The bottom line in this situation is that as long as the occupation continues, Israel has no legal nor moral right whatsoever to military self defense against Palestinians. period.
I'm sorry, but that is utter nonsense. If I steal from you and you come after me with a knife I still have a right to defend myself. All the more so if you're coming after me in my own home. It is one thing for Hamas to use force against the Israeli military when they make incursions into Gaza. It is quite another to fire missiles into Israeli population centers. Deliberate targeting of civilians is unjustifiable, occupation or no.
So who's stealing from who and who's coming after who with a knife in your post? Cause it sounds like you're saying that Israel is stealing and the Palestinians are coming after them only to have the Israelis defend themselves from the Palestinians. Cause and effect??? Chicken or egg first??? See what I'm getting at?
My point is that whatever Israel is guilty of does not justify the deliberate and indiscriminate targeting of civilians, which is a war crime clear as day. For all the talk of war crimes on this thread it should be acknowledged that 400 missiles intentionally fired at civilians is 400 war crimes. Israel not only has a right but a responsibility to defend its citizens against such attacks. Deliberately targeting civilians cannot be justified no matter what wrongs serve as the excuse. Suggesting that Israel has brought this on itself is to normalize, excuse, and apologize for criminal, barbaric, and frankly evil actions, as if intentionally committing a war crime every ten minutes on average (that's the rate of fire from Gaza) is an acceptable response to one's grievances.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I'm sorry, but that is utter nonsense. If I steal from you and you come after me with a knife I still have a right to defend myself. All the more so if you're coming after me in my own home. It is one thing for Hamas to use force against the Israeli military when they make incursions into Gaza. It is quite another to fire missiles into Israeli population centers. Deliberate targeting of civilians is unjustifiable, occupation or no.
Dropping bombs on densely populated residential areas is o.k though, right? How many Israeli's were killed during Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009? Was it 3? Compared with 1600 Palestinians killed. And how many Israeli's have been killed this week? None. Compared with over 90 Palestinians. But I don't hear you criticizing Israel's disproportionate use of force against Palestinian civilians. Once again, trying to turn reality on it's head.
What's your opinion on this?:
http://electronicintifada.net/content/book-review-case-against-israel/5955 As for “terrorism”, which [Micahel Neumann] defines as “random violence against non-combatants”, he distinguishes it from “collateral damage” with the assertion that the latter “involves knowingly killing innocent civilians” while “Terrorism involves intentionally killing innocent civilians”, concluding that “the moral difference is too academic even for an academic.” Why, then, is “terrorism” considered to be particularly morally repugnant, while “collateral damage” tends to be taken in our moral stride?
“Imagine trying to make such a claim. You say: ‘To achieve my objectives, I would certainly drop bombs with the knowledge that they would blow the arms off some children. But to achieve those same objectives, I would not plant or set off a bomb on the ground with the knowledge that it would have that same effect. After all, I have planes to do that, I don’t need to plant bombs.’ As a claim of moral superiority, this needs a little work.”
The Palestinians, he repeats, are without options. Israel has all the options, principally that of unilateral withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, but refuses to use them. Hence he refuses “to pronounce judgment on Palestinian terrorism.”
Israel not only has a right but a responsibility to defend its citizens against such attacks.
Bullshit. They can defend their citizens by withdrawing to their legal borders, and fortifying those borders. One act of criminality - the occupation - does not give them the right to commit further criminal acts - bombing residential areas.
"Israel has a right of self defence, but it does not apply in the Occupied Territories. If the U.S invaded Jamaica and dotted it with settlements, neither the settlers nor the armed forces could invoke any right to defend themselves against the Jamaicans, any more than a robber who invaded your house. So it is with the Israeli's in the Occupied Territories. Their right of self-defense is their right to the least violent defensive alternative. Since withdrawal (perhaps followed by fortifying their own 1948 border) is by far their best and least violent defense, that is all they have a right to do." - Michael Neumann
I'm sorry, but that is utter nonsense. If I steal from you and you come after me with a knife I still have a right to defend myself. All the more so if you're coming after me in my own home. It is one thing for Hamas to use force against the Israeli military when they make incursions into Gaza. It is quite another to fire missiles into Israeli population centers. Deliberate targeting of civilians is unjustifiable, occupation or no.
Dropping bombs on densely populated residential areas is o.k though, right? How many Israeli's were killed during Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009? Was it 3? Compared with 1600 Palestinians killed. And how many Israeli's have been killed this week? None. Compared with over 90 Palestinians. But I don't hear you criticizing Israel's disproportionate use of force against Palestinian civilians. Once again, trying to turn reality on it's head.
What's your opinion on this?:
http://electronicintifada.net/content/book-review-case-against-israel/5955 As for “terrorism”, which [Micahel Neumann] defines as “random violence against non-combatants”, he distinguishes it from “collateral damage” with the assertion that the latter “involves knowingly killing innocent civilians” while “Terrorism involves intentionally killing innocent civilians”, concluding that “the moral difference is too academic even for an academic.” Why, then, is “terrorism” considered to be particularly morally repugnant, while “collateral damage” tends to be taken in our moral stride?
