settlers have begun, the police and the army, have begun to pull out the settlers who barricaded themselves inside the synagouge in Neve Dekalim
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
in case you are watching CNN now, they are yelling that "a jew does not expell another jew"

well we are only moving them a little bit [Smile]
 
Posted by lessismore (Member # 2092) on :
 
quote:
Step one is as simple as it is impossible.
could have been, should have been, if only, if only, if only...people were reasonable... a simple impossible solution…
Last night I heard a Hamas leaders declare the pullout a victory resulting from their “tactics” and their right to continue its armed campaign. Where is the hope?

[ August 18, 2005, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: lessismore ]
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
no hope, no partners for peace treaty, thats why we are pulling out one sidedly, and thats why we have to strike severly on the palestinians, if they continue attack us after the pullout.
 
Posted by Athelstan (Member # 2566) on :
 
Sixty years ago there was the British Mandate of Palestine. It was taken by conquest from the Turks during the First World War. In 1922 78% of the population was Muslim. Under the terms of the Mandate the British worked with the Muslims to prepare them for self government (Yeah I know). It was the Muslims who were in the Police Force. It was a minority of Jewish population who were the terrorists. Menachem Begin and his Irgun gang were responsible for the murder and mutilation of British soldiers. But time moves on and in 1977 Begin became Prime Minister of Israel and later paid a state visit to Britain. Britain bit its tongue and shock his hand. You have to live in the World of Now.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Athelstan, the purpose of the british mandate was NOT to create a muslim state in israel.

the british were commited to the establishment of a jewish state since a document they issued on the 29/11/1917 called the "Balfour Declaration" where they commit to create a jewish state over the land of israel. they dont commit to a date, or to its borders and size, but they do commit to a jewish state on the land of israel.

it is also wrong what you said that the jews were terrorists, there were groups like the Etzel(what you call Irgun) , Lehi, and Hagana, who WERE on the brittish terrorist group but there were also many arab bands, actually the jewish groups were created BECAUSE arab bands started massacring jewish villages (the pogroms of 1919-1921) the meaning of the word "Hagana" in hebrew is "protection" and that was the biggest and most moderate organization, who didnt consider the british as its enemies, and even HELPED them during WWII. the etzel adn lehi were more militant, but they were tiny compared to the Hagana.

when Israel was founded, israeli leaders were mature enough to understand that a democracy cannot exist with militant groups, so the moment israel was founded the etzel and the lehi were OUTLAWED, and forced to hand over their weapons, or join the IDF (based opun the hagana). there is a famous story of the supply ship Altalena, which brought weapons for the Etzel only and they refused to hand them to the IDF, even though israel was in dire situation, and in desperate need of weapons the PM (Bengurion) ordered the ship sunk and destroyed.

Yasser Arafat, was the leader of the fatah, and was responsible to hundreds if not tousands of dead israeli civilians, not soldiers, civilians, and still our P.M itzhak rabin tried to deal with him, brought him to israel and shook his hand, and the entire state of israel bit its tongue, gave him his un-earned chance, which he ofcourse blew.

how many mistakes can a person write in a single post...
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
shall i translate the meaning of Hamas? or Islamic Jihad? or the PLO ?

they all mean - "the end of israel"

are the palestinian leaders, who try to create a democracy, going to dismantle and outlaw the palestinian militant groups?

in palestine, it is the opposite, the moderate organization (if there even is one) is the smallest and weakest, and the more powerfull ones are organizations like the Hamas, and Islamic Jihad who are hundreds of times bigger and more founded then the Etzel and Lehi.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Nov. 29 was the UN partition. Balfour was issued on Nov. 2nd.

Also, the PLO has far more members than Hamas. Hamas may be threatening them in the polls, but the PLO is NOT the smallest and the weakest. It is older and better established throughout society. No Hamas leader was ever universally accepted as leader of the Palestinians.

The Altelena story, though, is extremely apropos. The Palestinians have got to lay down the law if they want to have the rule thereof. Either they enforce a coexistence on their side, or there won't be one.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
And, before Balfour, the entire region was promised to Prince Fiesel (sp) in return for his assistance against the Turks.

Right, turn in your weapons and walk away free of punishment for Diar Yasin, Abu Kabeer, Qisarya, Haifa, ect. How incredibly just.

Hannibal, you've already admited in other threads that the removal of Arabs from within the 48 borders was essential to the creation of a democratic and jewish Israel. Without the removal of that population, jews would have been a minority from day one.

We're often talking about two different things. You're talking about the policies of nations and I'm talking about people.

The father of one of my friends, who is now deceased, was an arab who owned acreage which happened to fall within the 1948 boundaries of Israel. He never owned a gun, or killed anyone. In his own words "I never cared if they said the Turks or the British or the Jews were in charge, I cared if it rained enough for the goats to get fat".

In 1948, the Igrun showed up at his house, dragged everyone outside, and said they were looking for some sniper that had been firing on them from the house. He said they were free to search all of his property and asked them to stop tearing up his furniture. He caught a rifle butt in the face, and was stomped for a few minutes by half a dozen men in front of his family.

They left, threatening to burn the house and kill all the livestock if anything like that happened again.

Weeks later, shells started falling near his house. He said he didn't know who the hell was firing them. He rounded up his family and what they could carry and ran.

They wound up in a refugee camp and after several years of being refused any claim to their land, they immigrated to the US with the help of one of his shirt-tail relatives who was working for our Immigration and Naturalization services.

Was he owed an appology Hannibal?


I can go one better if you want Dresden details Hannibal...the RAF engaged in a practice raid a few months before and then used surveilance planes the observe the response time of emergency services.

In the actual raid, they used this information to delibrately time the second wave of their attack to catch firefighters in the open.

So what? How the hell is it relevant? "The palestinains have no right to be upset with us, other populations have been treated in even more horrible ways than we treated them?"

They have every right to despise the State of Israel Hannibal. It's policies have treated them as sub-humans for generations. You, yourself, speak of them as such.

This does NOT give them the right to murder Israeli non-combatants.


I didn't say you advocated genocide Hannibal, I said that the policy you advocate (retribution against a civilian population) can only lead to genocide in the end.


The central question here, however, which I will not stop pressing you on until I recieve a clear and concise answer, is "By what moral right did the State of Israel claim soverienty over this territory."

You've tried arguing right of conquest. If some more powerful nation invades Israel, terrorizes the civilian population, claims the land, and then refuses to allow any Israeli who fled any compensation, you see that as completely just.

"Conquest by proxy", the Balfour argument, doesn't hold any more water. "I'm not giving your bike back. This guy stole it and told me I could keep it, so I'm keeping it."

You've tried vaccumen dominicus, the argument that "No one lived here anyway". Apparently, it would be perfectly all right for any people of any origin to move into an undeveloped part of the Negev and proclaim themselves a little nation as long as they made capital improvements to previously unused land?

The U.N. resolution creating the Israel? Would make for a convincing argument, except for the fact that it was virtually the last UN resolution anyone in the Israeli government apparently bothered to read.

So, what, in the end, is the justification Hannibal? Have you got one that holds up to any scrutiny?
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
what you mean Jesse, is since you discharge any legal justification of israel, that in your mind israel should not have existed

what moral justification? first of all, jews allways lived here, since bilibal times, that is a proven historical fact.
secondly, all along the history, jews were being slaughtered and mistreated by the world's sociaties, the zionist movment was greatly effected by the fact that jews were being pogromed in russia.
since the jews saw that during those times (which were called the "spring of nations") many peoples got a country for their own, the jews wanted the same thing.

you even stated that the land was promised to some beduin leader from saudi arabia, why is that? because no-one recognized the arabs who lived here as palestinians, you see, even they themselves did not considered themselves a different people then arabs who lived in egypt etc, only once they saw that a state in israel is about to be founded that they developed their national identity.


"you've already admited in other threads that the removal of Arabs from within the 48 borders was essential to the creation of a democratic and jewish Israel. Without the removal of that population, jews would have been a minority from day one." i never admited such thing.

infact i stated that had the arabs stayed, they whould have remained israeli citizens. we now have more then million arabs who stayed and they ARE israeli citizens. had this been the situation with the refugees to begin with, had they stayed, then they whould have been israeli citizens.
note that once israel was founded the Etzel (Irgun Tzvai Leumi - National Militant Organization) was OUTLAWED just because of stories like the one you mentioned. and in some cases like the Altalena story - even attacked by the Hagana.

but since they have not stayed, its their lost, certainly israel is now better off, then what was offered to it in 1947, you cant expect any israeli in is right mind to agree to turn back the wheel. back then israel whould have agreed to any partition offer, right now defenetly no.

"They have every right to despise the State of Israel Hannibal. It's policies have treated them as sub-humans for generations. You, yourself, speak of them as such."

i admit i am, i dont view them any better then they me, had you got to know them, your views might have been the same. thats not the point.
ofcourse they have lots of reasons to hate israel and israelis, and ofcourse israelis have lots of reasons to hate palestinians, on that you have to agree.

so why do the palestinians INSIST on living with israelis? the best solution is TWO SEPERATE states, once for israelis, and one for palesitnians. whats the freakin problem?

didn't say you advocated genocide Hannibal, I said that the policy you advocate (retribution against a civilian population) can only lead to genocide in the end.

why whould it? where the germans genocided? infact less germans died then the jews they killed in the death camps.

listen to WHY i say israel should retaliate the way it should - right now after the pullout the palestinians will finally get a territory that they can run on themselves, FOR themselves and BY themselves. if they wanted a country so much, then they should use the chance to build one, if they attack israel now, it means that attacking israel is more important to them, then having a country, and we israelis need not tolerate this.

"Conquest by proxy", the Balfour argument, doesn't hold any more water. "I'm not giving your bike back. This guy stole it and told me I could keep it, so I'm keeping it.""

again, the arabs who lived here Never where the ones who owned and controled the land. they were considered by themselves, and by the other nations as arabs, so no one had a problem with giving a small part of the land here to the jews since the arabs who are quite spread thin, had a huge territory.

"it would be perfectly all right for any people of any origin to move into an undeveloped part of the Negev and proclaim themselves a little nation as long as they made capital improvements to previously unused land?"

and again, this land was never under any soverign rule, no body owned it, this example is false.

"The U.N. resolution creating the Israel? Would make for a convincing argument, except for the fact that it was virtually the last UN resolution anyone in the Israeli government apparently bothered to read."

