Reacting to the incursion, chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority Saeb Erakat said: “What this will do is undermine the peace process.” The Palestinian Authority is the government of President Mahmoud Abbas.
Is that what they have over there? A peace process? Processed peace, which is just as much real peace as processed meat is real meat.
Or perhaps it’s a spelling error and he said “piece process” which consists of Hamas raining down missiles from Gaza and trying to blow Israel to pieces.
Idiots. The second the cease fire was over they started firing lobbing artillery at Israel. What did they THINK was going to happen?
PAD
• 
Daniel,
Very true. Even when Hamas had a cease fire with Israel, they never stopped *other* groups from launching missiles. Which is why the blockades stayed, which is why they refused to renew it and then added on.
Micha,
Nicely done!
Craig,
See Micha’s post. Gaza is not like Chechnya.
“When Israeli children are killed month after month, year after year, it’s reported with statistics.
“When Palestinian children are killed after a few days, it’s reported with indignation.”
Incorrect. More often, when Palestinians are killed, it’s not reported much at all.
“…the AP has reported 131% of Israeli deaths, whereas they only reported 66% of Palestinian deaths.”
http://www.projectcensored.org/articles/story/a-study-of-bias-in-the-associated-press/
Actually, I haven’t seen anyone here “siding with the Palestinians.” Unless, of course, you consider holding Israel equally accountable for _its own_ pointless violence to be “siding with Palestine.”
In fact, I don’t know of anyone who thinks Hamas is wonderful. But I sure see a lot of Americans who think Israel can do no wrong, and can’t even explain why.
I think we should keep arguments about media bias out of this debate; each of us has his own sources and beliefs. Just look at the debate over which party is most supported by the US media. The left says the right, and the right says the left. Everyone brings their own statistics to back them up.
Add to that the fact that each source measures something different in order to determine that they’re the ones being discriminated against. Number of times a story is reported or referenced in other stories, prominence of articles in the first or last pages of a paper, active voice versus passive voice in the headline and first sentence (this last is a favorite of pro-Israel media bias hunters); each of these is going to give a different picture as to who is being favored by which media outlet. And then we’d have to analyze each outlet separately.
We’d be here forever and not get anywhere. (Not that we’re getting anywhere anyway. But this particular aspect of the discussion is particularly unproductive.)
Anyway, I believe, as clearly PAD does, that Israel is consistently biased against in the international news media. You clearly believe otherwise. We can link each other to various reports from here to tomorrow. If you want to see what my side has to say, I suggest you read HonestReporting and CAMERA (though sometimes I look at what they read and go “huh?”). But none of that helps us here. What do we say we put that aside and agree to focus on the more substantive parts of the debate?
See Micha’s post. Gaza is not like Chechnya.
The situations are not identical, no. But I’ve pointed out where parallels can be drawn.
When you get down to it, both regions suffer from a core problem: an inability to get international recognizance of independence when they are a region that is ethnically different from the country they are a part of – or more accurately with Gaza, who they have been occupied by in the past.
Gaza is closer to this independence, in that Israel had basically given it to them, but whether Hamas truly wants to be recognized as independent is obviously another matter entirely.
Palestinians I thought always wanted their own state; Hamas… well, I don’t think they give a crap. But after our own election 4 years ago, I’m not going to sit here and say that those in Gaza deserve what’s happening after putting Hamas in power.
I for one have actually missed you in this thread, micha. You usually give first hand information with a cool head, and thats worth a bundle in the Internet.
Refering to the American School destruction… have you seen the missiles they are firing? man portable, easy to set up, launch and scramble… So to bomb a learning institution because people contrary to its charter fired from the soccer court or whatever is actually moronic. Its actually Hamas killing two birds with one stone; they got rid of a school they heavily disliked and made Israel appear as the villain. Isnt there anyone in the IDF evaluating the effect and impact prior their attacks?
Again, I am not disputing Israel right to defend themselves, I just dispute this strategy as short sighted and calamitous for them, and an indiscriminate punishment to the civilians of Gaza (yet, since we started this debate here, more and more people seem to dispute the mere existence of “innocent palestinians”. Maybe they are mithological, like centaurs).
Regarding the citizenship of arab East Jerusalem residents; my comment awnsered another in the line of “them non-citizens beign allowed to vote”. If they were actually offered citizenship that solves that question but arises another; they were forcibly annexed along the place they live in and offered to become part of the state who annexed them (wich is better than beign displaced or “cleansed”)… why would it be surprising if many would still prefer to be palestinians? Why is it seen as treason them clinging to their identity?
There is a subtle notion that permeates many comments about the palestinians: “Why wont they become more like us?”, us beign Israel/Western civilization. And such feelings might be racist in nature but well meant…after all we are better off than them in most aspects. But it fails to aknowledge a vital point of human nature; change has to come from within and external pressure in a direction may very well stop change at all.
And its not a case of cultural/racial relativism at least on my part, Rene, I consider “darkies” as capable of moral deccisions as anyone. Logically, given that I am “half-darkie” myself. But I do believe the contextual nature of racial/cultural predominance has to be taken into consideration, else we fall into paternalistic notions like the one stated above, or worse, downright colonialism. (I might be pìššìņg on Huntington’s recent grave but I actually dont give a damm).
