Israel to shut down B’Tselem and other human rights groups

2»

Comments

  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    rebornFixer wrote:
    I imagine that some sort of verbal commitment from Hamas would help to undermine any Israeli resistance to a withdrawal, in the form of the old "protecting ourselves from terrorism" argument. Take away that excuse (assuming that's what it really is), and what do they have left?

    This would apply if we ignore history and pretend that the Palestinians haven't laid down the gauntlet already on numerous occasions. Their declared acceptance of the international consensus re: U.N 242 being one such example.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris_x wrote:
    rebornFixer wrote:
    I honestly don't know for sure, but I imagine that some sort of verbal commitment from Hamas would help to undermine any Israeli resistance to a withdrawal, in the form of the old "protecting ourselves from terrorism" argument. Take away that excuse (assuming that's what it really is), and what do they have left?

    but if peace is what they truly want - surely, this cannot be the ONE thing that is preventing it can it? ...

    netananyu's leadership is dependent on a coalition and he needs that right-wing support and those guys are pro-settlement expansion ... pro-expansion = anti-peace ...

    No, this is by no means the ONLY thing. It would be one (minor) addition to a peace plan, the bulk of which is up to the Israelis to execute.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris_x wrote:
    rebornFixer wrote:
    Alright, see you later. Byrnzie's goal was to have his ego stroked, and you've obliged. Like I said, people are not interested in serious debate on this topic.

    how did i stroke his ego? ... by pointing out the influence of the jewish lobby in the US?

    I am getting tired of repeating myself. What do you guys want people to do in these threads? Agree with everything you say, concede that Israel in 100% at fault? Assuming this is true, how is any debate even possible?
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited March 2010
    Rebornfixer thinks that Hamas needs to renounce violence.

    Meanwhile:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ma ... -jerusalem
    Tuesday 16 March 2010
    '...the US is demanding that Netanyahu cancel or freeze plans to build 1,600 planned Jewish homes in Palestinian East Jerusalem. But Netanyahu, speaking at a meeting of his own Likud party, showed no signs of backing down. "The building in Jerusalem, and in all other places, will continue in the same way as has been customary over the last 42 years," he said.'
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited March 2010
    polaris_x wrote:
    rebornFixer wrote:
    Alright, see you later. Byrnzie's goal was to have his ego stroked, and you've obliged. Like I said, people are not interested in serious debate on this topic.

    how did i stroke his ego? ... by pointing out the influence of the jewish lobby in the US?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ma ... -jerusalem
    Monday 15 March 2010
    'Yesterday Aipac issued a statement critical of the Obama administration and today embarked on an intensive lobbying exercise to secure the backing of Jewish or strong Israeli-supporting members of Congress.'
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Jesus Christ ... I mean, what the fuck kind of debating is supposed to happen in here? :lol: The whole point appears to be to get everyone to agree with the position that Israel is the sole problem here, and even assuming that's true, what is there to do in these threads? Continue to broadcast your position over and over again?

    Fine, I concede that its all Israel and the Jewish-American lobby. OK? Good, debate over.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    rebornFixer wrote:
    I am getting tired of repeating myself. What you guys want people to do in these threads? Agree with everything you say, concede that Israel in 100% at fault? Assuming this is true, how is any debate even possible?

    i've mentioned 3 different things here:

    1. the influence of the right-wing factions of the coalition gov't of netanayu
    2. the influence of the jewish lobby in the US
    3. the possibility of peace right now by settling the borders and building that wall

    you've partially addressed only 1 of those points ... that is what debate is ... if your response to every point put forth is that palestinians need to renounce violence - then there is not much of a discusssion is it?

    i understand that (especially without yosi around) you feel like you're on an island on here ... but i've been that person on other threads ... the goal is to not to stroke anyone's ego ... it's to come to a consensus based on our understandings ...
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris_x wrote:
    you've partially addressed only 1 of those points ... that is what debate is ... if your response to every point put forth is that palestinians need to renounce violence - then there is not much of a discusssion is it?

    i understand that (especially without yosi around) you feel like you're on an island on here ... but i've been that person on other threads ... the goal is to not to stroke anyone's ego ... it's to come to a consensus based on our understandings ...

    My only real issue with your views concerns the notion that Palestinians need not lift a finger in terms of peace. Other than that, I agree with damn near everything else you've said, so yes, there's not much room for debate. Byrnzie needs a boogeyman to focus on today, and because yosi isn't around, I am it.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    rebornFixer wrote:
    Jesus Christ ... I mean, what the fuck kind of debating is supposed to happen in here? :lol: The whole point appears to be to get everyone to agree with the position that Israel is the sole problem here, and even assuming that's true, what is there to do in these threads? Continue to broadcast your position over and over again?

    Fine, I concede that its all Israel and the Jewish-American lobby. OK? Good, debate over.

    If we could roll back the clock 30 years I bet you'd be here saying the blacks in Soweto, South Africa need to renounce violence. There would be those of us posting information about further Apartheid atrocities & abuses and you would be countering every one of those comments/articles by saying that the blacks are equally to blame.

    Then you'd get all uppity and start accusing people of not understanding nuance, and being incapable of a reasoned debate, e.t.c, e.t.c....
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    rebornFixer wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    you've partially addressed only 1 of those points ... that is what debate is ... if your response to every point put forth is that palestinians need to renounce violence - then there is not much of a discusssion is it?

    i understand that (especially without yosi around) you feel like you're on an island on here ... but i've been that person on other threads ... the goal is to not to stroke anyone's ego ... it's to come to a consensus based on our understandings ...

    My only real issue with your views concerns the notion that Palestinians need not lift a finger in terms of peace.