Ha Ha Ha, such a funny sarcastic statment, and the palestinians, they abide by one less UN resolution then us - this one.

seriously do the palestinians abide to any UN resolution? do they abide to any treaties the SIGNED with israel?

israel holds to much more treaties then you think.
 
Posted by Athelstan (Member # 2566) on :
 
History is an opinionated subject and as my last entry was apparently full of false opinions I thought I jot down a few more.

The Balfour declaration was a letter from A J Balfour, British Foreign Secretary, to Lord Rothschild. In 1917 the First World War was going badly for Britain. There were rumours that certain Jews might withhold their financial help for the War and it was suggested a letter stating the idea of Jewish Homeland in Palestine would have governmental support would go down well. Balfour was from the Victorian Age and thought a personal letter between gentlemen would never be made public. His trust was misplaced but the contents of the letter in no way reflected British Governmental Policy.

The British Mandate of Palestine was given to Britain after the end of the First World War by the League of Nations. Palestine was a Class A mandate so the British were required to develop Palestine to become an independent nation. The mandate did require the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine but also the safegaurding of all rights of all inhabitants. I suppose its how you define “Jewish national home in Palestine” The British tried to stop Jews going to Palestine so you could say their policy was pro Arab but the Arab Congress never recognised the Mandate.

Dresden keeps cropping up on web sites and it is used as a club to beat the RAF. People seem to think that the War was over by then and there was no need to bomb Dresden. No mention is made of the thousands of Britons who were killed, right up to the last week of the war, by the V1 and V2 rockets. South East England is full of stories just as tragic as those from German Towns. These rockets could have contained anything and Germany was showing no signs of surrendering. If the rockets were falling on me I might try anything to stop it. Still as Bob Dylan sung “We forgave the Germans and now we are friends”. I better not complete the verse.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"Right, turn in your weapons and walk away free of punishment for Diar Yasin, Abu Kabeer, Qisarya, Haifa, ect. How incredibly just."

JEsse, you realize that the massacres committed by the Jews were dwarfed by the massacres committed against Jews, in the period 1947-1951?
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
in 1917, the the americans, just joined the war in europe, so it didnt go that bad for the english, further more, in the ME front, the australians brigade allready conquerd Be'er sheba by 1917, and were defeating the turks.

in that letter, it is written that his majesty the king, sees it in favour to establish a jewish homeland over the land of israel.


what are you saying? that like "allways" jews held the fate of the free world in their hand and that the english had to suck up to them in order to get the money to win the war?

the letter didnt came out of thin air, Sir. Haim Weissman (who donated a great deal to the brittish army, by inventing better explosives and anthiseptics) tried for a long time to get that letter out. and by his pressure and requests, that the letter was sent to Lord Edmund de Rothschild. who back then was a great filantrop and founded many of the jewish villages on the land of israel.


thats right, it was a class A mandate because the brittish wanted to abide their words of the balfour decleration. the first magistrate in israel Lord Herbert Samuel, was a great sympathetic to the jewish zionism movment. unfortionatly, thats where the time that the palestinians started terrorising and pogroming jewish villages. instead of trying to stop the palestinian terrorists, the brittish slowly turned more and more in favour to the palestinians - who saw this, and only increased their pogroms and slaughter acts. - seeing that the british arent going to stop them, the jewish settlements founded the Hagana.

as for your mentioning on Dresden, yes i know that tousands of britos died by V1 and V2 rockets, tousands of israelis also died by suicide attacks, but we are expected to restrain ourselves arent we? while the highly moral RAF leveled a city.

so what if the germans bombed your cities, is that a justification to sink to their level and bomb their cities?

We forgave the Germans and now we are friends”

that is the POINT of it all. why did you forgive the germans, or to put it more clearly, why there is a prosperous peace treaty between germany and the rest of europe?

because there are FIRM BORDERS SEPERATING THE GERMAN PEOPLE FROM THE FRENCH, THE ENGLISH THE ITALIANS etc.

thats why, you forgave them, because you agreed on your borders, and have no intent of mingling your peoples togather. that is exactly what things should be in israel - a complete seperation between israel and palestine, with palestinians living on the 1967 territories, and israelis living inside the green line.

after that - being accomplished, we might actually have some sort of treaties with them
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Hannibal, let me make something clear.

I do not question the right of Israel to exist today, anymore than I question the right of the US or Australia to exist.

The destruction of the state of Israel is not an agenda I share. It would be no more moral to terrorize Israeli families into leaving their homes and then seize their land than it was to do so to the Palestinians.

You speak about who "owned" the land in terms of nations, while I am speaking about who owned the land in terms of individuals and families.

I don't know if you or your family own property Hannibal, but if you broke your back to create something you wanted to pass one to your son one day, and were forced to walk away from it for what you believed was a brief period....and were told when attempting to return it was no longer yours.....

Well, my guess is you'd be pretty damned bitter about it.

I am aware that some Israelis desperately wanted Arabs to stay, in fact most of the credible evidence of what happened at Dair Yasin comes from such Israelis.

We both know, however, that the goal was to create a Jewish Homeland. With an Arab majority, a Democracy would have been Arab dominated.

Again, and again, and again, I am not saying that the manner in which Israel was established was better or worse than the manner in which hundreds of other nations were established.

With a few exception involving rogue commanders, the worst thing the Haganah did was turn a blind eye to activities of the Igrun and like groups.

And who can really blame them when they were doing battle with vastly numerically superior forces at the time? Such is the chaos of war.

That, in no way, serves to eliminate the debt owed for stolen land. It was not the Igrun that refused to allow Arab civilians to return after they fled from conflict.

I could not be in more agreement with you about the need for firm and secure borders.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
I don't care about the history at this point in time. I'm glad that Israelis have taken this important step. It must have been hard for them, it clearly was hard for them.

NOW LET'S DEMAND A RECIPROCAL SHOW OF GOOD FAITH FROM THE PALESTINIANS!

The world opinion can best support this positive step by the Israelis by praising the effort and making it clear to Palestinians that we expect no less than a total cessation of any violence on Israel's border and inside Israel.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
cant argue with that, and what if the palestinians keep on with thier usual selves?
 
Posted by fotwennytime (Member # 1037) on :
 
international opinion aside, if the nation of palestine attacks the nation of israel, im pretty sure that means its on.

terrorist attacks internal to a nation are one thing, punitive force against civilians for terrorist attacks are wrong and would only increase terrorist activities.

if a palestinian attack on israel is terrorist in nature after the separation, then palestine will have an obligation to work with international authorities to capture and punish those responsible, otherwise george w or whatever bush is in power at the time, is gonna make palestine a stop on the lets get the terrorists trail.

if a palestinian attack on israel is military in nature, then its on. god save the innocents.

it would be a great tragedy to see a newly founded nation destroyed. i fully agree that israel needs to keep thier arms showing right now. but if an attack is commited by an individual, i hope israel will show the same patience they have for a few more years in order to give thier neighbor a chance to form some kind internal stability. give them time to police themselves.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
attacks are allways carried out by individuals, this is how the palestinians work.

you see, we sign a peace treaty with them. and then the Hamas which is bounded to to sease fire (very loosly but lets leave that for now) "creates" a "temporary" new proxy terror organizations which is not bounded by the sease fire, and suicide and rockets attacks are being carried out.
then the palestinians come to us and say "what do you want from us? we signed the peace treaty its this anonymos organization which is at fault"

and we cant to jack**** because we are also bound by the sease fire.
thats the palestinian modus operandi of a sease fire agreement.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Once Palestine is an actual state, there will be more ways than the military to punish them.
 
Posted by fotwennytime (Member # 1037) on :
 
exactly Ricky, and more nations aside from just israel to be interested in punishing them. this will no longer be an israeli internal problem, it will be an international problem. it wont be anywhere near as easy for other nations to downplay israeli sacrifices, when your defending your borders from an outside aggressor.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Precisely :-) There will be trade agreements that could be subjected to sanctions and all kindsa things.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
you two honestly believe that countries like france, england, germany, the scandinavians will ever think the palesinians at fault and should be punished?
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Hannibal, do give it a damn rest. You have no idea how fanatical this insistence on "everybody hates us no matter what we do" makes you sound.

Riddle me this, if you will: Who was it that began putting pressure on Syria to leqave Lebanon and stop messing with its politics? Who was it that pushed a resolution that Lebanon should disband Hizballah?

Oh, right, the fockin froggies. What a shock. I wonder how we can explain it? </sarcasm>

Just like leaving Lebanon made the world treat us a lot more fairly regarding our border there, the same will happen regarding the Palestinians. Nobody really likes them either, so don't worry about it so much [Smile]
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
ill believe it when i see it.

i think that the europeans point of view concerning israel was allways effected by arab oil and not the palestinias.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Well, disengagement is over. I must say, I'm pleased to be proven wrong. I estimated 5-7 casualties. Wasn't even close to one.

Mind you, though, that none of the settlements that have been evacuated was really hardcore. When it comes time to evacuate Itamar, Yitzhar, Neve Tzuf and Tapuach, not to mention Qiryat Arba and Hebron - then I'm afraid there will be blood.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I agree with you about just leaving the settlers and warning them that Israel is withdrawing protection.

Perhaps the Palestinians would not kill them -- some of them -- the ones that use the ridiculous apartheid comparison, say that they would live peacefully with the Jews in a single state, and the Europeans generally echo that nonsense. Well, here's a chance to test it.

If I were Sharon I would have withdrawn from most of Gaza but kept the strip between Egypt and the rest of Gaza, to prevent weapons smuggling until the terrorism dies.

As for counterattacks, I think you have the right principle but the wrong application. Yes there need to be consequences, but the fanatics aren't worried about threat to life. If you started taking little bits of land in retaliation, and declaring them permanently part of Israel, as Dijja (the Muslim concept of weregild, i.e. the primitive concept of a wrongful death settlement), that might have an effect.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
"If I were Sharon I would have withdrawn from most of Gaza but kept the strip between Egypt and the rest of Gaza, to prevent weapons smuggling until the terrorism dies. "

but then people like TS elliot and Jesse will say that we deprive the palestinians the right for their borders!

the counter attacks i propose we should make are not aimed at the hammas, they are aimed at the palestinian population for the sake of them understanding that if the hammas continues we retaliate and make their lives miserable like nothing they have experienced before. - in order to make them wanna fight the hammas
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Look, people, it's really simple: occupation doesn't end until you leave ALL the territory, or have it granted to you by the other side.