Parallels can be drawn, but only tangentially.
Now your *second* point is not a horrid one. They do indeed both suffer from the same core problem, and that should be a way of finding common ground. Alas, there’s too much blood under the bridge for some.
As for what Hamas wants and does not want, as Mr. David points out, their stated goal is the destruction of Israel. Really, the first condition of their official recognition should have been repealing that goal.
I don’t think it was right for the US & Israel to say “Oh HÊLL no, you’re election didn’t count,” but I also don’t think they should have said ‘Hey, you guys are cool with us now”.
And yeah, on the ground, generally speaking, Palestinians just want their own state.
Mordechai Luchins: If you acknowledge that Israel is set up so that “one tribe” (Jews, obviously, although any competent biologist would point out that Jews, like members of all other religions come from a variety of ethnicities – Judaism is a religion, not a species) has “right of return” (very difficult to “return” to the Levant if one’s ancestors have been in Central Asia, Russia or Lithuania since before the origin of Judaism – as is sometimes the case), and no other “tribe,” then perhaps you are right: Israel is not a theocracy, but a doomed-to-failure attempt to maintain a racially-purified master state. Now, this is not something new. There have been other states which attempted to expel or destroy what they considered racial deviants. This sort of thing is usually unpopular with right-thinking people. Just 64 years ago we put some of these freaks on trial as Class A War Criminals. Oh! But there’s a difference, you may say. Of course. The Nazis liked the (entirely fictional) Aryan genotype, and did their best to create a world state inhabited only by such folks. The Israelis have a much more modest goal: One little state which elevates supposed descendants of Isaac, spits on those of Ishmael, and more or less politely ignores other ethnicities, so long as they don’t get in the way of their pathetic racial purity scheme.
When fundamentalists or neo-pagans pull this kind of crap most of us consider them pathetic losers. Well, these folks aren’t fundamentalists or neo-pagans, but so what?
Tell me if this little maxim is any good:
“If it is evil for a man to do something, his being a Jew does not change this.”
I was just watching a repeat of “West Wing” and Fitzwallace says the following:
“We measure the success of a mission in two ways: was it successful, and how few civilians were killed. They measure it in terms of how many civilians were killed.”
That, I think, sums up the difference between Israel and Hamas.
PAD
My point of view: There has never been peace in the Middle East, and there will never be peace in the Middle East. I have lost all hope about that bloody place.
Of course, there could be a solution: nuke the whole of the Middle East. I’m not advocationg that, mind you, but logic dictates that once there is no land left to fight for and no people left to fight for it, then there is peace. Please see in this the incoherent ramblings of a 48 years old man who has had enough of seeing his hopes dashed time after time after time after time.
PAD, with all due respect… you insist on stating the differences between Israel and Hamas while hardly anyone here is siding with Hamas. Criticism of the actions of Israel does not equate with siding with its enemies or advocating for its destruction.
Jeffrey S. Frawley:
Oh boy, are you missing the point of what a tribe is.
Judaism is more than just a religion. Mr. David and I are both Jewish, yet we practice very differently, I am sure. However, we both have certain genetic “tells”. There is even one gene specific to Jews. I mean no, it’s not a species, that’s just being silly. Still, this is the key to your whole false thesis:
“you acknowledge that Israel is set up so that “one tribe” has “right of return” and no other “tribe,” then perhaps you are right: Israel is not a theocracy, but a doomed-to-failure attempt to maintain a racially-purified master state”
Nonsense, sir.
Your very statement is an utter falsehood. “Right of Return” doesn’t mean “Step right in”. Hëll, Jews have a hëll of a time immigrating, even with Right of Return.
To be a “racially-purified master state”, Israel would have to actively block immigration of Christians, Muslims, and other faiths. They don’t. There are thousands of non-Jews, by any definition, living in Israel. They participate in every walk of life, including high office.
You are, frankly, talking out of your ášš.
Is there racism in Israel? Sure. And in the US, Canada, England, and all over the world.
However, the way you paint Israel here, and Zionism, is just utter nonsense.
“One little state which elevates supposed descendants of Isaac, spits on those of Ishmael, and more or less politely ignores other ethnicities, so long as they don’t get in the way of their pathetic racial purity scheme.”
I have to wonder what your actual evidence is, beyond a gut feeling.
Again, Israeli Arabs serve in government and have the same rights as any other Israeli. Where are they being spat on? Go on, tell me.
You sir, are full of sound and fury, and signify nothing.
Hombre Malo, I was not thinking of you, when I wrote my comments.
It was Shaun, comparing Palestinians to Native Americans, and Jeffrey Frawley, making even crazier comparisions between Israelis and Nazis.
