This is absurd. How can you have a problem with Israelis emotional reactions from living in fear of constant terror? Your sense of moral superiority borders on the totalitarian, since you don't even accept the validity of Israelis' emotional responses to being blown apart for nothing more than walking out the door in the morning.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
How many times have you visited Israel Triumphant? How on earth would you know that the majority of Israelis relish killing Palestinians? How many Israelis have you ever even spoken to, and how many of those told you that they love hearing about dead Arabs?
haha nice try yosi. are you saying these Israeli's are lying?
extract from my previous post a page ago, just in case you missed it.
82 percent of the public believe that Israel has not "gone too far" with the military force it is exercising against Hamas.
90% of the interviewees think Israel should continue until it achieves all its objectives.
Yeah, they support a military operation that they see as crucial for their own defense. I don't know how you make the leap to "most Israelis are overjoyed when Palestinians die."
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
How many times have you visited Israel Triumphant? How on earth would you know that the majority of Israelis relish killing Palestinians? How many Israelis have you ever even spoken to, and how many of those told you that they love hearing about dead Arabs?
Norman Finkelstein: 'Beyond Chutzpah - On The Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History'
'When Israel attacked Lebanon in in June 1982 in order to "safeguard the occupation of the West bank" (Yehoshafat Harkabi's phrase), the popularity ratings of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon and Prime Minister Begin soared, while more than 80 percent of Israeli's held the invasion to be justified. When Israel's battering of Beirut in August 1982 reached new heights of savagery, more than half of Israeli's still supported the begin-Sharon government, while more than 80 percent still supported the invasion - which in the end, left up to twenty thousand Lebanese and Palestinians, almost all civilians, dead, and which the U.N General Assembly condemned by a vote of 143 to 2 (United States and Israel) for inflicting "severe damage on civilian Palestinians, including heavy losses of human lives, intolerable sufferings and massive material destruction." Only when the costs of the Lebanon aggression proved too onerous - initially, from the worldwide outcry against the Sabra and Shatila massacres and, later, from the escalating military casualties - did Israeli's turn against it.
When Israel's violent repression of the first Intifada reached new heights of brutality in 1989, more than half of all Israeli's supported the deployment of yet "stronger measures" to quell the largely nonviolent civil revolt (only one in four supported any lessening of the repression), while "an overwhelming 72 percent...saw no contradiction between the army's handling of the uprising and 'the nation's democratic values.'"
Operation Defensive shield (March - April 2002), although wreaking devastation on Palestinian society and culminating in the commission by Israeli forces of "serious violations" of humanitarian law and "war crimes" in Jenin and Nablus, was supported by fully 90 percent of Israeli's.
Beyond the emotional support that Israeli's have lent to crimes of state, it bears emphasis that Israel relies on a citizen army to implement policy: the collective responsibility of the Israeli people accordingly runs much deeper than "moral complicity." Finally, Israel couldn't commit such crimes without unconditional political and economic support from the United States, and it's the likes of Dershowitz who, through shameless apologetics and brazen distortions, crucially facilitate this unconditional support. What if Dershowitz's home were subject to the "benign form of collective accountability" he urges for Palestinians?'
Palestinian Children Face Daily Settler Attacks Getting to School
By Mel Frykberg
AT TUWANI, Nov 23, 2009 (IPS) - Being able to travel to school in relative safety is something children all over the world take for granted. But, for Palestinian children living in the shadow of the ubiquitous and illegal Israeli settlements dotting the West Bank, simply walking to school can be a terrifying experience.
"It is really scary walking to school. We never know when the settlers will attack us and beat us," says Rima Ali, 10, from the village of Tuba in the southern West Bank, about two hours drive south of Jerusalem.
"Every day we have to watch out that the settlers are not in the valley ahead of us and if we see them we run away," Ali told IPS.
Ali still bears the scar from when a settler pushed her causing her to fall to the ground and cut herself below the eye.
Hundreds of Palestinian children in Tuba and the surrounding Palestinian villages face the same daily predicament as they try to reach school in the Bedouin village of At Tuwani.
Situated on a hilltop overlooking At Tuwani are the Israeli settlement of Ma’on and the extended settlement outpost of Havot Ma’on.
The only road which previously connected Palestinians to neighbouring villages and to the nearby Palestinian town of Yatta - a 10-minute drive away - has been appropriated for the exclusive use of settlers. Palestinians are banned from driving on it.
The villagers are now forced to take off-road dirt tracks, which circumvent the settlers-only bypass road and the settlements. If they walk the route it takes approximately an hour on foot - assuming they don’t have small children with them.
Settler attacks - including arson attacks on agricultural fields, chopping down olive trees, poisoning water wells, killing livestock and assaulting Palestinian villagers living near settlements - have become a way of life for Palestinians all over the West Bank as the Israeli authorities continue to turn a blind eye.
But the repeated attacks on schoolchildren forced a group of international Christian peace activists from Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) to establish school escorts for the children in a bid to try and protect them.