Either the Palestinians are to have a state or not. What we Israelis (and those who, strangely, insist on immitating our neuroses) must do, is get over the compulsion to control the Palestinians. We should stop gripping them by the neck lest they do something awful to us. They've been trying, been doing their worse, and it's far from a strategic threat to us, so let us all chill.

Having a tiny border with Egypt is not what's gonna enable them to threaten us. So they smuggle some small arms in, and use them, and we slap them silly. Do we control Lebanon's borders? No. Is Hizballah getting lotsa weapons? You betcha. Is that good? Hell no. Is the sky falling on our heads as a result? Not last time I checked.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Hannibal, Read "Trinity" by Leon Uris.

I could give you a list of history books, but if you tackle that one novel, you will understand why your calls for retribution against the Palestinian people can only strengthen their resolve.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Leon Uris was a hack. I haven't read Trinity, but if his Israel-based books are any indication, he's nothing but a mouthpiece for shrill partisan propaganda.

The man could write, though.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
exactly Ricky, nothing that the palestinians smuggle from gaza can threaten our security. you can bet that we have sattelite and aircraft surveillance of that little border strip, so everything they smuggle must be moved underground.
and i dont see any ground breaking equipment can be moved underground.

the purpose of the disengaigment was to get all jews away from gaza, not to give the palestinians all the things that israel negotiates on the negotiation table for nothing in return. they want free airspace and naval access... fine, start giving israel things in return
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
I can't say I'm surprised, but it is too bad that this is the Arab reaction to the Gaza pullout.

Transparent Sham in Gaza
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Well, Drake, apart from the unpleasant tone - which is to be expected from an Arab publication talking about Israel, the substantive remarks are mostly accurate. The most glaring piece of b.s. in the article that I saw was the carping about Israel controling the Karni checkpoint. Um, yeah, that's an Israel-Palestine border checkpoint. Of course we're gonna control traffic into our territory.

But he's absolutely right that if we don't let them control Philadelphi (the Gaza Strip-Egypt border), as well as their own sea and air ports, then the occupation isn't really over at all - not from a sovereignty viewpoint, and definitely not from an economic one.

Arabs have every right to be suspicious of Sharon. I'M suspicious of Sharon. His top advisor said it outright - he views giving up Gaza as the way to solidify control over most of the West Bank. That is not the road to any kind of peace. If and when we leave for good, and relinquish control of their borders (the ones that aren't with us) and ports, then I'll expect even Arab commentatgors to admit that in Gaza, occupation has ended.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Thats Right Drake, what did you expect? that we did this pullout because we care about the palestinians? what do i care about those who try and kill me. we did the pullout to help ourselves. just like we should with the west bank.
i have no problem with the palestinians being stuck in their territories, as long as there is no single israeli in there too.


Negotiation this is the KEY, the roadmap is very clear, palestinians need to take some actions before they get the good stuff. they FIRST need to fight terrorism and then israel will open its borders.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
The pullout has ended, and allready the arabs and palestinians waste no time

1) last night a palestinian terrorist stabed two israeli men in jerusalem one died and one moderatly wouded.

2) this morning Hizballah launched a 240mm rocket on a village in the northern border, luckily it only hit a hen cage.

3) palestinian terrorists launched two qassam rockets on israel, one landed inside gaza, the other in israel

4) israeli soldeirs engaged palestinian terorrist from islamic jihad, killing 5 terrorists.

we should now consider gaza as a foreign country who attack israel, and doin so, we need to retaliate much heavier now.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Hannibal, you need to be accurate. First we went and killed their men in Tulkarm, then they fired a Qassam from Gaza.

The Hizballah attack was unprovoked. The Qassam was retaliation for something we started.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
ok, so we'll give the palestinians slack this time.
what about leveling the southern regions of lebanon? we can do that, or even better, retaliate against the syrians.

[ August 25, 2005, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Hannibal ]
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Hamas or Islamic Jihad will almost certainly attack some during the pullout. Maybe even the extremist Fatah splinters.

I'd be shocked if the Palestinians don't attack after the pullout.

Wow ricky, how's that working out for ya? Still shocked? [Mad] [Embarrassed]
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
The existance of Israel, much like the existance of the US, is an accomplished fact. There is no going back. Giving Israel back to the Palestinians would be just as impossible as giving the North America back to it's indigenous peoples.

Hey, I'm all for that, as long as you guys don't come to Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia or South-America, I'm fine with you giving back the land ... [Wink]

quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
If you make moves toward Genocide, not only will the US be forced to stop propping up your financialy insolvent nation

Jesse, keep dreaming. When did a little genocide ever stop the US? Maybe in your Clintonian United States, now something of the almost unimaginable past, did genocide mean something, but now the us reaction would be something between a cheer and "ah fock those palestinians anyway!" While of course expressing great sorrow and worry in public.

quote:
Originally posted by Koner:
Yes the Israeli terrorist was captured by ISRAELI police/military. Have you ever heard of a Palistinian terrorist being captured by Palistinian police? Do the Palistinian authorities even try to find Palistinian terrorists? Something tells me that the Israeli gunman would not be in such good shape had the Palistinians found him first.

That is the difference between civilized and uncivilized peoples. The civilized people at least try to police themselves.

Of course they capture terrorists, it's over on Al-Jazeera all the time. Now, just because you lack the sophistication of understanding Arabic (i don't either), doesn't mean you should refrain from saying that you don't know what Arabic media are reporting on this.
And what he was saying was that a captured suicide bomber will be and has been beaten to the point of torture by the Israeli police.
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KidA:
I totally understand that Jews have a very special and troubled history, and that they continue to be a target worldwide.

Psaw!

Every nation/people in the world has a troubled history, with maybe the exception of .... nope, can't think of any. Even the Swiss were dirtpoor(er than the Irish) merely 150 years ago or even less. The Tibetans ... noooo, they STILL are VERY troubled.
The difference between these and the jews is that jews had a tendency to wander, and they did that throughout the western world, which happens to be topdog now, so now they are the western world pet project to cuddle (see: US aid to Israel, and: disprortional screen time of Gaza stripping in the West et. al.) and that only because its coincidentally geopolitical good for the west to support Israel.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
TS, if you don't understand why the Jews have a more troubled history than almost any national group in the world, then you're an ignorant focking moron, or perhaps just someone who would rather deny it for whatever purpose. I mean, the Swiss? It's not about being poor! Most nations were poor at some point. It's about persecution and hatred. When exactly were the Swiss subject to that?

"Jews had a tendency to wander"

Yeah, we also had a tendency to get kicked out of places. Hmmm, what a coincidence.

"Throughout the western world"

Eastern world too. Even a bit more, actually. But why confuse you with the facts?

"disprortional screen time of Gaza stripping in the West et. al"

Of course, can't show Israel doing something right for a change. Quick, where's that video about the poor Palestinians' plight? Lets show that instead.

[ August 26, 2005, 04:37 AM: Message edited by: RickyB ]
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
"Wow ricky, how's that working out for ya? Still shocked?"

Well, seeing how they did attack, I'm not shocked at all. While the Qassam can be put down to retaliation for the killings in Tulkarm, the stabbing in the old city cannot. So why don't you get a clue before making noise?
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
"When exactly were the Swiss subject to that?"

Well, that's whole other thread...if your interested in Swiss history read up on it, but there were reasons they formed a federation and spent 400 years almost constantly at war. Think about their geographic position.

"Ok, we're ready to stop shooting right....NOW. Oh, crap, one of their guys fired another shot. Well, screw that peace nonsense."

How many times does this have to happen?
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Jesse, all of Europe spent tons of time in incessant war. Germany didn't become a single country until the 1860's because it was a basic tenant of European politics that it must never be allowed to happen. Germans and Swiss still had their homelands and were not subject to murderous hatred wherever they went just for being Swiss or German. Don't even try to compare the hatred and injustice and persecution.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Sorry ricky, my bad.

Jews were subject to murderous hatred everywhere they went, from the Diaspora on...right?

Or, was there one major power...which rose in the late seventh century and conquored much of the old world...which DID tolerate Jews and in fact grant them considerable freedom to whorship as they chose.

Nah, couldn't have been. Probably just something I dreamed up on my own.

Just like that nation which declared it's independence from Britian in the later half of the 18th century, a nation which has never engaged in any official repression of Judiasm, and in which there has never been anything other than extremely small scale violence against Jews on roughly the same level all disseperate ethnic minorities suffer in any nation.

I probably dreamed that up too.

In any event, choosing not to be assimilated comes at a heavy cost. It sucks. People do terrible things to you when you insist on being different from them.

It's not entirely unlike 1.5 million Irish men women and children being starved to death in their own country, while being offered food if only they would renounce Papism.

Now, if you've had your fit and suffeciently assured yourself that whatever misdeeds Israel may be guilty of pale in comparision to the mistreatment Jews suffered for eons, and are therefore justified, can we get off the side issue and instead address the misdeed Hannibal is suggesting Israel commit in the future?

Some palestinian knifed a couple Israelis, so, the correct response would be to "flatten" a random civilian population?
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Jesse, Islam was nicer to Jews than Christians, but totally not problem free. There were sprees of violence against Jews in all Muslim lands as well, especially as Islam declined. The Turks were never as enlightened as the Abbasids or the Spanish Muslims. However, it is true that antisemitism was not as virulent in Islamdome as it was in christiandome. Still, it was there. Jews were 2nd class citizens at best, and Andalusia and Maimonedes were an aberration that was never repeated.

As for the US - ever heard of a ship called the St. Louis? When push came to shove, even the glory that is America wasn't enough to save our bretheren.

As for Hannibal - see, Hannibal? I told you this is what happens. Jesse, I should think we've both been here long enough for you to know my opinions. I give Hannibal a hard time as it is, so I don't jump to denounce him everytime he foams at the mouth, but of course I utterly reject "flattening" civilian popualtions.

As for this:
"In any event, choosing not to be assimilated comes at a heavy cost. It sucks. People do terrible things to you when you insist on being different from them."

Exactly. Are you justifying the terrible things? I thought better of you.