Mordechai Luchins: Although you will never see it, your insistence on Jewish genetic solidarity is extremely harmful and negative. There are a number of people who come from other ethnic backgrounds but have converted to Judaism – most often as a result of marrying a Jew, but for other reasons as well. Why, I imagine some of them have come to that faith through some sort of soul-searching, academic study, or whatever there is that makes people change their religions. I am not one of them (Yes, I know this is not a surprise), but I do know some of them. Would you like to tell them they’ve failed your little genetic purity test? Mengele would have been ecstatic to do your categorization – at no charge, probably – but it wouldn’t have been of much benefit to you. Let’s assume you are right that many Israelis share some relatively minor genetic distinctions. Basques are quite like Basques, I suspect, much more like each other than they are other ethnicities. Irish are more Irish than Bulgarians, and most Palestinians don’t pass for Zulu, either. Would you like to excuse any and all forms of violence to maintain extra-tidy racial principalities? Remember that your exceptionalism for those you consider “real Jews” must apply just as well to other groups – some you don’t respect quite so much as Israelis, and some respecting Israelis not at all.
I’m not joking at all in saying your insistence on recognizing people as nothing but ethnic isolates is incredibly dangerous. It hasn’t been all that long since your people were gassed for being “different.” Why would you ever want to tell people Hitler was right in saying you were a different breed entirely? I’m going to take a leap of faith here. I think you are a human being, capable of breeding within the species and producing fertile offspring, rather than mules. Irish, Swiss, Israeli, French, it makes no difference. Why, you could even breed with Palestinians (Oooooh! Well, you could) and produce human beings. Forget about Apartheid, because that’s all you’re talking about. If you don’t like the idea of non-Semites lumping Jews together as an alien breed, don’t do it yourself.
Daniel:
You ask if there is any country in the world that lets anyone at all emigrate. No, there probably isn’t. If you can name any country other than Israel which offers blanket invitations to one preferred ethnicity, is that a country you would want to live in, or would want to have on your border? To people who don’t happen to be of the ethnic flavor of preference, that looks a lot like racial exclusivism, racism, ghettoization and hatred of all ethnicities but one’s own. Every time I consider the wisdom of living in a society modeled on the Alfred Rosenberg’s theories, my answer is always the same: “No, thank you very much.”
{Before you start defending Mr. Rosenberg based on his surname, think twice. If he passed Hitler’s test, he probably wouldn’t pass yours.}
Craig, you’ve gotten it backwards. The Israelis would love for Gaza to be recognized as independent, even the right wing ones, and it is against the interest of the Palestinians, even the moderate ones.
The Palestinians must never allow a situation where they are given a Palestinian state in part of the territory they want and before all their demands are satisfied. Because then, they rightly fear, the pressure of being an occupier will be off Israel, and it will be harder to gain the rest.
Of course, what is the rest that the Paletinians want is harder to define. Is it just the west bank and Gaza, or all of Palesine/Israel? in the case of the Hamas the stated answer is the latter. In the case of Palestinians in general it is harder to say for certain. I suspect that Palestinians are like everybody else — they want different and often contradictory things.
For Israelis who want Israel to stop being an occupier, and who want to see a Palestinian state next to Israel (such as myself) the problem is less the Israelis who are completely against giving the Palestinians independence or any territory. We’ve beaten them. The problem is the Israelis who are willing to give he Palestinians only Gaza, or Gaza and 50% of the west bank, or 70% or 90% or 95% etc.
But of course that’s not our only problem. We have other problems:
We can’t say for certain that the Palestinians don’t want more than even the 100% of the West Bank and Gaza that we want to give them. They may want 105% or 110% or maybe only the elimination of Israel.
Another problem we have is the Israelis who support withdrawl in princple but are hesitant in practice because, you know, every time Israel withdraw from a territory it became a center of Islamic radicals who waged attacks across the border into Israel. It kind of makes withdrawl atough sell, especially if it is established that Israel is incapable or not allowed to defend itself against said Islamists.
Since we have failed to deal with these problems we have lost and the right wing will rise despite the fact that most Israelis are in the center.
What the Hamas want?
1) Recognition of its position in Gaza without restrictions as it consolidated itself as an Islamic ruler and continues the legitimate right of resistence against Israel
2) Force Israel to a ceasefire in the West Bank which will enable it to remove the Fatah from the west bank and establih itself there, missles and bunkers included, now targeting all of Israel.
3) Attack Israel from the West Bank and Gaza in a war of attrition that will force it to surrender estblishing an Islamic state in all of Palestine.
4) All the above combines with other local efforts to establish a united Islamic state.
Simple.
El hombre Malo: PAD, with all due respect… you insist on stating the differences between Israel and Hamas while hardly anyone here is siding with Hamas. Criticism of the actions of Israel does not equate with siding with its enemies or advocating for its destruction.
I think the reason he’s doing that is because people are talking about the things that Isreal is doing without addressing what Hamas is doing. When someone says, “This side did a bad thing,” without mentioning that the other side did the same bad thing, that sounds biased. They may not have said the other side doesn’t do the bad thing, but pointing it out for one side and not the other still sounds like a stilted argument.