Furthermore, the Israeli Knesset, or parliament, was forced to intervene several years ago after several foreign citizens escorting children were attacked by chain and baseball-wielding settlers.
Two CPT members were hospitalised after they suffered injuries including a punctured lung, a broken arm and a fractured skull.
The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) was ordered to provide daily military escorts for children from various towns and villages in the southern West Bank.
However, the children and the peace activists have complained that the military escorts are often unreliable and sometimes a source of hostility towards the children themselves, as many of the soldiers are sympathetic to the settlers.
And while the number and severity of attacks have dropped they have not stopped. Last week a young Palestinian couple, with three children under the age of three, was trying to make its way home to Tuba after visiting Yatta.
They family was warned by two members of the CPT that a group of settlers had been spotted on the ridge above earlier in the day and that it would be safer for them to take the longest route home to avoid a confrontation.
"We decided to accompany the family in case there was any trouble. Despite taking the longer route a group of five settler men rushed towards us from the valley above and attacked the father who had a toddler in his arms," American CPT member Sarah MacDonald told IPS.
MacDonald and another CPT member, Laura Ciaghi from Italy, were videotaping events in case they needed to go to the police.
"I decided to try and engage the settlers to try and protect the family," Ciaghi told IPS. Ciaghi was thrown to the ground and repeatedly kicked in the ribs and back as the men stole both video cameras from the women.
"Because the settlers focused their attention on us the Palestinian family was able to get home safely and so we feel we achieved some kind of victory," added Ciaghi.
Ciaghi was badly bruised, required a stitch to her scalp and had contusions on her head.
The Israeli police and army were called to investigate but, with the exception of a couple of individuals, most of them appeared to be disinterested and no thorough investigation was carried out.
This does not surprise Israeli human rights organisation Yesh Din, which monitors human rights abuses against Palestinians in the West Bank and acts as an intermediary between Palestinian victims and the Israeli security forces.
In order to file complaints Palestinians need to go to police stations which are located in the illegal Israeli settlements. However, the catch-22 is that they are not permitted to enter the settlements and this is where Yesh Din steps in.
"The police often ‘lose the paperwork’ or are ‘unable to identify perpetrators’ of attacks against Palestinians," Yesh Din director Lior Yavne told IPS.
"And of the few cases opened, less than 10 percent result in any conviction," Yavne added. "This situation is completely different from when Palestinian attacks on Israeli settlers are investigated."
Meanwhile, despite the Israeli government calling for the demolition of Havot Ma’on over two years ago, on the grounds it was built illegally according to Israeli law, the outpost continues to expand and the settlers living there continue to attack Palestinians.
In the interim, Israel is carrying out a massive campaign of Palestinian home demolitions as settlements all over the West Bank expand at an unprecedented rate.
Oh, silly me, I didn't realize that Israelis were supposed to forget the entire history of Arab hostility towards them, all the years of war and terror, just because suicide bombers have been replaced with rockets
Sorry but contrary to the fake history that Zionists keep spewing, the only defensive war that Israel has fought throughout its history was that in 1973 and you ended up conceding land. In 1967, what you call a preemptive defensive strike has been proven to be fake. Egyptian armed forces weren't mobilizing at your gates there has been proof that they were scattered in regions next to Yemen at the time. Which is why the Arab forces lost so quickly. We don't have to go into 1948.
I don't know how you make the leap to "most Israelis are overjoyed when Palestinians die."
who are you quoting here? why is that sentence in quotes? no one is making that leap except you. no one is suggesting that Israelis get boners when Palestinians die. do you really just not know how to read correctly? how did you ever go to school? no wonder you're not a fan of Mearsheimer. you can barely read accurately. if you care to understand, we are not suggesting that Israelis are overjoyed when Palestinians die as you like to put it. The fact is that Israelis just plainly don't give a fuck when Palestinians die. And when I say Israelis, I obviously don't mean every single Israeli; however, a significant majority - over 80% - supported the invasion and subsequent massacre that occurred in Gaza last year, DESPITE the reports of all those dead civilians.
Now, you can spin this any way. But the facts are clear to anyone who simply knows how to read.
Israel should be boycotted, plain and simple. To play in Israel would be like playing in South Africa during the Apartheid regime in the 1980s. Next, everyone who is suggesting that the fact that they may be playing in China should make playing in Israel ok, that is absolutely horrendous logic. If you yourself don't agree with them playing in China, how can you agree with them playing with Israel? Even if Pearl Jam made a morally wrong decision to play in China, two wrongs don't make a right - i.e., why the fuck would you waste your time suggesting they should play in Israel while they're at it too? If anything, you should stand up for the same principles you apply elsewhere.
On the other hand, if you are ok with them playing China and not Israel, then there are obvious reasons why that would make sense. For one, Israel is in violation of more UN Resolutions than any other country in the world, including China.
"The boy with the destroyed brain did not need anaesthetic; he could no longer feel anything. The other lay in an artificial coma with intravenous anaesthetic agents to soften the pain and allow the ventilator to work without resistance from the boy’s own breathing. A large bandage covered both his eyes. He could not see anyway. He was already blind.