And pray tell, why the sarcasm? I thought I addressed you respectfully. I must have dreamt that [Smile]
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Is it my fault that Jesse cant tell the difference between the string of letters

HANNIBAL and RICKYB ? what can i say.

israel is a small country, but i can assure you that Hannibal and RickyB are two completly different persons

I THINK not RICKY, I alone (atleast in this site, Ricky knows many israelis think the same)
that if after israel pulls out from the territores, israel gets attacked by the palestinians - israel should respond as if palstine declared war on israel, just as if syria attacked israel.

there is a limit to how much slack we should give the palestinians. if when push comes to shove they "fail" (or dont want to) control their different militant groups, on the cost of israeli lives. israel should flatten palestinian city blocks.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Justifying? no.

Stating as nearly innevitable.

This happens a lot, people think I'm justifying things like the LA riots or the European destruction of indigenous cultures around the globe, or palestinian suicide bombers, or their Israeli counterparts, when I say that these horrific things are the likely, almost inevitable, result of circumstances.

People living in abject poverty lash out at the nearest and most easy to hit target available, even if that target is not actually the cause of their suffering. Happens all the time.

People experiencing rational or irrational fear of loss of power do the same things.

Dominant cultures nearly ALWAYS persecute to one degree or another cultures they cannot assimilate, sometimes destroying them and sometimes "merely" repressing them.


I didn't say America was a safe haven for all persecuted Jews, and I didn't mean to imply it.

What I said was, Jews in America are and have been safe from any but the mildest forms of repression.


I'm sorry man, and I shouldn't lash out at you just because I'm seriously pissed off after visiting the museum of the holocaust thursday.

I'm just feeling really snarky about the whole issue right now.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
what are you pissed of about?
what museum have you been to?
do you want to share your experience?
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
1) Isreal hasn't pulled out of the territories, they've pulled out of one territory

2) can we get off the side issue and instead address the misdeed *Hannibal* is suggesting Israel commit in the future?

Some palestinian knifed a couple Israelis, so, the correct response would be to "flatten" a random civilian population?


See that? right there? I know who said what.

I just went off on Ricky because I'm really pissed off right now a museum here in LA that tries to portray the Holocaust as almost entirely a crime against Jews, which it most certainly was not. Other victims are treated like footnotes, when they account for half the death toll.

So, when Ricky started in with this "more suffering than anyone" bs....which is how I read it despite the fact that it was not what he said (I'm no more perfect than the rest of you knee-jerk reactionary SOBs, I'm one of you) I went off on him.

I coulda chickened out and edited the post, I appologized instead.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
you can hardly blame the jewish holocaust museum to portray jews.

Jesse, you cant ignore that the Final Solution was mainly adressed against jews.
what about the Nuremberg Rules? also only against jews.

besides.. 6 million jews died in the holocaust, in a "factory line" process. there are less jews in israel right now, then the ones killed in the holocaust, can you comprehand that?

as for my militancy, well, from my 22 years of experience in the ME, fear is a very important factor, when the arabs feared us, we lived in peace, when they dont fear us, we are attacked every day.
thats the sad truth of the middle east, i didnt say we go and conquer the palestinians again, i am all for them having a country of their own, and i wish they live in peace inside that country.
i am merely stating what israel should do if it will be attacked from within palestine.

thats right, we ddid not pullout of all the territories, but gaza about to be under complete palestinian control, with no israeli soldier or civilian in site, if they do attack us from there, once the army leaves. we should retaliate severly
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
I totally agree about that, Jesse. The poor gypsies get no respect. I'm being totally serious. I remember one time, Eli focking Wiesel opposed plans for a Gypsy (or was it Armenian)holocaust museum because it would diminish the Jewish holocaust. I've hated him for that ever since.

However, go read my relevant post again. I specifically said "Jews have a more troubled history than almost any national group in the world." Note the "almost".


Hannibal, you're being ignorant. Go learn about Gypsies under nazi Germany. Homosexuals too. Go read about the pink badge.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Half the dead hannibal. Half.

There are,to me, two mutualy exclusive lessons one can take from this tragedy.

1) Jews aren't safe anywhere. They are a special catagory of victim, and uniquely threatened by racism and intolerance. They must do whatever is necessary to protect *themselves* from suffering this kind of treatment again.

1) Mans capacity for perpetrating horrific acts of violence and mass murder on grand scale against anyone defined as a dangerous "other" knows literally no limits. We must fight against this tendency to dehumanize entire ethinic, religious, national, or cultural groups wherever it arises.

"Never again" is only a NOBLE sentiment when it used to mean "Never again, anywhere, to anyone".
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
See, Jesse, the problem is, they are NOT mutually exclusive. Both statements are totally true.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Nope, they sure are.

"They must do whatever is necessary to protect *themselves* from suffering this kind of treatment again."

And more than a few Israelis believe that what is necessary is.....

You know how to fill in the blank.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Just because some people think that the way to protect themselves is to dehumanize others does not mean that jews have not been, over the last 2000 years, a special class of victim, and that we deserve the right to protect ourselves as much as anyone else.

Edit: If you insist that, as you've worded them, those are the only two possible lessons to be learned, then you can interpret them to be mutually exclusive. However, I neither agree that those are the only two lessons (as worded), nor that the first one can only be interpreted to mean that violence is a justified means of protecting ourselves.

[ August 27, 2005, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Everard? What part of being being a "special victim class" has anything to do with a peoples right to defend themselves? The two are completely unrelated.

In addition, the first statement is patently false. There is nothing unique about what Jews have suffered except that such an extrordinary number of them were killed in such a short period.

All people have a right to self defense. However, murdering the civilian population from which your enemy springs is not self defense, it is the first step toward genocide.

I don't know if this is at all relevant, and I think I've said it before. My grandmother was a Hungarian Jew. I don't consider myself a Jew, by religion or by culture, and since it was my paternal grandmother, no Orthodox Jew would consider me a Jew.

The Nazi's would have, though. My grandmother had immediate relatives in the camps.

Why is it so important for so many people to believe that Jewish suffering through the ages outweighs that of any other people? I mean, it obviously doesn't, because the peoples who suffered the greatest tragedies are, well, gone.

The story of the Suffi's, although it primarily occured in the East rather than the West, is just as tragic. Ever have a prolonged conversation with a Ba'hai, or a Kurd?

How about a native american?

I'm not trying to be accusatory, I am seriously trying to understand why it is so important to so many peoples sense of, well, "Jewish self-identity" for want of a better term, to believe that Jewish Suffering is some how an order of magnatude greater than that of all other peoples.

<Edited to add>

I'm not asking why Jewish people are more familiar with their own history, just about everyone is interested in those "what is my family history" "where do I come from" questions. I get that.

[ August 27, 2005, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
The U.N. resolution creating the Israel? Would make for a convincing argument, except for the fact that it was virtually the last UN resolution anyone in the Israeli government apparently bothered to read.

Yah gotta admit that's funny! [Smile]

About Topic, let my buddy Spike do the talking:
quote:
Spike: I just can't take all this mamby-pamby boo-hooing about the bloody Indians! You won! Alright? You came in and you killed them and you took their land. That's what conquering nations do. It's what Caesar did and he's not going around saying "I came, I conquered, I feel really bad about it." The history of the world is not people making friends - you had better weapons and you massacred them. End of story.
Luckily, at the beginning of the 21st century, we're all more civilised now (as no doubt, the Jews thought at the beginning of the 20st century too ....)
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Elliot, it could have been so funny if it were true

surprise surprise....

tune in to israel, there has been a suicide attack in Be'er Sheva's central bus station.

the suicide bomber arouse suspicion and when security guards came to him, he exploded on them.

many people could have died there today. poor security men, did their jobs, and got a suicide bomber exploded on their faces.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"Everard? What part of being being a "special victim class" has anything to do with a peoples right to defend themselves? The two are completely unrelated."

Nothing. Thats why the two lessons you propose could be learned from the holocaust are not mutually exclusive.

"In addition, the first statement is patently false. There is nothing unique about what Jews have suffered except that such an extrordinary number of them were killed in such a short period."

Well, no. There's quite a bit unique or nearly unique about Jewish suffering. We've been kicked out of our homeland TWICE (and a third time is being worked on as we speak), we've been kicked out of over a hundred other nations worldwide, we've been massacred in over a hundred different nations at various times, we didn't have political rights in our nations of residence until the mid 19th century (1800 years after we moved into most of these places), governments have systematically lied about what we do in almost every nation we've inhabited, we've been forced to live in ghettos in almost every nation we inhabited (do you know where the word ghetto comes from? It comes from the name for the jewish quarter of a city). Clinging to our idenity is not the cause of our suffering, its been the result of our suffering, in many places, as jews have been systematically isolated and forced to identify themselves as jews. We've been forced to engage in pre-determined theological debates, by catholics, protestants, and muslism, the result of said debates having dire consequences for our safety and homes, we've been told by almost every nation on earth that we are the ONLY people who do not deserve self-determination, we've had our holy places systematically desecrated in dozens of nations.

And what makes us absolutely unique? All of these have occured over a span of 2000 years. Other groups can claim to have one, or two, or even several of these atrocities perpetrated against them. But no other group has been so systematically perseccuted by so many nations over such a long period of time. We are allowed to continue survival... BARELY... which just means we get to suffer another round of persecution a generation later... but usually just around the corner, rather then later.

"All people have a right to self defense. However, murdering the civilian population from which your enemy springs is not self defense, it is the first step toward genocide."

I agree, I wish the palestinians would stop doing it to us since we so long ago stopped doing it to them on anything like either an intentional or systematic basis.

"Why is it so important for so many people to believe that Jewish suffering through the ages outweighs that of any other people? I mean, it obviously doesn't, because the peoples who suffered the greatest tragedies are, well, gone."

Which is why ours outweighs theirs, in some respects. More of us have been persecuted, by a factor of a lot, then those groups that are gone, because those tragedies usually happened relatively quickly. Numerically speaking, there's no other group that can compete with jewish suffering, because more jews have lived during a time when they are persecuted then any other group. And its happened in more nations then any other group has even TRIED to live in.

I don't mean all of this to suggest that the suffering of other groups is insigificant, or that we have a right to inflicit suffering on other groups. We do not.