“Imagine trying to make such a claim. You say: ‘To achieve my objectives, I would certainly drop bombs with the knowledge that they would blow the arms off some children. But to achieve those same objectives, I would not plant or set off a bomb on the ground with the knowledge that it would have that same effect. After all, I have planes to do that, I don’t need to plant bombs.’ As a claim of moral superiority, this needs a little work.”
The Palestinians, he repeats, are without options. Israel has all the options, principally that of unilateral withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, but refuses to use them. Hence he refuses “to pronounce judgment on Palestinian terrorism.”
My opinion is that it is not a morally defensible position to excuse war crimes and terrorism on the basis of political or military weakness, or because the perpetrators of those offenses are themselves victims.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Israel not only has a right but a responsibility to defend its citizens against such attacks.
Bullshit. They can defend their citizens by withdrawing to their legal borders, and fortifying those borders. One act of criminality - the occupation - does not give them the right to commit further criminal acts - bombing residential areas.
"Israel has a right of self defence, but it does not apply in the Occupied Territories. If the U.S invaded Jamaica and dotted it with settlements, neither the settlers nor the armed forces could invoke any right to defend themselves against the Jamaicans, any more than a robber who invaded your house. So it is with the Israeli's in the Occupied Territories. Their right of self-defense is their right to the least violent defensive alternative. Since withdrawal (perhaps followed by fortifying their own 1948 border) is by far their best and least violent defense, that is all they have a right to do." - Michael Neumann
Withdrawing to and fortifying the border is exactly what they did in Gaza. The targets of the missiles coming from Gaza aren't occupiers on Palestinian land. They are Israeli civilians in Israel. You can't expect anyone to take you seriously when you cry "war crime" if you are constantly apologizing for the war crimes committed by your side. It's rank hypocrisy.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Israel not only has a right but a responsibility to defend its citizens against such attacks.
Bullshit. They can defend their citizens by withdrawing to their legal borders, and fortifying those borders. One act of criminality - the occupation - does not give them the right to commit further criminal acts - bombing residential areas.
"Israel has a right of self defence, but it does not apply in the Occupied Territories. If the U.S invaded Jamaica and dotted it with settlements, neither the settlers nor the armed forces could invoke any right to defend themselves against the Jamaicans, any more than a robber who invaded your house. So it is with the Israeli's in the Occupied Territories. Their right of self-defense is their right to the least violent defensive alternative. Since withdrawal (perhaps followed by fortifying their own 1948 border) is by far their best and least violent defense, that is all they have a right to do." - Michael Neumann
Withdrawing to and fortifying the border is exactly what they did in Gaza. The targets of the missiles coming from Gaza aren't occupiers on Palestinian land. They are Israeli civilians in Israel. You can't expect anyone to take you seriously when you cry "war crime" if you are constantly apologizing for the war crimes committed by your side. It's rank hypocrisy.
By the way, the robber analogy in the quote you use is flawed. Whether or not a robber has a right to self-defense when he invades your house, he certainly has a right to self-defense if, after he's robbed your house you go to his house and attack him with a knife. In other words, I find the notion that the occupation justifies the intentional criminal targeting of civilians within Israel to be a completely immoral and unjustifiable position. Moreover, it is an attack on Israel, not the occupation.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Withdrawing to and fortifying the border is exactly what they did in Gaza.
No they didn't, and you know it. The Israeli's maintained control of Gaza's coastline, it's air space, and it's land borders, and it turned the area into a virtual prison. In the meantime, Israel escalated it's extra-judicial assassinations. Why do you, and every other apologist of Israel, continue pretending that the Gaza 'withdrawal' was anything other than a PR ploy to divert attention from Israel's increased settlement expansion in the West Bank?
The targets of the missiles coming from Gaza aren't occupiers on Palestinian land. They are Israeli civilians in Israel. You can't expect anyone to take you seriously when you cry "war crime" if you are constantly apologizing for the war crimes committed by your side. It's rank hypocrisy.
And the targets of Israel's bombs and bullets are not terrorists, they're unarmed civilians, as evidenced by the ample testimonies of Israeli soldiers themselves. But you don't give a fuck about that, do you? Because the life of a Palestinian isn't worth the toenail of a Jew, right?
By the way, the robber analogy in the quote you use is flawed. Whether or not a robber has a right to self-defense when he invades your house, he certainly has a right to self-defense if, after he's robbed your house you go to his house and attack him with a knife. In other words, I find the notion that the occupation justifies the intentional criminal targeting of civilians within Israel to be a completely immoral and unjustifiable position. Moreover, it is an attack on Israel, not the occupation.