Where could I cry out the despair and rage I felt for all this terrible fate we saw at such close quarters? Would the heavens hear? Will the world hear? They know that this is happening, after all. The numbers tick into the West every single afternoon, to the news agencies, to the intelligence services and to the diplomatic missions of the world’s most powerful nations, who do not even make an attempt to pull in the reins and control the wildness of the Israeli war machine."
Oh, silly me, I didn't realize that Israelis were supposed to forget the entire history of Arab hostility towards them, all the years of war and terror, just because suicide bombers have been replaced with rockets
Sorry but contrary to the fake history that Zionists keep spewing, the only defensive war that Israel has fought throughout its history was that in 1973 and you ended up conceding land. In 1967, what you call a preemptive defensive strike has been proven to be fake. Egyptian armed forces weren't mobilizing at your gates there has been proof that they were scattered in regions next to Yemen at the time. Which is why the Arab forces lost so quickly. We don't have to go into 1948.
Fake history, right, my bad. There is no point in doing this. It's like arguing with a handful of rocks. Just go back and read a bit more, and try to get your hands on some better books.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Outlaw, you're a jerk. There was no need to turn this into an arena for personal attacks. Go back and read the exchange again between Triumphant and me and you'll see that I was simply responding to his assertions. The quotes denote the statement implied by his previous remark, i.e. I said, to paraphrase, "most Israelis aren't happy when Palestinians die," to which he said "you're wrong, look at these poll numbers," to which I responded "your poll numbers show x, but that does not support y, which is what you were implicitly trying to prove." (do you see how quotes work? kinda neat right?!)
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
And Byrnzie, what does your last comment have to do with the bit you quoted from me? And I do not in any way support those settlers, which by the by is another nuance you entirely ignore, namely that the settlers are not a unified block. Most of them are people that were drawn to comfortable, affordable housing, which is the result of government tax policies (policies which I emphatically do not support), and are not the messianic violent nut jobs that your post is about. This crazy fringe element is a much smaller group, and frankly I would very much like to see Israel arrest, try, and imprison every last one of them.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Outlaw, you're a jerk. There was no need to turn this into an arena for personal attacks. Go back and read the exchange again between Triumphant and me and you'll see that I was simply responding to his assertions. The quotes denote the statement implied by his previous remark, i.e. I said, to paraphrase, "most Israelis aren't happy when Palestinians die," to which he said "you're wrong, look at these poll numbers," to which I responded "your poll numbers show x, but that does not support y, which is what you were implicitly trying to prove." (do you see how quotes work? kinda neat right?!)
no that is not what happened.
fife asked me to supply a link to a poll that i quoted that showed over 80% of Israelis supported the massacare in Gaza - which i did.
you then jumped in and said "The poll shows support for the operation. It does not show support for a "massacre."
you might not think the murder of hundreds of innocent civillians is not a massacare but i do.
i then said, "the poll shows support for an operation that turned into a massacare, and "even after seeing the consequences and the number of deaths, 90% of the people surveyed think it should continue".
then you tried to change things around and take the focus off my point by saying "why it is that Palestinians rejoice in the streets when a suicide bomber blows up a bus full of school kids, or a cafe full of innocent people"
to which i replied "there has not been a suicide bombing in years Yosi. "hundreds and hundreds of Palestinians have been killed in just the last year alone because of Israeli Terrorism."
and you didn't like that so much, because it's true.
Outlaw, you're a jerk. There was no need to turn this into an arena for personal attacks. Go back and read the exchange again between Triumphant and me and you'll see that I was simply responding to his assertions. The quotes denote the statement implied by his previous remark, i.e. I said, to paraphrase, "most Israelis aren't happy when Palestinians die," to which she said "you're wrong, look at these poll numbers," to which I responded "your poll numbers show x, but that does not support y, which is what you were implicitly trying to prove." (do you see how quotes work? kinda neat right?!)
again you are incorrect, we might as well clear that up too.
So let me get this straight, your argument is that a poll that shows that Israelis supported an operation that they viewed as necessary for their self-defense is proof that Israelis support the massacre of Palestinians because you consider what happened in Gaza a massacre? Do you not see the very obvious logical flaw? Namely that an argument about what Israelis support is contingent on how Israelis view the situation, and since Israelis don't consider what happened in Gaza to have been a massacre it makes no sense to interpret the poll you cite to mean that.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Fake history, right, my bad. There is no point in doing this. It's like arguing with a handful of rocks. Just go back and read a bit more, and try to get your hands on some better books.
Yes I forgot that as a Zionist Jew you believe you are superior to all of us. Perhaps you are the one that needs to read a bit more outside your comfort zone. I guess a superiority complex won't help you see that.
The fact is many Israeli historians now agree with what I have said about 1967 but all you have is drivel to answer my point.