What it does mean is that, if suffering earns you the right to have a safe haven, we've earned our safe haven, and we'd appreciate it if people could stop trying to take it away from us, since the overwhelming evidence suggests that if we lose our safe haven, we're likely to go through another massive round of genocide at the hands of the people currently doing their best to take our safe haven away from us. We'd also kindly appreciate it if you'd stop telling us we can't use limited, targetted violence against people who have killed a huge proportion of our population, who have done so with an eye to doing the same thing that non-jews have tried to do to jews over the century... "Kill as many as we can, who cares if its women, children, and the elderly. They are JEWS."

We're defending ourselves against a CURRENT attempt at genocide, and I think we're doing it with better restraint then any other national group would even TRY to do. The US's response to a handful of terrorist strikes was to wage TWO wars, killing tens of thousands of civilians. Israel's response? "Maybe if we pull out of this territory in exchange for NOTHING, fewer of our people will get killed."
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Thanks for saving me the effort, Ev. Very well said.

Jesse, I totally understand your anger at the marginalization of other holocaust victims, as I've related re: Eli Wiesel.

However, it would be sad if that caused you to swing too far the other way and minimize Jewish suffering throughout history. Neither I nor Ev particularly want to be having this pissing match about who suffered more, but if you say "y'all didn't suffer more than a bunch of others", then we feel compelled to set the record straight. Call it a national complex, if you will, or a group tick, but that's the way it is.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Everard, no other group has lived in so many nations.

Kicked out twice? If you're talking about the Babylonian captivity, they didn't actually remove the entire Jewish population from Israel, they took mostly the educated classes and craftsman as hostages, at most estimates about 10% of the population.

A significant number of Jews did assimilate in Spain, rather than be driven out. I'm not saying, in any way shape or form, that it's right to force a people to assimilate or be destroyed, I'm saying it was possible for Jews to assimilate under certain circumstances at certain times.

So, wandering around being persecuted in other peoples countries is somehow a greater suffering than being oppressed, murdered, exterminated, or used as slaves in what was once your own country? I gotta say, I really don't see why or how. Not that's it's any LESS horrific either.

So, we disagree about the "special nature" of anti-jewish persecution. So be it. I'm no denier of the Holocaust, I know about incidents ranging from the English sea captian who left 900 jewish men women and children to drown on a sand bar as the tide rose back in the 14th century to the repeated pogroms of eastern europe to the conditions of the shtetle and the ghetto.

I still don't see a degree of suffering so substantially different from what others have endured to make it a basis for self-identity, or a sense of uniqueness.

Have I ever said it's wrong to use limited violence specifically and carefully targeted against those individuals who have attacked you? I've said it's wrong to drive people from their homes, and even more wrong to do so without offering them fair financial compensation. I've said it's wrong to act as an appologist for a patent act of ethnic cleansing instead of owning up to it and trying to make ammends. I've said it's wrong to deny people the right to return to their homes after they flee a combat zone, and then pat yourself on the back and reasure yourself with the notion that you would have let them keep their land if only they had stayed there and died on it.

Did you really say that Palestinians have killed a huge proportion of your population? That is, at best, a bad joke. A hell of a lot more people are killed on Israeli highways.

There is no attempt at genocide against the Israeli people, there is an ongoing attempt at a retributive act of ethnic cleansing. The two aren't the same, although neither is exceptable.

There is CURRENTLY no Israeli attempt to commit genocide against the Palestinian population. None. At all. Period. I never said there was.

However, the policies advocated by some Israelis (large scale retaliation against civilians) can only lead to genocide.

Hannibals message to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. is, "Murder two Israelis, we'll murder a bunch of your civilians, and give you all the recruits and popular support you need."

Personally, I think many Jews have bought into the notion that they ARE fundementally different from the rest of humanity, that they behave differently in response to the same external stimuli.

It's simply not true. Start retaliating against the Palestinian civilian population and the fate of those residing in the Gaza Strip will be no different than the fate of those trapped in the Warsaw Ghetto. They will go down fighting to the last man, woman, or child.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"So, wandering around being persecuted in other peoples countries is somehow a greater suffering than being oppressed, murdered, exterminated, or used as slaves in what was once your own country?"

Not necessarily, but when BOTH of these happen to the same people, then something different is going on with that nation.

"Did you really say that Palestinians have killed a huge proportion of your population? That is, at best, a bad joke"

No its not a bad joke. If you think its a bad joke, you're not paying any attention. You know 9/11? Largest single act of violence on american soil ever? Israel suffers 2-3 terrorist attacks that kill a larger percent of its population then 9/11 killed of ours... EVERY YEAR.I consider that to be a huge proportion of the population.

"There is no attempt at genocide against the Israeli people, there is an ongoing attempt at a retributive act of ethnic cleansing. The two aren't the same, although neither is exceptable."

You're misleading yourself if you think that the arab nations and the palestinians wouldn't be happier killing tons of jewish israelis then driving them out of israel. There's quite a lot of historical evidence from the last 100 years in support of that.
 
Posted by Serotonin'sGone (Member # 1219) on :
 
quote:
We've been kicked out of our homeland TWICE (and a third time is being worked on as we speak)
Just to pick a nit, but both of those occasions were self inflicted. You can't really call it persecution if you bring your doom upon yourself.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Umm, I disagree that they were self-inflicted. The roman emporer who ordered that a statue of himself be placed inside the holy of holies was a friggin idiot, and caused the wars that followed ending with the diaspora. When you desecrate a holy site and then send soldiers to enforce that desecration, its not the fault of the people who get pissed about the desecration.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Ev, you're exaggerating a bit. Let's see... 3,000/300 million (I'm rounding numbers here) = 1/100,000

Israel's population is about 7 million, so 1/100,000 of that would be 70. We don't suffer 2-3 attacks that kill that many every year. Not even one. In fact, I can't remember a single such attack. The most I can remember was at the Park hotel in Netanya, on passover night 2002. 30 died.

It is true that more than 1/100,000 of our population die of terror attacks most years, especially since 2000.

I do agree totally that what groups like hamas strive for is precisely genocide.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
SG/Jesse

you both need to do a bit more research on Jewish history. for starters enter 66 A.D. and 115 A.D. into a good search engine.

enjoy.

Oh, and as to the babylonian hostage gambit of Cyrus, Paul is more correct than you, but the lowball estimate of only 10% is woefully short.
 
Posted by Serotonin'sGone (Member # 1219) on :
 
quote:
SG/Jesse

you both need to do a bit more research on Jewish history. for starters enter 66 A.D. and 115 A.D. into a good search engine.

Or perhaps you should take your own advice, and perhaps adopt a more fittingly humble tone in the meantime?

[ August 29, 2005, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Serotonin'sGone ]
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
SG, it all depends on what you call self inflicted. By that logic, if we decimate the Palestinians and exile much of the remaining population, then "they brought it on themselves". After all, we conquered them and they dare revolt!

Anyhow, what I do agree with you is that when I think of Jewish suffering, I don't usually count what the Romans did to us. That was par for the course and the circumstances at the time. While we were exiled punitively on a much more massive scale (especially after the Bar Cochba revolt), that's just because we were more of a threat than anyone else.

Actually, if any group of people has claim to unique suffering under the Romans, it's the Germanic peoples, who were de-humanized and slaughtered for kicks by the Roman legions.

It was our suffering during the diaspora that was rather unique.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
SG,

Both of you had attacked the other side's argument with less than a clear understanding of the facts backing your arguments. It is not your opposition which is arguing in ignorance for what they have presented is factually true. What you have presented is only conditionally true because you seem unaware of the complete history which would place your facts in a lesser light.

That being so, maybe you should submit the above dates as I suggested, and I am certain your own independent research will confirm that you have been arguing from a position which simply is not factual.

I am often not right. However when someone gently offers a suggestion to do a bit more fact checking, I don't usually retailiate and offer an insult.

Remeber it is not me you have been arguing with, and I noticed glaring errors of historical fact upon which you and jesse were each basing arguments.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
Ricky

check email..
 
Posted by Serotonin'sGone (Member # 1219) on :
 
Redskull, you need to do a bit more research on english. For starters try typing gentle and condescending into a good dictionary.

enjoy.

As for your remarks, you're wrong. I'll write a more detailed post later as time allows, but I'm pretty surprised you would attempt to argue your position (let alone with such assuredness).

Does anyone argue that the babylonian destruction of jerusalem was not self-inflicted?
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"Does anyone argue that the babylonian destruction of jerusalem was not self-inflicted?"

Lets start with the roman one, since you said both, and thats already been challenged by both me and ricky.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Well, you need to separate the initial conquest and the destruction. The conquest was not provoked. The subsequent destruction was provoked by a stupid act of political assassination.

In any case, like I said, it depends what you mean by "self inflicted". If you go by the mores of the time, then yes, at least somewhat. Not by modern understanding in any case.
 
Posted by ljohnson (Member # 1810) on :
 
Redskull,
Lurker post: I entered 66 & 115 ad into Google, and found a couple of vague wikipedia articles. Jewish revolts, one I knew, one I didn't. What is your point? The Jews deserved to die because of the Roman behavior?
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Well, depends on perspective. The Roman response was pretty predictable, but I can't fault a people for rebelling against onorous tyranny.

They knew the facts, they were aware of the cost of declaring war with Rome and losing. They chose to fight knowing the odds and sufered the consequences. Somehow, still doesn't equal "self inflicted" to my mind.

Redskull, don't assume ignorance on someone elses part just because they don't delve into details you consider pertinent.

It's entirely possible that I posses the same information as you, but find that information to be less important, and not really all that relevant to the topic at hand.

If you think 10% is lowball, well, blame the History channel. Not all of their information is Ironclad at all times. In any event, we can agree it sure wasn't all or even a majority of the population.

I wouldn't call the Roman atrocities against the people of Israel relevant to this particular discusion, because the reaction of these imperial powers would have been roughly the same against any other group which so steadfastly refused to be assimilated or utterly dominated.

[ August 29, 2005, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
The point...

1 babylonian conquest
2 roman conquests

While babylonian one may be self inflicted, the two roman revolts most definately were not self inflicted.

Thus my comment to SG. He is only partialy right concerning the babylonian conquest and who was taken where, he has missed the fact that the Jews conducted 2 more actions against an outside military force before they ultimately were dispersed. So my point is that his supposition that there were only 2 conquests at the hands of outside agents, there were in fact 3. Also his claim that the cause for conquest was the fault of jewish action, which is debatable for all three historical events.