    The Palestinians are living under a brutal military occupation, every day.

    I suggest you think about that.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    rebornFixer wrote:
    My only real issue with your views concerns the notion that Palestinians need not lift a finger in terms of peace. Other than that, I agree with damn near everything else you've said, so yes, there's not much room for debate. Byrnzie needs a boogeyman to focus on today, and because yosi isn't around, I am it.

    if hamas renounced violence and reiterated their stance that israel can have their own land/state - do you really think there would be peace?
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    polaris_x wrote:
    if hamas renounced violence and reiterated their stance that israel can have their own land/state - do you really think there would be peace?

    I find it pretty bizarre that Israel has been engaged in a 40 year occupation, and just last year committed a massacre of 1000 civilians in Gaza, and yet here we are debating whether Hamas should renounce violence.

    Allow me to rephrase the question: If Israel renounced violence and declared that the Palestinians can have their own state as required by international law, do you think there would be peace, or would the Jewish settlers oppose it?
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris_x wrote:
    if hamas renounced violence and reiterated their stance that israel can have their own land/state - do you really think there would be peace?

    Not unless Israel withdrew from the occupied territories and stopped all settlement expansion.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    edited March 2010
    Byrnzie wrote:
    If we could roll back the clock 30 years I bet you'd be here saying the blacks in Soweto, South Africa need to renounce violence. There would be those of us posting information about further Apartheid atrocities & abuses and you would be countering every one of those comments/articles by saying that the blacks are equally to blame.

    Then you'd get all uppity and start accusing people of not understanding nuance, and being incapable of a reasoned debate, e.t.c, e.t.c....

    Righto. Now its about the blacks on a completely different continent. I am such an immoral bastard.
    Post edited by rebornFixer on
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    You know, I just said this to someone over PMs and I might as well say it publically too ....
    I argue about some of the details that a peace plan does or does not need to feature, and apparently this sends the message that Israeli actions like the assault on Gaza in 2006 are excusable. I do not wish to be misunderstood: I do believe that Israel holds most of the cards here. The Palestinians are an oppressed people who deserve basic levels of self-determination. ... They deserve food, shelter, and dignity. They do not deserve to be corralled in Gaza and the West Bank and killed. Any peace plan will require that Israel make some pretty drastic changes, including a withdrawal to proper borders and cessation of settlement expansion. Me arguing that Hamas might need to make some changes as well (e.g., officially recognize Israel) does not mean that Hamas or the Palestinians in general are responsible for what is going on: The argument is largely a pragmatic one, based on knowledge about how people compromise. Because people have trouble seeing this point, I am going to let it go and just acknowledge that the Palestinians are not ultimately at fault here. There may be things they can do to ease the peace process, but they did not choose to be oppressed. There was a time when I naively felt that it really all was about terrorism, and that position is simple and incorrect. Anyhow, there you go. This is polaris' consensus, or as close as we are going to get.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    rebornFixer wrote:
    You know, I just said this to someone over PMs and I might as well say it publically too ....
    I argue about some of the details that a peace plan does or does not need to feature, and apparently this sends the message that Israeli actions like the assault on Gaza in 2006 are excusable. I do not wish to be misunderstood: I do believe that Israel holds most of the cards here. The Palestinians are an oppressed people who deserve basic levels of self-determination. ... They deserve food, shelter, and dignity. They do not deserve to be corralled in Gaza and the West Bank and killed. Any peace plan will require that Israel make some pretty drastic changes, including a withdrawal to proper borders and cessation of settlement expansion. Me arguing that Hamas might need to make some changes as well (e.g., officially recognize Israel) does not mean that Hamas or the Palestinians in general are responsible for what is going on: The argument is largely a pragmatic one, based on knowledge about how people compromise. Because people have trouble seeing this point, I am going to let it go and just acknowledge that the Palestinians are not ultimately at fault here. There may be things they can do to ease the peace process, but they did not choose to be oppressed. There was a time when I naively felt that it really all was about terrorism, and that position is simple and incorrect. Anyhow, there you go. This is polaris' consensus, or as close as we are going to get.

    bravo ... :mrgreen:

    now - moving on to mr. harper ... haha
  • alivegirl
    alivegirl Posts: 124
    rebornFixer wrote:
    The Palestinians are an oppressed people who deserve basic levels of self-determination. ... They deserve food, shelter, and dignity. They do not deserve to be corralled in Gaza and the West Bank and killed.

    Hence the need for Israel to silence human rights groups.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    alivegirl wrote:
    rebornFixer wrote:
    The Palestinians are an oppressed people who deserve basic levels of self-determination. ... They deserve food, shelter, and dignity. They do not deserve to be corralled in Gaza and the West Bank and killed.

    Hence the need for Israel to silence human rights groups.

    Which I will agree is total BS.
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    rebornFixer wrote:
    alivegirl wrote:
    rebornFixer wrote:
    The Palestinians are an oppressed people who deserve basic levels of self-determination. ... They deserve food, shelter, and dignity. They do not deserve to be corralled in Gaza and the West Bank and killed.

    Hence the need for Israel to silence human rights groups.

    Which I will agree is total BS.

    knowledge is power. cant let the people gain any sort of power now can we??? ;)
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Indeed:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ma ... ettlements
    'One of the underlying motives of the US resolve to get the peace process moving was offered today by the top US military commander, General David Petraeus, the head of Centcom, which is responsible for the Middle East and Asia. Petraeus told the Senate armed services committee yesterday that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a root cause of instability in the Middle East and Asia and "foments anti-American sentiment due to a perception of US favouritism for Israel".'

Categories