Ok, and many historians would agree with my version of events. As for superiority complexes I believe that I've been speaking a lot about narratives, specifically because I realize that how you view history is almost entirely dependent on where you are standing. You are the one that first started proclaiming that your own understanding of history was the Truth (capital T intended), so please don't lecture me about superiority complexes.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Ok, and many historians would agree with my version of events. As for superiority complexes I believe that I've been speaking a lot about narratives, specifically because I realize that how you view history is almost entirely dependent on where you are standing. You are the one that first started proclaiming that your own understanding of history was the Truth (capital T intended), so please don't lecture me about superiority complexes.
Its the truth because there are historians on both sides of the fence that agree with the assessment. Whereas the "defensive pre-emptive strike" is only sold by Zionists so they can act like the victims and have an excuse to maintain a hold on the land.
What are you talking about? Both sides of the fence? So just because a couple of Israelis agree with your understanding of history you think you're right? All that says is that Israel is an open and pluralistic society where people can think freely, even to the point of attacking the state. Just for the shock value, by your logic if I found a handful of self-hating Jews who thought that Jews were secretly running the world, undermining countries' economies and efforts in war, and polluting the purity of other races, I would be right in saying that the Nazis reading of history was correct, because hey, people from both sides think it. Your argument is absurd on its face.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
What are you talking about? Both sides of the fence? So just because a couple of Israelis agree with your understanding of history you think you're right? All that says is that Israel is an open and pluralistic society where people can think freely, even to the point of attacking the state. Just for the shock value, by your logic if I found a handful of self-hating Jews who thought that Jews were secretly running the world, undermining countries' economies and efforts in war, and polluting the purity of other races, I would be right in saying that the Nazis reading of history was correct, because hey, people from both sides think it. Your argument is absurd on its face.
Bullshit analogy. Historians from both sides are basing their findings on FACTS on the ground and not emotions as a self-hating Jew would.
There is absolutely no reason for an Israeli historian to agree with the findings that go against the Zionist agenda except historical integrity. Give me another reason why they would? It is illogical. While on the other hand, Zionists have something to gain with their BS history.
Open and pluralistic society where Israeli arabs are treated like second class citizens hahaha good one
So let me get this straight, your argument is that a poll that shows that Israelis supported an operation that they viewed as necessary for their self-defense is proof that Israelis support the massacre of Palestinians because you consider what happened in Gaza a massacre? Do you not see the very obvious logical flaw? Namely that an argument about what Israelis support is contingent on how Israelis view the situation, and since Israelis don't consider what happened in Gaza to have been a massacre it makes no sense to interpret the poll you cite to mean that.
I'm sure many Germans in the 1940s thought the Holocaust was vital for their survival as well. yes, I'm sure throughout history, there were many people who were able to find justifications for their crimes. And that is why Pearl Jam should not play Israel.
Just for the shock value, by your logic if I found a handful of self-hating Jews who thought that Jews were secretly running the world, undermining countries' economies and efforts in war, and polluting the purity of other races, I would be right in saying that the Nazis reading of history was correct, because hey, people from both sides think it. Your argument is absurd on its face.
What's a self-hating Jew? Any Jew who is critical of Israel's crimes, and whose every word can therefore be dismissed out of hand?
I wonder if Einstein was a self-hating Jew, or if he was a self-loving Jew? And I wonder if this would have any bearing on the truth of his scientific work?
Clearly Alan Dershowitz is a self-loving Jew because he supports Israel's crimes, and Norman Finkelstein is a self-hating Jew because he's critical of Israel's crimes.
So let me get this straight, your argument is that a poll that shows that Israelis supported an operation that they viewed as necessary for their self-defense is proof that Israelis support the massacre of Palestinians because you consider what happened in Gaza a massacre? Do you not see the very obvious logical flaw? Namely that an argument about what Israelis support is contingent on how Israelis view the situation, and since Israelis don't consider what happened in Gaza to have been a massacre it makes no sense to interpret the poll you cite to mean that.
I'm sure many Germans in the 1940s thought the Holocaust was vital for their survival as well. yes, I'm sure throughout history, there were many people who were able to find justifications for their crimes. And that is why Pearl Jam should not play Israel.
Your ability to misunderstand is staggering. I am making a very specific argument about this particular use of this particular poll. Whether what happened is or is not a massacre is beside the point. Polls are reflections of people's opinions, which in turn are reflections of people's perceptions. If your goal is to use a poll to show that the Israeli public support the massacre of Palestinians then the poll in question has to either frame the situation in exactly those terms, meaning ask about support for a massacre, which it did not, or the respondents to the poll would have had to understood the poll to mean "massacre of Palestinians" when it referred to the "Israeli operation," which they did not.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Just for the shock value, by your logic if I found a handful of self-hating Jews who thought that Jews were secretly running the world, undermining countries' economies and efforts in war, and polluting the purity of other races, I would be right in saying that the Nazis reading of history was correct, because hey, people from both sides think it. Your argument is absurd on its face.
What's a self-hating Jew? Any Jew who is critical of Israel's crimes, and whose every word can therefore be dismissed out of hand?