I recommend that anyone who feels Israel is the aggrieved party and Palestinians mindless terrorists read up on Operation Shoshana, in which a unit of the Israeli Defense Force under Ariel Sharon entered the West Bank village of Qibya, forced the villagers into their homes, and then machine gunned and bombed them until 69 of them were dead. After the fact, Sharon claimed he had no idea there were people in the huts when they were exploded. Some of his troops demurred: Forcing the people into the homes and machine gunning those who tried to come out gave him some reason to believe the people he murdered were exactly where he murdered them, one might say. Of course, at the time the West Bank was undoubtedly Jordanian territory, so this is not a matter of internal policy. Rather, it was the intimidation of an ethnicity the government disliked through terrorism. Any old time of the day that would be called “terrorism.” These days there’s another word – “ethnic cleansing.” When Hutus and Tutsis act up that way, we call it a war crime. When Israelis do it, we say the people they kill are unimportant to our foreign policy objectives. Menachem Begin bombed the King David Hotel, killing many – mostly British and Arabs, but a few Jewish. They’ve put up a plaque honoring him for it. and relations with Britain are relatively tranquil these days. It makes the whole subject of terrorism being such a nasty thing rather complicated, doesn’t it? I think it should have been dealt with more simply: Finding Begin and hanging him along with his thugs (after a fair trial, of course: We must be civilized). Nothing of the kind happened, of course. Machine gunning and bombing the USS Liberty in 1967 was certainly not enough to ruffle the U.S.’s kind feelings for its great friend, either. Well, you know – Nasser was talking to the Soviet Union, so of course we didn’t care with whom we were sleeping! Nothing at all – not even killing American Naval personnel – is TERRORISM if we have good relations with the terrorists. Don’t be silly! Looking the other way when our friends kill strange foreigners is quite well established, but winking at acts of war committed against our own country is something new.
Apologies for this long post, which i really wasn’t going to do, but finally can’t resist:
Okay. Please understand, this is not a defense of Hamas; it is not possible to defend the activities of Hamas in this regard.
Nothing in this is to be construed as attacking (present-day) Israel, or as trying to justify the activities of Hamas; unlike politicians, i don’t espouse “Your guy did it too” as a defense for indefensible actions – but i am willing to support it as a counter to potentially excessive actions (not to be construed as specifically classifying any current activities in that light).
That said:
Posted by: Daniel
You have an interestingly broad definition of terrorism there. Most definitions of terrorism refer in some fashion to attacks intended to create a state of terror in the minds of the general public.
My definition of terrorists is “people who deliberately attack civilians”. Guerilla members who only attack soldiers are not terrorists; they are armed combatants, uniformed or not. Hamas is a terrorist organization because they do not LIMIT their attacks to the Israeli military. Their uniform or lack of same does not enter into it.
Glad to see you rejecting Bushspeak, like “armed combatants”…
Ummm.
Lehi (“Stern Gang”)
Robbed Jerusalem banks for funds, killing Jewish passers-by in process.
Staged daring jailbreak for teo of its leaders, including Yitshak Shamir (a name possibly familiar in other contexts)
Drove trucks loaded with explosives into police stations (Currently roundly decried as a “terrorist” tactic by people not doing it – like Israel.)
Mined rail lines. (Killing both soldiers and civilians)
Assasination of Lord Moyne (the assassins, executed by the British Government, included in a 1982 Israeli postage stamp set “Martyrs of the Struggle for Israel’s Independence”)
Deir Yassan (In conjunction with Irgun, massacred 100 to 120 Arab villagers; Wikipedia says the the operation had the approval of Haganah, which later condemned it when it garnered bad international publiciy.)
From Wikipedia:
Quoting Lehi’s paper, The Front:
Irgun
After a Jewish father and son were killed in the Old City of Jerusalem, on June 6, 1938, Irgun members threw explosives from the roof of a nearby house, killing two Arabs and injuring four.
The Irgun planted land mines in a number of Arab markets, primarily in places identified by the Irgun as activity centers of armed Arab gangs.
Explosives detonated in the Arab souk in Jerusalem on July 15, killed ten local Arabs.
70 Arabs were killed by a land mine planted in the Arab souk in Haifa.
Menachim Begin was the Irgun’s commander after 1943.
There’s quite a bit more – the Jerusalem railway station, the King David Hotel, attacks on convoys and military trains and police offices – most of them with warnings in advance, which, i suppose, makes them “not terrirst actons” under the current definition being mooted currently.
And, of course, they were theoretically operations against government offices, police stations or military targets, and those aren’t terrorist actions.
Could someone please remind me what the US Government and Israel call attacks like that these days when done by Palestinians or Iraqis?
Posted by: Rene
…Jeffrey Frawley, making even crazier comparisions between Israelis and Nazis.
An invidious comparison, indeed, though one might bear in mind that the Stern Gang actually seriously proposed allying with the Nazis against the British.
That was an example, and you’re twisting it, My wife is a convert, thanks.
Frankly, I’m done addressing you. You ignore facts time and time again, for your perverted vision.
Mordechai Luchins: As you do not specify the person you will no longer address, perhaps your intention is to remain silent. That would not bother me, but it seems unlikely. You, like perhaps 90% of the people here, are quite convinced your opinions are correct and relevant. That is a difficult situation in which to remain silent. To be truthful, I would find it interesting to read your gymnastics in justifying the actions of the Stern Gang and Irgun. I don’t know about the Stern Gang, but Irgun could have done with some better planning: Surely it would have preferred killing a lower percentage of Jews than it did in its various felonies. Poor leadership can do that.