While i had no intention of debating the issue of self inflicted calamity in regard to the jews, I had to point out that the facts of historical conflict places Jews against foes that defeated them on three seperate occassions that also resulted in the Jews being subjugated to traditional ancient programs of how to treat a fallen enemy. It is impossible for SG to construct a valid argument if he presupposses only two historical instances of Jews being subjugated militarilly, when there were in fact, three. It also weakens his argument to maintain the Jewish causality for the subjugation when his representation of the Babylonian resettlement conflicts with multiple sources describing who was taken from the kingdom, and how many went.

As to the your hurt feelings, you have no reason to be. I simply pointed out a flaw in your argument whithout explaining the entire fault. I figured your realization as to your historical error would become self evident by entering the dates, thereby hopefully resulting in a refinement of your argument to include the relevent historical facts that you omitted or were unaware of.


Ljohnson

My point was pointing out a factual error as noted above, and to point out that some individuals are making an argument for the Jews deserving what they have gotten at the hands of those who conqured them based on an incomplete historical record of relavent events. Having acknowledged the Babylonian conquest and only one Roman conquest has provided a rather incomplete picture of jewish actions that may or may not have lead to their being conqured, making any conclusion of jewish culpability suspect.

In short I have no conclusion either way as to whether they deserved what happened or didn't. But If I am to be convinced by the argument that they did deserve what happened to them, then that argument's historical basis needs to be factually correct. So far, as presented on this thread, the argument that Jews deserved it has factual errors concerning historical events easily checked. If I am to believe their argument, I shouldn't be able to so quickly dismiss as inconmplete the historical basis for their argument.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
History channel sucks. Most of their programs (especially on ancient history) are applaingly shoddy on facts. The "experts" they bring are like fifth rate. I'm sure you've come across this character, on Jewish-related programs - Walter something, guy with a beard, referred to as an "author". Who the @#$% is that guy? In what alternate universe is he a damn authority?

He's not the only example. I used to run the history channel's forum here. We used to have various academic experts over for Q&A - usually centered around a hostory channel special or theme-weekend. I remember when they had the Islam weekend, I had made arrangements with one of the leading experts in Israel, and had sent her tapes of the shows beforehand so she'd know the material she'd be asked about.

Never mind her opinion of the shows (which was not good, to be charitable), she was astounded at the low level of the "experts". She had only even heard of one out what must have been 10 or 15 people interviewed throughout the shows.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
jesse


I find the history channel better than cartoons and network television, but an almost useless source for hard history. I take exception to the historical inaccuracies of the channel so frequently that my wife will not allow me to watch it with her in the same room. She finds that my screaming at the the TV how wrong a show is about fact is less than enetertaining. Plus, having investigated my claims against multiple shows on the History channel, and finding that I am always right about the error, my wife feels that being consistently right conflicts with her insistence that only she is always right and that a person as dumb as me is lucky to have someone as smart as her.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
quote:
a person as dumb as me is lucky to have someone as smart as her.
I hope that you are duly grateful to her for her sacrifice.

[Wink]
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
All this talk about the Babylonian and Roman wars is a huge side track, btw. Neither is relevant to why Jewish suffering is rare, if not unique.

Again: Roman treatment of the Germanic peoples was worse than their treatment of Jews. Every single nation the Babylonians ever hurt doesn't even exist anymore. That's not the point.

The point is that as recently as 1933 we could not just go about our business, having a different religion and a few customs but otherwise assimilating with zeal in the surrounding popualtion, and expect to be left alive. THAT'S the uniqueness that makes the State of Israel, for all the suffering and dislocation it created, an absolute necessity.
 
Posted by Serotonin'sGone (Member # 1219) on :
 
quote:
Thus my comment to SG. He is only partialy right concerning the babylonian conquest and who was taken where, he has missed the fact that the Jews conducted 2 more actions against an outside military force before they ultimately were dispersed. So my point is that his supposition that there were only 2 conquests at the hands of outside agents, there were in fact 3. Also his claim that the cause for conquest was the fault of jewish action, which is debatable for all three historical events.

While i had no intention of debating the issue of self inflicted calamity in regard to the jews, I had to point out that the facts of historical conflict places Jews against foes that defeated them on three seperate occassions that also resulted in the Jews being subjugated to traditional ancient programs of how to treat a fallen enemy. It is impossible for SG to construct a valid argument if he presupposses only two historical instances of Jews being subjugated militarilly, when there were in fact, three. It also weakens his argument to maintain the Jewish causality for the subjugation when his representation of the Babylonian resettlement conflicts with multiple sources describing who was taken from the kingdom, and how many went.

As to the your hurt feelings, you have no reason to be. I simply pointed out a flaw in your argument whithout explaining the entire fault. I figured your realization as to your historical error would become self evident by entering the dates, thereby hopefully resulting in a refinement of your argument to include the relevent historical facts that you omitted or were unaware of.

who are you quoting? Who are you arguing with? When did I say any of that? Honestly, where are you coming from?

to make it clear: I never supposed how many were taken by the babylonians. I never supposed only two. The only thing I supposed was that the conflict was self inflicted. That's it. I didn't even say who, though I later implied that at least one was the babylonians (though I would also include achaemenid rule).

[ August 29, 2005, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Serotonin'sGone ]
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
Suddenly thought of the similar (sort of) situation of the Roma (gypsies) - who have also been (& largely continue to be, I think) persecuted, etc. Not for as long as the Jews, but it seems like a dimly analogous situation.

I don't think I have an actual point about that, though.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
Sg

I was observing your argument with ricky and paul, I didnt even argue with you, I simply noted that if your argument was to have equal merit compared with their argument in regard to Jewish culpability, maybe you should recognize the three historical conquest that happened instead of just two. Otherwise your argument seems suspect.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
Sg

The again Jesse was also arguning the same general position so its not all attributable to you arguing the entire concept. I did after all address both of you equally since it was the arguments of both of you that made me suspect the basis of your conclusions. In the old days being a devil's advocate here was appreciated, I see that that time has passed.

No offense intended towards you or any one else.
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
I appreciate a good devil's advocate, Redskullvw.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
OT, Read up on the Suffis, not all that different from the post-diaspora jewish experience.

The Roma are, well, damn near gone now.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
also your edit has made clear your argument
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
Jesse

Do you have any good sources on the Suffis in Palestine and Jerusalem prior to the 1936 census?
 
Posted by Serotonin'sGone (Member # 1219) on :
 
quote:
In the old days being a devil's advocate here was appreciated, I see that that time has passed.

It had nothing to do with playing devil's advocate. You insulted my knowledge (and by implication of course, intelligence). That has always been frowned upon here. I mean honestly, did you expect to get away with a comment like that? If you want to make a point, make it, I welcome debate from any direction. i don't welcome heavy handed recommendations to get a clue.

Anyway, I do apologize for my first retort, I almost held off the last bit, but edited it in afterwards. Restraint can be a bitch....

[ August 29, 2005, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Serotonin'sGone ]
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
I think there are only slightly fewer of the Roma than of the Jews (but I don't really know what I'm talking about here).

What about the Sufis? I didn't know that there was a specific defined cultural group of Sufis.

(thinking about Kurds, now, too - to add to the list of persecuted peoples - but I reiterate that I do not know so much about that, and also do not really have a point)
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
Redskull:
quote:
you both need to do a bit more research on Jewish history. for starters enter 66 A.D. and 115 A.D. into a good search engine.
SG:
quote:
You insulted my knowledge (and by implication of course, intelligence).

 
Posted by Serotonin'sGone (Member # 1219) on :
 
why leave out the enjoy?
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
Sg

I did not insult your knowledge or intelligence. I made a simple comment that your argument re self infliction /babylonian conquest doesn't make much sense if you add in the Roman conquests of 66 AD and 115 AD. Your argument was specificly untenable, and in light of historical facts, which you still haven't acepted that show specific causality of the aggressions against jews and the results of the aggression makes absolutely no sense.

It has always been permisable on Ornery to point out the factual or logical faults of anyone's argument even if you happen not to be involved in the acctual debate of the topic. My intent was not to debate. My intent was to point out a pretty signifigant flaw in your argument and possibly send you in the right direction which might allow you to better support your argument. You mistook my hint as some sort of insult. I think others picked up on what I was driving at and argued it well. To be honest, my argument is different from the two sides presented over the last couple of pages and those who have seen it probably could assure you that I have no debate with you or your concepts of causality.

Having already developed a paper about this topic over the last few weeks independently of Ornery, I was simply interested in this thread about causality theories and the relationships between ethnic rights to the former Palestine Mandate and how people were arguing the rights of Jews and Palestinians. If you thought I was debating you, you assumed incorrectly. If you assumed I was attempting to insult you, you mistook my intent. And as far as heavy handed commendations leading to your getting a clue, I'd advise you to go back, look at the posts and see if I was the one instructing you as to the use of english and deameaning definitions to be applied to my person.

It would seem your feeling insulted, and your inabillity to investigate a simple suggestion by me concerning historical fact via search engine to strengthen your argument might indicate that you may in fact, need heavy handed commendations to get a clue. When I decide to get heavy handed and deconstruct an argument of yours you wont need a telegrap to let you know that is exactly what I have done.

You inserted the babylonian nitpick... I followed it with a nitpick of my own. You feel insulted, thats fine. But I didn't insult you. I did however nitpick your nitpick.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Ops, the Roma (whom I'm probably being terribly un-pc by calling gypsies) are a very analogoius situation to diaspora Jews. Don't feel you're making light of the Jews by saying it, and the hell with Eli Wiesel [Smile]
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Ottoman Jerusalem: The Living City 1517-1917
eds Sylvia Auld and Robert Hillenbrand
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
SG

The above was in response to your original post which included the "heavy handed commendations" line.

I reitterate I had no intention of insulting anyone. And I think OT's post above reflects my retort to the arguments I found when I read the thread. Others did what I posted and the topic's argument moved on.

Now lets move on together and drop this particular nitpick.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
Jesse

Availible digital? Or am I going to the university to find this?
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
Btw have consulted the oxford Histories concerning 1917-1947, but is there any english language work that deals specificaly with the 1917 partitioing of the Ottoman lands until the 1936 census? I can only find sources that are either strictly numbers of people, or tangentaly associated stories without much official comments of fact.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
University Redskull, sorry.

It's unbelievably comprehensive, two volumes, about 1,200 pages or so, and only *maybe* a hundred pages or so deals with Sufis.