I wonder if Einstein was a self-hating Jew, or if he was a self-loving Jew? And I wonder if this would have any bearing on the truth of his scientific work?
Clearly Alan Dershowitz is a self-loving Jew because he supports Israel's crimes, and Norman Finkelstein is a self-hating Jew because he's critical of Israel's crimes.
Fantastic logic!
And your ability to twist words is also staggering. A Jew that agreed with the Nazis about the nefarious actions of Jews and the need to kill them would self-evidently be a self-hating Jew. Hence the use of the term in my analogy. Nowhere have I called any Jewish detractors of Israel self-hating Jews. They are entitled to their opinions. I may disagree with them, and in some cases I may think they're stupid, and in other cases I may even think they're malicious, but that doesn't have anything to do with their being Jewish per se.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
What are you talking about? Both sides of the fence? So just because a couple of Israelis agree with your understanding of history you think you're right? All that says is that Israel is an open and pluralistic society where people can think freely, even to the point of attacking the state. Just for the shock value, by your logic if I found a handful of self-hating Jews who thought that Jews were secretly running the world, undermining countries' economies and efforts in war, and polluting the purity of other races, I would be right in saying that the Nazis reading of history was correct, because hey, people from both sides think it. Your argument is absurd on its face.
Bullshit analogy. Historians from both sides are basing their findings on FACTS on the ground and not emotions as a self-hating Jew would.
There is absolutely no reason for an Israeli historian to agree with the findings that go against the Zionist agenda except historical integrity. Give me another reason why they would? It is illogical. While on the other hand, Zionists have something to gain with their BS history.
Open and pluralistic society where Israeli arabs are treated like second class citizens hahaha good one
Ok look, historians have to be judged based on the scholarly merit of their work. I say this as a student of history and as the son of an historian. If they are honest about their scholarship then their political affiliations shouldn't matter. Obviously this is not always the case. Nevertheless I've read good scholarship that reflects your position, and I've read good scholarship that reflects my position. The reason for this is not, as you so arrogantly suggest, that one side is dealing with facts while the other deals only in fabrications. The reason, again, is because where you stand determines how you look at history, so that two honest scholars could look at the same events and come to two entirely different understandings of what happened, based on which elements they choose to emphasize and their particular interpretations of the available information. I am perfectly comfortable accepting the validity of the Palestinian narrative. Obviously history looks much different from their vantage point. That does not mean that the Israeli narrative is not equally valid.
Speaking of propaganda, and twisting history to political purposes, I will note that you are the one working so hard to assert the supremacy of your historical narrative for expressly political purposes. I believe in psychology they call this projection. Perhaps you see something in yourself you find unattractive, but rather than deal with it you find it easier to project your own faults onto others, and then attack them for the faults that are really your own.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
So let me get this straight, your argument is that a poll that shows that Israelis supported an operation that they viewed as necessary for their self-defense is proof that Israelis support the massacre of Palestinians because you consider what happened in Gaza a massacre? Do you not see the very obvious logical flaw? Namely that an argument about what Israelis support is contingent on how Israelis view the situation, and since Israelis don't consider what happened in Gaza to have been a massacre it makes no sense to interpret the poll you cite to mean that.
I'm sure many Germans in the 1940s thought the Holocaust was vital for their survival as well. yes, I'm sure throughout history, there were many people who were able to find justifications for their crimes. And that is why Pearl Jam should not play Israel.
Your ability to misunderstand is staggering. I am making a very specific argument about this particular use of this particular poll. Whether what happened is or is not a massacre is beside the point. Polls are reflections of people's opinions, which in turn are reflections of people's perceptions. If your goal is to use a poll to show that the Israeli public support the massacre of Palestinians then the poll in question has to either frame the situation in exactly those terms, meaning ask about support for a massacre, which it did not, or the respondents to the poll would have had to understood the poll to mean "massacre of Palestinians" when it referred to the "Israeli operation," which they did not.
Ninety-two percent justify the air force’s attacks in Gaza despite the damage they cause to infrastructure and the suffering of the civilian population in the Strip.
+
the public’s current positive assessments of the IDF’s fighting capability (93%)
tells me, that they have a fair idea of the damage that's going to be caused the Palestinians. and they don't give a fuck.
Ok look, historians have to be judged based on the scholarly merit of their work. I say this as a student of history and as the son of an historian. If they are honest about their scholarship then their political affiliations shouldn't matter. Obviously this is not always the case. Nevertheless I've read good scholarship that reflects your position, and I've read good scholarship that reflects my position. The reason for this is not, as you so arrogantly suggest, that one side is dealing with facts while the other deals only in fabrications. The reason, again, is because where you stand determines how you look at history, so that two honest scholars could look at the same events and come to two entirely different understandings of what happened, based on which elements they choose to emphasize and their particular interpretations of the available information. I am perfectly comfortable accepting the validity of the Palestinian narrative. Obviously history looks much different from their vantage point. That does not mean that the Israeli narrative is not equally valid.