If they’ve managed to live into their 70s and 80s, they haven’t absorbed any punishment at all.
Rob, you’re a loon. Which is too bad, because you’ve shown an ability for coherent thought in the past. Not here, though. You’ve been drinking the anti-Israel koolaid to the point that any disagreement with it leaves you helplessly floundering. Luckily there are lots of whackadoo sites where you can spew this out and not be questioned. You might have to overlook the occasional poster who steps over the line into blatant blood-libel Elders of Zion anti-semitism but I think you’ll manage. Bye.
Very seriously, if the same events were going on somewhere else – say East Timor and Indonesa, or Colombia and Panama, or, well, anywhere that had no connection with Israel – would PAD be so quick to admire the side that killed the most and suffered the least? I understand the Germans had the better of the Russians for a while in 1941-43: Do I hear a hurrah? After all, here you had highly advanced, Westernized folks in really keen uniforms, against a bunch of backward Asians…and, and, and, they killed a WHOLE LOT MORE Russians than those cossacks could kill of THEM!! Whoopee! The thing is, I don’t think one’s level of technology and military preparedness is an accurate measure of whether or not one is a murderous jáçkášš. Whether or not a killer shares my particular ethnicity is not very important.
The Russians are Asians? Who knew?
Actually, doesn’t the fact that PAD (and all of us) DON’T cheer the Nazis against the Russians mean it’s probably a piss poor analogy? I mean, besides the fact that it’s just a piss poor analogy. Here’s a hint–those same Nazis and their “keen uniforms” got their áššëš kicked by the Russians during the next two years and our sympathies remained with the Russians. It’s easy to explain.
You’ve been waiting for a chance to hit PAD on something. Should’ve kept waiting. This wasn’t it.
For all the people who are complaining this is all Israel’s fault (because, as you know it is ALWAYS Israel’s fault), I have this question—should the United States just “sit around and take it” if Canada or Mexico were to lob missiles at us?
Yeah, I’ve wondered that myself. I mean, the Mexican/American War was a total land grab. If you believe that the Palestinians have the right to grab any part of Israel they can by any means necessary I don’t see why you wouldn’t think that Mexico has the same right.
The “artillery” you refer to consisted of home-made rockets that do more or less nothing.
Reminds me of the Weather Underground idiots who excuse their terrorism on the grounds of their ineffectiveness. But hey, here’s a suggestion; if the rockets “do nothing” maybe…they shouldn’t fire them. To do otherwise seems incredibly stupid. Do you really think the Palestinian leaders are that stupid? Well, you may be right…
Seriously, would you be willing to demonstrate this inability of the rockets to “do nothing” by standing by one when it goes off? This is a real issue with real lives in the balance; pretending it’s little more than wanton boys shooting off bottle rockets and Roman candles doesn’t do much more than convince those of us who are supporting Israel that many of that country’s detractors are either unable or unwilling to deal with the facts.
Hey, tell you what. You tell us what you think is the acceptable number of Israeli deaths for Israel to finally launch an attack. Is it 10? Is it 100? Is it 1000? Is it 10,000? Is it only acceptable if Israel limits the number of deaths caused by their counterstrikes to a 1 to 1 ratio? Or is the answer that you’ll never think that there’s an acceptable number of Israeli deaths?
We already know the answer, Jerry. The Israelis should learn how to “take it.”
Peter David: “I have this funny feeling that if the election had been won by a party on a platform of, “We need to stop trying to destroy Israel and make a lasting peace,” Israel would not have felt the need to take up a defensive posture and adopt aggressive positions to protect itself.”
Of course, had that happened, those Palestinian leaders would quite possibly have been killed…by other Palestinians. And the world would protest…just kidding.
My point of view: There has never been peace in the Middle East, and there will never be peace in the Middle East. I have lost all hope about that bloody place.
No, there is no rational basis for that kind of thought. No people are genetically predisposed to war. No country or plot of land is cursed. We are not pawns of some Olympian Gods. People all over the world have overcome histories of violence and war. It’s hard work but pretending that this one place is somehow fated to eternal conflict just makes it easier to let the problem continue.
AP story in the International Herald-Tribune: http://tinyurl.com/9h9z4n
Jeffrey, your hatred for Israel truly shocks me. It shouldn’t, as it is quite common among young leftists anywhere, but it still shocks me.
I don’t think I hate any country like you hate Israel. Not even Iran, that would have me killed for my sexuality if I were an Iranian citizen.
Craig, you’ve gotten it backwards. The Israelis would love for Gaza to be recognized as independent, even the right wing ones, and it is against the interest of the Palestinians, even the moderate ones.
Hmm, you make a lot of great points, which is why we want you involved in the conversation. 🙂
So, the question becomes: then why hasn’t Gaza been recognized as a sovereign state, if they are that in all but name? Certainly between Israel and the US, it would happen.