What's sad is, it's still the best source I could find.

I thought about buying it but it wasn't cheap or easy to find. I had to read it as a reference book.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
Cool lucky i have a university down the street. i had heard of, and possibly used it before. Was hoping someone had the 300 page thesis about them hanging around.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
I haven't seen it, if you get hold of it let me know.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
Inter library loan... works wonders
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Jesse, give me a few extra search words to work with. A search for "sufi" floods me, of course, with links about the Muslim spiritual movement. Somehow that doesn't sound like what you mean.
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
The U.N. resolution creating the Israel? Would make for a convincing argument, except for the fact that it was virtually the last UN resolution anyone in the Israeli government apparently bothered to read.

quote:
Originally posted by TS Elliot:Yah gotta admit that's funny! [Smile]
quote:
Originally posted by Hannibal:
Elliot, it could have been so funny if it were true surprise surprise....

Oh, I'm sure the Israelis read, agreed and signed a bunch of UN resolutions on totally unrelated subjects, like the saving of the three legged Ahorn-Sheep of MidNorthern Upper Canada, but that's not what Jesse meant and you know it. It's actually not only quite a nitpicking to imply that you did too read, agreed and signed other UN resolutions, but also very cynical.

[ August 30, 2005, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: TS Elliot ]
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:

In addition, the first statement is patently false. There is nothing unique about what Jews have suffered except that such an extrordinary number of them were killed in such a short period.

I agree that there is nothing unique about the jews in this respect.


quote:
Originally posted by Everard, I suppose his view on the typical antisemite": "Kill as many as we can, who cares if its women, children, and the elderly. They are JEWS."
This is very melodramatic in light of your winning position geopolitically speaking of the last 50-60 years. Also on a global socio-economic scale, jews are far from the botton of the barrel. I bet if all the wealth of jews around the world was added up, they would be in the top ten of nations. To my knowledge, there's no country in the world were jews are on the bottom rung of the socio-economic ladder.


quote:
Israel's response? "Maybe if we pull out of this territory in exchange for NOTHING, fewer of our people will get killed."
This is bullcrap and you know it. It's not for nothing, it's a tactical retreat out of a untenable and financially bankrupt position (how did the SovUn loose the Cold War? Yes, in large part economically) You just count yourself lucky that Hitler didn't do tactical retreats, otherwise ... Hell, I count myself lucky that he didn't do that, not for the fact that I would be speaking German now, I wouldn't have existed, since there's a good chance that Hitler would have wanted create Lebensraum in Africa ... I digress.
Sharon resolved to GazaStripping because of good will, even in Europe, because it was costly, and because it will give him a bargaining point to keep the West Bank and east Jerusalem. There are no unselfish acts in international relations, with maybe the exception of very late late late decision by Clinton to put his foot down in Kosovo, Bosnia etc. But of course my buddy Wpakkkt will cry bloody murder about this .... [Smile]
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
In all fairness, about 65 years ago someone DID kinda kill off a huge percentage of the worlds poorest Jews.

In addition, when you're limited to small number of profesional stations and craftsmen trades, well, you're probably going to learn to excel at them.

Still, think about it.....the argument that "Jews caused WWI" (I know you didn't make it just trying to illustrate a point) sure, 30-40 Jewish bankers and speculators made huge profits on that war...but so did literally thousands of bankers and speculators of other ethnic backgrounds.

Jews are, if anything, slightly over represented among the proffesional classes and significantly under represented among the Idle Rich, at least here in the states.
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:
"Palestinians have killed a huge proportion of your population? That is, at best, a bad joke"

[QUOTE]No its not a bad joke.

I agree that it's no joke, I think it's bloody shame, a big fat chutzpah, to say such things, especially since there are about FOUR times more Palestinians killed than there are Israeli, and it has shown no age-ism, since the numbers is the same for kids.

To make the claims of unique suffering by jews is a false and shameless exploitation of the victim-role. It merely shows that jews have a better access to world media (I suppose they don't own all those media and film companies for nothing) and a better PR machine, despite what they claim about the Palestinians. Should we give the Israelis credit for admitting that the casualty number of the Palestinians is 4 times that of them? No, that's what civilized democratic states are supposed to do. No extra credits.

Aside from the fact that I don't see how spreading yourself makes you suffer more, I mostly don't really see how jews can top the number of 30 million indigenous Americans killed and slaughtered, even if you count the last 2000 years. I don't think there were even 24 million (30-6) jews on the planet in the 2000 years before the 1900s? Before the 1900s total earth population: around 800 million. How many of those were jews?

Show me the money.

The mere fact that jews, are globally speaking one of the most powerful groups, suggests that the persecution couldn't have been that bad. The Roma and Sinti (gypsies) are still recovering from WW2, the Negroes are still on the bottom rung, and the indigenous Americans are for all practical purposes, not there anymore.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"I agree that it's no joke, I think it's bloody shame, a big fat chutzpah, to say such things, especially since there are about FOUR times more Palestinians killed than there are Israeli"

This is a stupid argument. If you look at WHY more palestinians have died then israeli's, you'll see why.
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
Come on, TS.

I question your "Jews to others" ratios, but it's immaterial. What has been done to the Jews historically cannot really be overstated; if other populations have been treated as badly or worse and it's less known, that under-reporting doesn't de facto make the Holocaust and all the pograms and persecution over-reported.

Also, I find your sideline pandering to such stereotypes as "Jews own the media!" as support for your statements rather repulsive and unworthy.

I'm not sure, either, what you mean by "the indigenous Americans are for all practical purposes [are] not there anymore." Whose practical purposes? And they're plenty "there"--some of them even post here on Ornery.

Surely you can argue a pro-Palestinian position, and certainly an anti-Israeli-governmental policy one, without resorting to slurs and straw men.

The point, here, is whether we are seeing another example of "screw whoever there's the least of and who can be easily identified as Other." Casting varies, but that show's been running a long, long time.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Thank you Funean.
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Funean:
if other populations have been treated as badly or worse and it's less known, that under-reporting doesn't de facto make the Holocaust and all the pograms and persecution over-reported.

I don't get that. That is exactly what it does, it makes it overreported. It doesn't make the suffering worse or 'better'. And yes, this pissing contest about who suffers more is a bit sickening. I surely agree to that.

quote:
Also, I find your sideline pandering to such stereotypes as "Jews own the media!" as support for your statements rather repulsive and unworthy.
Why? I don't deny them their right to express a preference to favorable reporting about jews and jewish issues, that is a fact of life. If they are overrepresented in ownership and control of merican and/or western media (as i think they are), this is what will happen. Not that I am happy about it. If it were one-eyes lesbian midget from mongolia, then they would be more favourably reported. I didn't say that jews own the media, I wanted to imply that they are overrepresented. Looking at Woody Allen/Harvey Weinberger that might be a good thing, but looking baruch goldstein/Sharon, might be not.

quote:

I'm not sure, either, what you mean by "the indigenous Americans are for all practical purposes [are] not there anymore." Whose practical purposes? And they're plenty "there"--some of them even post here on Ornery.

I meant that they didn't handle attempted (and partly succesfful) genocide as well as jews, in light of their totally different positions in society.
And they are 'not there', (with respect to Canadian), in the sense that I don't know of any significant role that they play in present northern-merican society, let alone in south america. But in Bolivia at least they are significant part of the population.) The last and only fully Indian actor I can remember in any major movie is the guy in "One Cuckoo flew over the rest", the others are all mixed with whites. Enlighten me if it's not the case. And I watch a lot of movies (10.203 last count)
They aren't there, in the sense that there is not a clear cultural heritage that indigenous people can fall back on, sure, there is some, but not to the extent that jews, europeans, or even Aframs can, at least they have a whole continent to call their own.

quote:
Surely you can argue a pro-Palestinian position, and certainly an anti-Israeli-governmental policy one, without resorting to slurs and straw men.
I think what you call straw men are valid points, since, history is written by the victors.

quote:
The point, here, is whether we are seeing another example of "screw whoever there's the least of and who can be easily identified as Other." Casting varies, but that show's been running a long, long time.
nice. the point is who has the (overly melo-)dramatic lead and who are the extras ...
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
<ahem>

Your friendly neighborhood librarian: searching the worldwide database of library holdings, for YOU!

Here are some of the best-looking things about Sufism & history thereof that I found in a short search:

A culture of Sufism : Naqshbandīs in the Ottoman world, 1450-1700 / Dina Le Gall
ISBN 0791462455
(SUNY series in medieval Middle East history)

Sufi orders in Ottoman and post-Ottoman Egypt and the Middle East : collected studies / Frederick De Jong.
ISBN 9754281785

An introduction to the history of Ṣūfism ; the Sir Abdullah Suhrawardy lectures for 1942, by Arthur J. Arberry
ISBN 0863112579 ? (there's a 1992 edition)

A history of Sufism in India / by Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi.
ISBN 8121500389
 
Posted by Serotonin'sGone (Member # 1219) on :
 
quote:
I did not insult your knowledge or intelligence. I made a simple comment that your argument re self infliction /babylonian conquest doesn't make much sense if you add in the Roman conquests of 66 AD and 115 AD. Your argument was specificly untenable, and in light of historical facts, which you still haven't acepted that show specific causality of the aggressions against jews and the results of the aggression makes absolutely no sense.

1) I never made that argument. I never mentioned babylon. Do you have anything else you would like for me to have said?
2) any twit that knows the first thing about jewish history knows what happened in 66 and 115. that you would presuppose that I don't is an insult--it's like telling a catholic priest to google jesus christ or a mormon joseph smith.
3) Why do you fail to mention 130-136? That is the last jewish rising, and the one with the most legitimate beef. If you're going to interject random useless comments, why not make them comprehensive?

quote:
It has always been permisable on Ornery to point out the factual or logical faults of anyone's argument even if you happen not to be involved in the acctual debate of the topic. My intent was not to debate. My intent was to point out a pretty signifigant flaw in your argument and possibly send you in the right direction which might allow you to better support your argument. You mistook my hint as some sort of insult. I think others picked up on what I was driving at and argued it well. To be honest, my argument is different from the two sides presented over the last couple of pages and those who have seen it probably could assure you that I have no debate with you or your concepts of causality.