Speaking of propaganda, and twisting history to political purposes, I will note that you are the one working so hard to assert the supremacy of your historical narrative for expressly political purposes. I believe in psychology they call this projection. Perhaps you see something in yourself you find unattractive, but rather than deal with it you find it easier to project your own faults onto others, and then attack them for the faults that are really your own.
Haha are you seriously trying to assess my psychological well-being from posts I have made on a message board? That is probably some of the lamest stuff I have read on here in a while and that says a lot. If you are trying to say I have some sort of psychological issue why don't you be up front and say it without trying to sugarcoat it like you sugarcoat all of atrocities Israel has committed.
Interpretation of history can no longer be considered history, per se. That delves more into opinion or literature. History is purely based on FACTS and the facts on the ground, for example in 1967, were that the Arab forces were not mobilizing to attack Israel thereby removing any validity of the defensive pre-emptive strike Israel keeps latching onto. Interpret that whichever way you want it wont change.
Comments
extract from my previous post a page ago, just in case you missed it.
82 percent of the public believe that Israel has not "gone too far" with the military force it is exercising against Hamas.
90% of the interviewees think Israel should continue until it achieves all its objectives.
Norman Finkelstein: 'Beyond Chutzpah - On The Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History'
'When Israel attacked Lebanon in in June 1982 in order to "safeguard the occupation of the West bank" (Yehoshafat Harkabi's phrase), the popularity ratings of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon and Prime Minister Begin soared, while more than 80 percent of Israeli's held the invasion to be justified. When Israel's battering of Beirut in August 1982 reached new heights of savagery, more than half of Israeli's still supported the begin-Sharon government, while more than 80 percent still supported the invasion - which in the end, left up to twenty thousand Lebanese and Palestinians, almost all civilians, dead, and which the U.N General Assembly condemned by a vote of 143 to 2 (United States and Israel) for inflicting "severe damage on civilian Palestinians, including heavy losses of human lives, intolerable sufferings and massive material destruction." Only when the costs of the Lebanon aggression proved too onerous - initially, from the worldwide outcry against the Sabra and Shatila massacres and, later, from the escalating military casualties - did Israeli's turn against it.
When Israel's violent repression of the first Intifada reached new heights of brutality in 1989, more than half of all Israeli's supported the deployment of yet "stronger measures" to quell the largely nonviolent civil revolt (only one in four supported any lessening of the repression), while "an overwhelming 72 percent...saw no contradiction between the army's handling of the uprising and 'the nation's democratic values.'"
Operation Defensive shield (March - April 2002), although wreaking devastation on Palestinian society and culminating in the commission by Israeli forces of "serious violations" of humanitarian law and "war crimes" in Jenin and Nablus, was supported by fully 90 percent of Israeli's.
Beyond the emotional support that Israeli's have lent to crimes of state, it bears emphasis that Israel relies on a citizen army to implement policy: the collective responsibility of the Israeli people accordingly runs much deeper than "moral complicity." Finally, Israel couldn't commit such crimes without unconditional political and economic support from the United States, and it's the likes of Dershowitz who, through shameless apologetics and brazen distortions, crucially facilitate this unconditional support. What if Dershowitz's home were subject to the "benign form of collective accountability" he urges for Palestinians?'
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49378
Palestinian Children Face Daily Settler Attacks Getting to School
By Mel Frykberg
AT TUWANI, Nov 23, 2009 (IPS) - Being able to travel to school in relative safety is something children all over the world take for granted. But, for Palestinian children living in the shadow of the ubiquitous and illegal Israeli settlements dotting the West Bank, simply walking to school can be a terrifying experience.
"It is really scary walking to school. We never know when the settlers will attack us and beat us," says Rima Ali, 10, from the village of Tuba in the southern West Bank, about two hours drive south of Jerusalem.
"Every day we have to watch out that the settlers are not in the valley ahead of us and if we see them we run away," Ali told IPS.
Ali still bears the scar from when a settler pushed her causing her to fall to the ground and cut herself below the eye.
Hundreds of Palestinian children in Tuba and the surrounding Palestinian villages face the same daily predicament as they try to reach school in the Bedouin village of At Tuwani.
Situated on a hilltop overlooking At Tuwani are the Israeli settlement of Ma’on and the extended settlement outpost of Havot Ma’on.
The only road which previously connected Palestinians to neighbouring villages and to the nearby Palestinian town of Yatta - a 10-minute drive away - has been appropriated for the exclusive use of settlers. Palestinians are banned from driving on it.
The villagers are now forced to take off-road dirt tracks, which circumvent the settlers-only bypass road and the settlements. If they walk the route it takes approximately an hour on foot - assuming they don’t have small children with them.
Settler attacks - including arson attacks on agricultural fields, chopping down olive trees, poisoning water wells, killing livestock and assaulting Palestinian villagers living near settlements - have become a way of life for Palestinians all over the West Bank as the Israeli authorities continue to turn a blind eye.