And if did happen, as you say, it puts the onus on Hamas in Gaza. It would certainly seem like it would give Israel better footing internationally if Gaza were a recognized state should Hamas then push for more. I would think (and hope) even then that Europe and the rest would see what’s going on, since they (politically) often don’t as it currently stands.
Above, somewhere, PAD is quoted as saying that the other countries in the area won’t let the Palestinians merge into their countries. I can’t find the original post nor (now) the quoting post, but I wanted to comment on it.
The Palestinians have no true home at this time because they can’t get back into Israel and the other countries won’t let them in their countries. This is a major cause of the continual unrest over there for the past several decades. I place most of the blame on the surrounding countries for not assimilating those refugees.
It is my understanding that the area that is now Israel was mostly wasteland until the Israelis built it up. Now everybody wants to possess the land. Does anyone have any information to confirm or deny this? Am I misinformed?
I was watching the news earlier and they were broadcasting video of the many protests in the U.S. concerning the current conflict in Gaza.
What struck me was a poster held up declaring: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!”
That has got to be the most polite way of saying “Death to Israel!” I’ve ever seen.
I was watching the news earlier and they were broadcasting video of the many protests in the U.S. concerning the current conflict in Gaza.
What struck me was a poster held up declaring: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!”
That has got to be the most polite way of saying “Death to Israel!” I’ve ever seen.
Jeffrey, your hatred for Israel truly shocks me. It shouldn’t, as it is quite common among young leftists anywhere, but it still shocks me.
Is it really that common among young leftists? The only viruently anti-Israel people I know of tend to be very fringey. Or are that many young leftists members of the fringe?
I don’t think I hate any country like you hate Israel. Not even Iran, that would have me killed for my sexuality if I were an Iranian citizen.
[sarcasm]And Israel that would have you killed too for your sexuality ’cause, you know, it’s a theocracy.[/sarcasm]
Rene: I guessed you were not thinking of me, but you mentioned “the left”. Since I am an unapologetic “leftie” (and a closeted darkie, among many other things) I felt compeled to include a mention to you. And I do agree there is a rethoric trend within the left to metodically blame “the usual suspects”, and I despise it. I mean… I usually end up finding them somewhat guilty too but at least I think I do it because of my own convoluted track of thoughs, not because I read it on some blog.
Jason M. Bryant: except some ill conceived analogies from some, I think most comments objecting Israel strategy have adressed Hamas criminal nature and Israel right to self defense. If I wrote that line to PAD is because I feel he is choosing to use Hamas as an excuse for anything Israel does.
Dead children? Hamas exclusive fault… whoever pulled the trigger is not to blame. Cluster bombs? the IDF gave them enough time to flee, after all, the IDF spokeperson said they did… if they didnt it is because, well, you know, them palestinians cant think right. And we are not so sure who is a civilian anyway… right?
Let me drop a hint: if they cant tie their own shoelaces, chances are they are not terrorists.
Rene: “I don’t think I hate any country like you hate Israel. Not even Iran, that would have me killed for my sexuality if I were an Iranian citizen.”
Dont go hating a whole country. Its an ugly road. You can hate specific persons for their good and bad deeds, but to hate a whole country is out of place, except if you are watching a soccer game.
Jeffrey, your hatred for Israel truly shocks me. It shouldn’t, as it is quite common among young leftists anywhere, but it still shocks me.
Is it really that common among young leftists? The only viruently anti-Israel people I know of tend to be very fringey. Or are that many young leftists members of the fringe?
On the right that is certainly the case–skinheads and neo-nazis that think the USA government has been co-opted by a big Jewish cabal. They have websites and little else of note (though they can be dangerous). There are a few conservatives who are anti-Israel–Pat Buchanan being one obvious example–but they tend to be ostracized by most of the National Review crowd.
On the left it’s still possible to be pretty hard core anti-Israel and not be considered a total nut. Go to a college campus and you will probably find some leaflets posted with the star of David festooned with swastikas or some other oh so original bit of anti-Israeli propaganda.
Most polls I’ve seen seem to show that Republicans are far more supportive of Israel than Democrats though (as you can see right here) that is in no way cut and dry. And I think that when push comes to shove the vast majority of Democrats will support Israel over the alternatives.
Maybe I’m exaggerating, but you guys keep in mind that I’m not talking about the American Left exclusively when I talk of Anti-Israeli hatred.
The Left in the US is rather moderate when compared to the Left in many other countries, since in the US the whole political spectrum is a bit shifted to the right (you don’t find many self-proclaimed socialists in the US, for instance, while they’re very common in other countries).
The angry anti-Israeli rethoric is much more common among the Left here in my country, with a certainty (and perhaps among many other countries). We are considered a Third World nation, we have very few Jews here, and we have no common interests with Israel, so you can imagine how the Left here identifies that much more strongly with the Palestinians.
The moderate misgivings and distrust a portion of the American Left feels for Israel are multiplied by a factor of ten here.
“And Israel that would have you killed too for your sexuality ’cause, you know, it’s a theocracy.”
Yeah, those dámņëd repressive Israelis!
But the thing that always makes me chuckle about Iran is how gays are reviled and killed, but transexuals are supposedly accepted and have their operation financed by the state.