If you wish to point out a flaw in my argument, do me the courtesy of waiting until I make an argument to do so.

quote:
If you assumed I was attempting to insult you, you mistook my intent. And as far as heavy handed commendations leading to your getting a clue, I'd advise you to go back, look at the posts and see if I was the one instructing you as to the use of english and deameaning definitions to be applied to my person.

You can't really complain when your own words are used against you. I copied your exact format and applied it to you. Clearly you feel insulted as a result. Odd, isn't it? Doesn't it come off as arrogant? Why, maybe you appeared arrogant when you used it too? Surely this has at least occurred to you, or is your own sense of self-importance so great that you cannot imagine being taken for a know it all?

I was going to hold off on the above, but given that TS eliot is posting on this thread I consider it effectively dead.

As for the original argument that I might just finally make:

quote:
Umm, I disagree that they were self-inflicted. The roman emporer who ordered that a statue of himself be placed inside the holy of holies was a friggin idiot, and caused the wars that followed ending with the diaspora. When you desecrate a holy site and then send soldiers to enforce that desecration, its not the fault of the people who get pissed about the desecration.
Caligula was indeed an idiot, and did order that a his statue be built in the temple. However, the order was never carried out, and he was fortuitously assassinated (for the good of rome and pretty much everyone else).

That was a good 25 years before the revolt in 66 ad, and just another dot in a long line of minor rebellions in judea. I'll make the 66 ad event the major focus of this post, as it's about the only rebellion for which a complete history was made (Josephus's The Jewish War. It's biased toward rome obviously, as he wrote it under the auspices of Titus/Vespasian, but it's pretty much all we have to go on. And he did try to make the jewish cause slightly sympathetic, particularly when he was in charge of it).

The revolt in 66 was largely caused by over taxation by the romans. Most sources indicate that the revolt was as much an internal class revolt as anything else -- but with several very poorly made decisions. Admittedly Florus (the roman governor) was a bastard--he extorted the people and supported dissent in order to justify stealing from the temple. And the last draw was the desecration of a synagogue in Caesaria by hellenists (they built a factory blocking the entrance).

That said, had the jews created an organized rebellion, ousted Florus, and then sent emissaries to rome to plead for a new governor they could easily have gotten away with it. The jewish state was a regular gold mine to rome -- one which rome had no desire to part with. combine that with the growing dissent in Gaul and you have a Rome which really doesn't care to fight a long and painful war in the middle east.

Instead, the jews were completely divided and rebellion proved more of a civil war than anything else. Even the high priest was killed in the mayhem, along with the leader of the Sicarii. Numerous factions vied for power throughout the land and a number of jews were slaughtered by fellow jews. Probably most damaging to the jewish cause was the slaughter of roman soldiers after they surrendered (on guarantee of safe conduct). Rome simply isn't going to let something like that go...

Even so, Agrippa continued unsuccessfully to plead for peace with Rome -- and Rome still offered it. That the jews, divided though they may have been, continued to rebel at this point was just insane. And so they were slaughtered all the way to jerusalem -- where for the most part the killing was jew vs jew. Even up until the very final siege of jerusalem the jewish factions were butchering each other within the city and throughout the countryside. What else can such a civil war be but self inflicted -- with the added bonus of the winner getting annihilated by the romans.

Now the rebellion in 132 ad was admittedly a little more reasonable.
quote:
At this time, the Jews started a war because they were forbidden to mutilate their genitals.
[Historia Augusta, Hadrian 14.2]

That's pretty much asking jews to quit being jews, which crosses a line that would obviously lead to rebellion. I merely mention it because it was the last time the jews would field an army until the 20th century. However, by this time judea had already been wrecked by a number of other wars -- this was just the final nail in the coffin.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
") I never made that argument. I never mentioned babylon. Do you have anything else you would like for me to have said?"

You did make the argument Redskull is talking about, though, as you said

"Just to pick a nit, but both of those occasions were self inflicted. You can't really call it persecution if you bring your doom upon yourself."

In response to the statement that jews had been kicked out of their homeland twice. You can't say that they self-inflicted being kicked out of their homeland, and then say you didn't make the argument that jews were responsible for being kicked out of their homeland because you didn't mention specifically which time you were talking about, despite the fact your original statement includes both times.
 
Posted by Serotonin'sGone (Member # 1219) on :
 
quote:
In response to the statement that jews had been kicked out of their homeland twice. You can't say that they self-inflicted being kicked out of their homeland, and then say you didn't make the argument that jews were responsible for being kicked out of their homeland because you didn't mention specifically which time you were talking about, despite the fact your original statement includes both times.
I never mentioned babylon. I only said that getting kicked out twice was self inflicted. I hadn't even had a chance to imply what direction I intended to take with that. That's what bugged me--there was no argument yet, just an unsupported claim. Redskull's comment was specifically directed at an argument which hadn't been made yet.

I guess my above statement is a little unclear--I don't mean to say that I didn't claim that the exile was self inflicted (as I obviously did.) I just didn't see it as an opportunity for redskull to come from on high to deliver a history lesson.

[ August 31, 2005, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Serotonin'sGone ]
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Well, if redskull sees the statement as completely unsupported, then of course its an opportunity for him to deliver a history lesson.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
chill, dude.
 
Posted by Serotonin'sGone (Member # 1219) on :
 
quote:
Well, if redskull sees the statement as completely unsupported, then of course its an opportunity for him to deliver a history lesson.
How happy would you have been if I'd responded to this:

quote:
The roman emporer who ordered that a statue of himself be placed inside the holy of holies was a friggin idiot, and caused the wars that followed ending with the diaspora. When you desecrate a holy site and then send soldiers to enforce that desecration, its not the fault of the people who get pissed about the desecration.
with this:
Everard, you need to do a bit more research on Jewish history. for starters enter caligula and temple statue into a good search engine.

enjoy.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
SG

You really need to chill. Had I given you a history lesson, you would still be as peeved as you currently are. I saved myself typing time, and have let others point out the errors in your argument. In your defense your nitpick was phrased in a sweeping generality that made it easy to see some glaring holes. While others have used your argument as a punching bag, I did not. I just pointed you in a simple direction, hoping you might further develop a more factually valid argument.

You have yet to do so. and in response to your question of how Everard would have responded to a suggestion to do a bit more research, he would likely have done the search, realized the error he made, thank me politely, and then present a much better argument. thats how ornery works. If you say something silly or stupid, someone will call you on it. But unlike other message boards, instead of gloating or wishing a diminished reputation on the person who is in error, Ornery members offer a more polite and simple way for people to rectify errors. No one cares about your education or level of intelligence. We do care when someone posts against simple common sense.

If you feel slighted then there is not a thing I can do to mitigate it. But you can be reasonably sure I intended no offense and was simply intending to focus the two sides of the argument on the thread. I had hoped to find the thread moving towards intelligent discussion. you have repeatedly denied your original point, that others have shown to have indeed been your point. Either retract it and start over, or continue this pointless ranting against the injustice of my recomending you do a little research. I have treated many other members of Ornery much more harshly in the past when they have made errors like the one you have made, by posting large detailed explanations that leaving them looking foolish and inept.

Consider also, that far from being the sole practitioner of this tactic, many others have done the same. As several people have said privately, you need to "chill", and stop badgering me for pointing out your argument's fault. Move on, refine your argument. If your lucky no one will decide to insult your intelligence publicly and deconstruct your nit-pick. I for one have no more time left to waste on your problem with me, or my suppossed insult to your intellect.
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
Thats it,
today israel has withrew from Gaza, probably never to return
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
I've been thinking about this and I finally have an analogy to describe how I felt about the museum of the holocaust.

I've really been thinking about this a lot, I wasn't exagerrating when I said I almost threw up.

Imagine a Cherokee Trail of Tears Museum which detailed all the legal manuvering that lead to the US breaking their treaty obligations, the racism involved in the decision, and detailed the suffering of those who died and were displaced.

A great museum, really, which told a powerful and moving story, and provided a wealth of information.

No, imagine that in this museum, you find a little display, which essentially says "A bunch of native americans from other tribes suffered hardship as a result of US policy".

It's fine to just tell your own story, it really is, I don't expect that the Museum of the Holocaust has an obligation to tell us about the people who endured the siege of Stalingrad or the suffering of Londoners during the Blitz.

Sometimes, it's just a lot better NOT to include a footnote.
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hannibal:
Thats it,
today israel has withrew from Gaza, probably never to return

quote:
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Security Cabinet authorized a Gaza ground incursion that would begin by Sunday unless the Palestinian Authority asserted control over Gaza or Hamas declared an end to rocket attacks, according to The Associated Press quoting unnamed security sources.
Source
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
you know, i was just looking for this thread to post this...

so Javelin let me give you an update on the latest escalation...

1)Hamas make rally
2)Hamas's own weapons blow up in that rally killing 20 arabs
3)not to look stupid infront of his own people Hamas blames israel and vows to revange
4)Hamas launches 36 rockets!!! on the israeli city Shderot during the following night

can you see how low, barbarous, evil, sadistic, crapholes they can get? they kill their own people, blame it on us, and launch their biggest millitary operation in "retaliation"

just as Israel warned the palestinian authority that if AFTER :
"Thats it,
today israel has withrew from Gaza, probably never to return "

the palestinians will attack israel - there will be a massive retaliation from our side, in order NOT to make it some sort of "equation" of qasam rocket = israeli rocket, we are, hopefully, going to up the ante and blast the hell out of them. just like i said so in my eaerlier posts this thread.
i hope that we will wipe some gazan blocks now, so they will see who they are dealing with.

I DO hope that no israeli soldier will "walk" into gaza again, but instead israel will use its IAF and artillery
and i DO hope they will see only 5% of what we can do, and it will defenetly be enough for them.

ok now feel free to jump on my throat

[ September 24, 2005, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Hannibal ]
 
Posted by Hannibal (Member # 1339) on :
 
the fact that it took our army several hours to "retaliate" is scandalous in my opinion.

its only because a "minor" suburb with no economic power was attacked.

if Tel Aviv was bombed by 36 qasam rockets, we whould LEVEL gaza totally, and everybody knows it

but this small town Shderot, IS a part of israel propper, it is not a disputed territory, and as far as i am concerned it should get "equal" consideration as if Tel Aviv or Jerusalem were attacked.
that there are no high tech factories there, and that most of the town's people are minimum wage and less educated, doesnt mean their security is less important

[ September 24, 2005, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: Hannibal ]
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1