But the repeated attacks on schoolchildren forced a group of international Christian peace activists from Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) to establish school escorts for the children in a bid to try and protect them.
Furthermore, the Israeli Knesset, or parliament, was forced to intervene several years ago after several foreign citizens escorting children were attacked by chain and baseball-wielding settlers.
Two CPT members were hospitalised after they suffered injuries including a punctured lung, a broken arm and a fractured skull.
The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) was ordered to provide daily military escorts for children from various towns and villages in the southern West Bank.
However, the children and the peace activists have complained that the military escorts are often unreliable and sometimes a source of hostility towards the children themselves, as many of the soldiers are sympathetic to the settlers.
And while the number and severity of attacks have dropped they have not stopped. Last week a young Palestinian couple, with three children under the age of three, was trying to make its way home to Tuba after visiting Yatta.
They family was warned by two members of the CPT that a group of settlers had been spotted on the ridge above earlier in the day and that it would be safer for them to take the longest route home to avoid a confrontation.
"We decided to accompany the family in case there was any trouble. Despite taking the longer route a group of five settler men rushed towards us from the valley above and attacked the father who had a toddler in his arms," American CPT member Sarah MacDonald told IPS.
MacDonald and another CPT member, Laura Ciaghi from Italy, were videotaping events in case they needed to go to the police.
"I decided to try and engage the settlers to try and protect the family," Ciaghi told IPS. Ciaghi was thrown to the ground and repeatedly kicked in the ribs and back as the men stole both video cameras from the women.
"Because the settlers focused their attention on us the Palestinian family was able to get home safely and so we feel we achieved some kind of victory," added Ciaghi.
Ciaghi was badly bruised, required a stitch to her scalp and had contusions on her head.
The Israeli police and army were called to investigate but, with the exception of a couple of individuals, most of them appeared to be disinterested and no thorough investigation was carried out.
This does not surprise Israeli human rights organisation Yesh Din, which monitors human rights abuses against Palestinians in the West Bank and acts as an intermediary between Palestinian victims and the Israeli security forces.
In order to file complaints Palestinians need to go to police stations which are located in the illegal Israeli settlements. However, the catch-22 is that they are not permitted to enter the settlements and this is where Yesh Din steps in.
"The police often ‘lose the paperwork’ or are ‘unable to identify perpetrators’ of attacks against Palestinians," Yesh Din director Lior Yavne told IPS.
"And of the few cases opened, less than 10 percent result in any conviction," Yavne added. "This situation is completely different from when Palestinian attacks on Israeli settlers are investigated."
Meanwhile, despite the Israeli government calling for the demolition of Havot Ma’on over two years ago, on the grounds it was built illegally according to Israeli law, the outpost continues to expand and the settlers living there continue to attack Palestinians.
In the interim, Israel is carrying out a massive campaign of Palestinian home demolitions as settlements all over the West Bank expand at an unprecedented rate.
Sorry but contrary to the fake history that Zionists keep spewing, the only defensive war that Israel has fought throughout its history was that in 1973 and you ended up conceding land. In 1967, what you call a preemptive defensive strike has been proven to be fake. Egyptian armed forces weren't mobilizing at your gates there has been proof that they were scattered in regions next to Yemen at the time. Which is why the Arab forces lost so quickly. We don't have to go into 1948.
Now, you can spin this any way. But the facts are clear to anyone who simply knows how to read.
Israel should be boycotted, plain and simple. To play in Israel would be like playing in South Africa during the Apartheid regime in the 1980s. Next, everyone who is suggesting that the fact that they may be playing in China should make playing in Israel ok, that is absolutely horrendous logic. If you yourself don't agree with them playing in China, how can you agree with them playing with Israel? Even if Pearl Jam made a morally wrong decision to play in China, two wrongs don't make a right - i.e., why the fuck would you waste your time suggesting they should play in Israel while they're at it too? If anything, you should stand up for the same principles you apply elsewhere.
On the other hand, if you are ok with them playing China and not Israel, then there are obvious reasons why that would make sense. For one, Israel is in violation of more UN Resolutions than any other country in the world, including China.
"The boy with the destroyed brain did not need anaesthetic; he could no longer feel anything. The other lay in an artificial coma with intravenous anaesthetic agents to soften the pain and allow the ventilator to work without resistance from the boy’s own breathing. A large bandage covered both his eyes. He could not see anyway. He was already blind.
Where could I cry out the despair and rage I felt for all this terrible fate we saw at such close quarters? Would the heavens hear? Will the world hear? They know that this is happening, after all. The numbers tick into the West every single afternoon, to the news agencies, to the intelligence services and to the diplomatic missions of the world’s most powerful nations, who do not even make an attempt to pull in the reins and control the wildness of the Israeli war machine."