It looks like something someone would make up in a story, and you’d think they’re joking or something.
No comment:
“Editor & Publisher Claims Media Show Pro-israel Bias”
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0640973/
But the thing that always makes me chuckle about Iran is how gays are reviled and killed, but transexuals are supposedly accepted and have their operation financed by the state.
Really??? That’s amazing. Given the low status of women among the hardcore fanatics you’d think they’d freak at the thought of a man who would become a woman…not to mention the attitudes toward gays. Very bizarre.
Ignorant as usual, eh Craigy?
I said those who support Hamas are terrorist supporters, but I’ll forgive your error on account of your learning disability…
I don’t pretend to know enough to intelligently comment on it.
I am curious to the response to Jon Stewart’s comment on it in tonight’s Daily Show.
The adjetive that better describes how the european left see the american left is “tame” rather than “moderate”. That from the social-democrat field. I’ve known many to the left of that spectrum that refuses to aknowledge any significant left movement actually exist in the USA. I used to be like that until a few years ago but I like to think I now know better.
I am not saying I would buy the whole package, but the political culture of local activism in the USA is to be envied, and the european left (more consistent in its message in my oppinion, but then I might be biased) would be better off if they started to organize and agitate like the americans. I for one have been lending George Lakoff books like crazy.
That said, and aknowledging a strong rethoric element in what the european left say about Israel, the fact is there are legitimal reasons for progressives to express concerns on Israel course of action without retorting to empty rethoric. And dismissing those concerns as “the usual Israel bashing from the Left” is detrimental of a healthy debate. Without that debate its easy for usually liberal, progressive individuals to resort to simplistic arguments, borrowed from the right, that imply the existence of quintaessential cultural flaws in the Arab/Palestinian culture.
And once we enter that territory, soon the notion of some victims meaning less than others seems less abhorrent. And that’s a shame.
From the Christian Science Monitor (not a paper i often hear being accused of being part of the leftist MSM – but perhaps i’m just not listening in the right places):
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0105/p01s01-wome.html
>Posted by Bill Mulligan at January 5, 2009 10:38
>PM
>
>>But the thing that always makes me chuckle
>>about Iran is how gays are reviled and killed,
>>but transexuals are supposedly accepted and
>>have their operation financed by the state.
>
>Really??? That’s amazing. Given the low status
>of women among the hardcore fanatics you’d think
>they’d freak at the thought of a man who would
>become a woman…not to mention the attitudes
>toward gays. Very bizarre.
It’s not so simple – yes, transsexuality is permitted because the Koran has been interpreted as not saying anything to forbid transsexuality, but has been interpreted to explicitly say things against homosexuality. BUT some claim that in practical terms, transsexual surgery is incredibly misused against people who, were they not in such a repressive society, would instead be gay men or lesbian women. ie – in the absence of being able to live openly in Iran as gay or lesbian without the threat of death and violence, many gay men (without labeling themselves as such) find themselves with no other choice but to submit to transsexual surgery to become women, and, though much rarer, lesbian women submit to transsexual surgery to become men.
This is not to say that true transgender people do not exist in Iran, or that these people do not benefit from this surprising relative acceptability, but people should recognize that this “acceptance of transsexuality” can, and in some documented cases, has, instead been used to reinforce traditional gender/sexuality roles.
The recent documentary “Be Like Others” by Tanaz Eshaghian explores this topic in-depth.
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1157609/)
It should also be noted that the idea that a biological woman has surgery to become a man would be viewed positively in Iranian society – “she” attains more power and clout in society as a “he,” while the reverse is a downward move, and one not always welcomed by family members, who can’t fathom why a male would want to lose status by becoming a female. This is expressed by family members of different trans subjects in another recent documentary about this issue, “The Birthday”(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1158683/)
“So, the question becomes: then why hasn’t Gaza been recognized as a sovereign state, if they are that in all but name? Certainly between Israel and the US, it would happen”
You highly overestimate Israel’s diplomatic strength as well as its internal ability to get its act together. And you extremely underestimate the strength of other groups to block things — the Hamas Palestinians, the Fatah Palestinians, other Palestinians, the Arab league, Arab countries, Muslim countries, Russia.
And if did happen, as you say, it puts the onus on Hamas in Gaza.
I think you can already see what’s the worth of onus on Hamas.
“I would think (and hope) even then that Europe and the rest would see what’s going on, since they (politically) often don’t as it currently stands.”
The reaction of the Europeans is as predictable as everybody else with few small surprises.
“which is why we want you involved in the conversation. :)”
Thanks. But imagine this thread from my point of view. Imagine you were in a dangerous surgery and a bunch of people, not doctors or nurses, came in and started discussing your life or death, or whether you deserve to live or die at all. Not fun. So I’m focusing at this specific discussion with you and avoiding the other discussions (both by people whose opinions I respect and by those whose opinions I don’t)
Oh, also, there are more people in Gaza than in Chechnya.
This is of course not the only difference. Thee are many differences, such as the tiny differences between Russia and Israel. But this was a difference I wasn’t aware of.