Dr. Mads Gilbert on the massacre in Gaza
Fake history, right, my bad. There is no point in doing this. It's like arguing with a handful of rocks. Just go back and read a bit more, and try to get your hands on some better books.
fife asked me to supply a link to a poll that i quoted that showed over 80% of Israelis supported the massacare in Gaza - which i did.
you then jumped in and said "The poll shows support for the operation. It does not show support for a "massacre."
you might not think the murder of hundreds of innocent civillians is not a massacare but i do.
i then said, "the poll shows support for an operation that turned into a massacare, and "even after seeing the consequences and the number of deaths, 90% of the people surveyed think it should continue".
then you tried to change things around and take the focus off my point by saying "why it is that Palestinians rejoice in the streets when a suicide bomber blows up a bus full of school kids, or a cafe full of innocent people"
to which i replied "there has not been a suicide bombing in years Yosi. "hundreds and hundreds of Palestinians have been killed in just the last year alone because of Israeli Terrorism."
and you didn't like that so much, because it's true.
that's what happened.
Yes I forgot that as a Zionist Jew you believe you are superior to all of us. Perhaps you are the one that needs to read a bit more outside your comfort zone. I guess a superiority complex won't help you see that.
The fact is many Israeli historians now agree with what I have said about 1967 but all you have is drivel to answer my point.
Its the truth because there are historians on both sides of the fence that agree with the assessment. Whereas the "defensive pre-emptive strike" is only sold by Zionists so they can act like the victims and have an excuse to maintain a hold on the land.
Bullshit analogy. Historians from both sides are basing their findings on FACTS on the ground and not emotions as a self-hating Jew would.
There is absolutely no reason for an Israeli historian to agree with the findings that go against the Zionist agenda except historical integrity. Give me another reason why they would? It is illogical. While on the other hand, Zionists have something to gain with their BS history.
Open and pluralistic society where Israeli arabs are treated like second class citizens hahaha good one
What's a self-hating Jew? Any Jew who is critical of Israel's crimes, and whose every word can therefore be dismissed out of hand?
I wonder if Einstein was a self-hating Jew, or if he was a self-loving Jew? And I wonder if this would have any bearing on the truth of his scientific work?
Clearly Alan Dershowitz is a self-loving Jew because he supports Israel's crimes, and Norman Finkelstein is a self-hating Jew because he's critical of Israel's crimes.
Fantastic logic!
Your ability to misunderstand is staggering. I am making a very specific argument about this particular use of this particular poll. Whether what happened is or is not a massacre is beside the point. Polls are reflections of people's opinions, which in turn are reflections of people's perceptions. If your goal is to use a poll to show that the Israeli public support the massacre of Palestinians then the poll in question has to either frame the situation in exactly those terms, meaning ask about support for a massacre, which it did not, or the respondents to the poll would have had to understood the poll to mean "massacre of Palestinians" when it referred to the "Israeli operation," which they did not.
And your ability to twist words is also staggering. A Jew that agreed with the Nazis about the nefarious actions of Jews and the need to kill them would self-evidently be a self-hating Jew. Hence the use of the term in my analogy. Nowhere have I called any Jewish detractors of Israel self-hating Jews. They are entitled to their opinions. I may disagree with them, and in some cases I may think they're stupid, and in other cases I may even think they're malicious, but that doesn't have anything to do with their being Jewish per se.
Ok look, historians have to be judged based on the scholarly merit of their work. I say this as a student of history and as the son of an historian. If they are honest about their scholarship then their political affiliations shouldn't matter. Obviously this is not always the case. Nevertheless I've read good scholarship that reflects your position, and I've read good scholarship that reflects my position. The reason for this is not, as you so arrogantly suggest, that one side is dealing with facts while the other deals only in fabrications. The reason, again, is because where you stand determines how you look at history, so that two honest scholars could look at the same events and come to two entirely different understandings of what happened, based on which elements they choose to emphasize and their particular interpretations of the available information. I am perfectly comfortable accepting the validity of the Palestinian narrative. Obviously history looks much different from their vantage point. That does not mean that the Israeli narrative is not equally valid.
Speaking of propaganda, and twisting history to political purposes, I will note that you are the one working so hard to assert the supremacy of your historical narrative for expressly political purposes. I believe in psychology they call this projection. Perhaps you see something in yourself you find unattractive, but rather than deal with it you find it easier to project your own faults onto others, and then attack them for the faults that are really your own.
+
the public’s current positive assessments of the IDF’s fighting capability (93%)
tells me, that they have a fair idea of the damage that's going to be caused the Palestinians. and they don't give a fuck.
so don't pretend that they do.
Haha are you seriously trying to assess my psychological well-being from posts I have made on a message board? That is probably some of the lamest stuff I have read on here in a while and that says a lot. If you are trying to say I have some sort of psychological issue why don't you be up front and say it without trying to sugarcoat it like you sugarcoat all of atrocities Israel has committed.
Interpretation of history can no longer be considered history, per se. That delves more into opinion or literature. History is purely based on FACTS and the facts on the ground, for example in 1967, were that the Arab forces were not mobilizing to attack Israel thereby removing any validity of the defensive pre-emptive strike Israel keeps latching onto. Interpret that whichever way you want it wont change.