BUT some claim that in practical terms, transsexual surgery is incredibly misused against people who, were they not in such a repressive society, would instead be gay men or lesbian women. ie – in the absence of being able to live openly in Iran as gay or lesbian without the threat of death and violence, many gay men (without labeling themselves as such) find themselves with no other choice but to submit to transsexual surgery to become women, and, though much rarer, lesbian women submit to transsexual surgery to become men.
Ah. Thanks, that makes sense.
Rene: Apparently you feel I am a young American leftist, and that explains my opinions being other than your own. You’re only 1/3 right there. I am coming up on my fiftieth birthday, and don’t feel particularly young; I am American, for whatever points you think that makes; and I am a registered Republican who often crosses party lines – which doesn’t look a whole lot like rampant leftism, if you think that’s all that bad. Now, I would bet you feel PAD’s position is a whole lot less scary than mine: Yet, brace yourself for this – He is only an insignificant amount older than I – so, to the degree I am young, I guess he is too; He usually speaks VERY fondly of the Democratic Party – so, gosh, if liberalism is such a scary thing, he’s got it even worse than I do; and he is an American – well, he is: Do you think he would disagree?. Perhaps you just confuse disagreement with Israeli policies and “young leftist Americanism” when they are quite distinct. While I am not antisemitic, you are probably barking up the wrong tree in linking it with leftism. It occurs in many political ideologies, but is more common (or at least more extreme) among fascists than communists. Of course, it’s probably foolish speaking of “antisemitism” here: If we define that word as hatred or contempt for Semitic people, that pathology is pretty common in Israel. If you insist on fragmenting humanity with labels, the Palestinians are definitely what one must call “semitic.” If Israel is not a theocracy, and is not defined by its religion, it is a political entity: People disagree with the politics and foreign policy of the United States, Russia, France, and so on, without much suggestion this is anti-Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox or anti-anything but foreign policy. I don’t care what religion is practiced in any state – I just don’t approve of what some states do.
Then why refer to it as a theocracy to portray it as corrupt?
What site did you express your outrage when George Bush called the invasion of Iraq a crusade? Or is your intolerance of theocracies only reserved for a non-proselytizing, non-empire-building religion that benefits from no misinformation?
And setting aside you trying to take credit for movements that couldn’t possibly benefit from your support after the fact (don’t show spine for the unresolved conflicts, kids), Partisans and Chetniks broke down into fighting each other. You’re casually claiming to support slaughter for the sake of control.
Are the Amish, like, their own website away from seducing you away from the rest of the world or what? What the hëll is your beef, if it isn’t just out-and-out anti-Semitism?
Jeffrey, that you’re a registered Republican surprises me deeply. It’s only that your rethoric and feelings for Israel are so similar to that of many Leftists I know. And no, I don’t think Liberalism is “scary”, I am a Liberal myself, at least in the issue of individual freedoms.
And note that I never said you’re anti-semitic or that you hate jews. Not even once. I merely said that your hatred for Israel shocks me. That is all.
El Hombre Malo, you don’t think there are flaws in Arab/Palestinian culture? No culture is free of flaws. Some speeches made by many Hamas activists are remarkably similar to the speeches a fanatical US Southern priest could have made. In many respects, they’re as socially conservative as the more extreme Republican imaginable. While I don’t support the misguided notion that they have to be “pounded into democracy”, I don’t blind myself to the deep flaws in many Islamic countries out of political correctness.
That is a fascinatining subject, Jo Nah. You know more about it than me. I wonder what I would have done, if I were born in Iran. I have to admit that I have some transgender tendencies too, but the immense majority of gays don’t.
Ignorant as usual, eh Craigy?
Considering that I’m the one that actually has the balls to use his real name when posting, I would ask that you respect that fact. But then, even if you did use your real name, I don’t resort to such childish behavior.
If the best you can do is to act like a child, then you are deserving of shrouding like any other troll.
I said those who support Hamas are terrorist supporters
And now you are trying to play revisionist. At least you remain so obviously transparent.
It’s very likely that Micha will disagree with much that I say. That’s unfortunate, because I wish him no ill and consider him around the 99th percentile in terms of civil discussion and the 98th in having his facts straight.
Rene, you could benefit from thinking about the political ideologies of the people who committed pogroms, built death camps (OK, leftists have built death camps too, but not generally with Jews as the main targets) and forced people into ghettos due to their ethnicities. You’ll find quite a few who aren’t exactly Social Democrats. I’ve had it drummed into my head here that Israel is a secular state, not – goodness gracious – any kind of a theocracy. How twisted will your panties get if I criticize the actions of the United States – in Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, Vietnam and Iraq, off the top of my head; the UK – in Africa, India and other places; France – Algeria, Morocco, etc.; Belgium – Hëll, the Congo is quite bad enough – maybe elsewhere – and so on? Let’s bring this down to just one question:
What is special about Israel, that any distaste for its foreign and domestic policies is nothing but Neo-Nazism?
My reading of Micha is that he holds his country to normal standards and regrets misconduct on either side. That’s quite healthy. My reading of Rene is that he thinks throwing out aspersions on anyone who disagrees with him is the same thing as actually making a case.