You can spin it however you want, but only an idiot - or somebody lacking even an ounce of honesty - would pretend righteous indignation at the Palestinians responding to this latest massacre with the only means at their disposal. It's perfectly simple, Israel has the option to end the criminal occupation, and withdraw to it's legal borders. This it refuses to do. Instead it expands it's illegal racist settlements on Palestinian land, and routinely reigns terror on the heads of the Palestinians. And when the Palestinians react with the only means at their disposal - the rockets - you cry foul and pretend to be the victims.
I'm not doing this with you again. There's no point in talking to you when you are categorically incapable of even the slightest objectivity. The fact that you refuse to even acknowledge that targeting Israeli civilians is wrong, and worse, that you constantly seek to apologize or excuse such actions is simply deplorable. Only one of us has never expressed basic human empathy for the other side in this conflict, and it isn't me.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I'm not doing this with you again. There's no point in talking to you when you are categorically incapable of even the slightest objectivity. The fact that you refuse to even acknowledge that targeting Israeli civilians is wrong, and worse, that you constantly seek to apologize or excuse such actions is simply deplorable. Only one of us has never expressed basic human empathy for the other side in this conflict, and it isn't me.
Targeting ANY human civilian is wrong. But in all honesty yosi, Israel has not only targeted innocent civilians, it's actually KILLED innocent civilians. 90 Palestinians in 3 fucken days! That's 30 a day. And ZERO Israelis! How many of the Palestinians were kids?!?! This bullshit has to stop and I got news for you guys in Israel, people are starting to FINALLY see and realize what your manic leaders are doing. Some of you apologist for Israel have no problem ranting about the leaders of Palestine (Hamas) but what about your fucken leaders? The leaders of Israel are terrorist by their own definition of the word. Every way you describe Hamas can be said about the Israeli government.
And getting back to the assholes who burned that kid alive, we all know NOTHING is gonna happen to them. I wouldn't be surprised if they fucken name a town after them. Ben is pretty much the only Jewish poster on the thread that has actually came out and condemned the shit Israel is doing. None of you others have. We've asked what should happen to the pussy ass killers of that child should get, no one answers. Byrnzie asks if you guys support the ethnic cleansing or stealing of the Palestinian lands, all u guys respond with is we support Israel. Translation-fuck Palestine and Israel can do NO WRONG. Blind support for a rogue nation, ya, something to be proud about.
I'm not doing this with you again. There's no point in talking to you when you are categorically incapable of even the slightest objectivity. The fact that you refuse to even acknowledge that targeting Israeli civilians is wrong, and worse, that you constantly seek to apologize or excuse such actions is simply deplorable. Only one of us has never expressed basic human empathy for the other side in this conflict, and it isn't me.
Israel is engaged in a massive crime - the occupation and encroaching land-grab. And settler attacks against Palestinian civilians are a daily occurrence, and include beatings and murder. In May two Palestinian teenagers were murdered in cold blood by an Israeli sniper and it was brushed under the carpet, as per usual. But when three Israelis are killed then the U.S President makes a mournful speech about it on TV, and the Israeli leadership cover up the events in order to inflame racial hatred amongst the population, and inspire a mass wave if beatings, looting, and murder, culminating in a full military assault upon the people of Gaza. And when the Palestinians fire some rockets towards Israel, Yosi pleads self-defence.
Typical.
Yet every honest person knows full well that this latest Israeli massacre is simply retaliation for the Hamas-Fatah unity deal.
I think everyone into politics SHOULD read this book:
They to Dare Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby Book by Paul Findley They to Dare Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby is a bestselling book that was written in 1985, had a second edition published in 1989 and a third in 2003 by American former Representative/Congressman Paul Findley. Wikipedia Published: 1985 Author: Paul Findley
I'm not doing this with you again. There's no point in talking to you when you are categorically incapable of even the slightest objectivity. The fact that you refuse to even acknowledge that targeting Israeli civilians is wrong, and worse, that you constantly seek to apologize or excuse such actions is simply deplorable. Only one of us has never expressed basic human empathy for the other side in this conflict, and it isn't me.
Targeting ANY human civilian is wrong. But in all honesty yosi, Israel has not only targeted innocent civilians, it's actually KILLED innocent civilians. 90 Palestinians in 3 fucken days! That's 30 a day. And ZERO Israelis! How many of the Palestinians were kids?!?! This bullshit has to stop and I got news for you guys in Israel, people are starting to FINALLY see and realize what your manic leaders are doing. Some of you apologist for Israel have no problem ranting about the leaders of Palestine (Hamas) but what about your fucken leaders? The leaders of Israel are terrorist by their own definition of the word. Every way you describe Hamas can be said about the Israeli government.
And getting back to the assholes who burned that kid alive, we all know NOTHING is gonna happen to them. I wouldn't be surprised if they fucken name a town after them. Ben is pretty much the only Jewish poster on the thread that has actually came out and condemned the shit Israel is doing. None of you others have. We've asked what should happen to the pussy ass killers of that child should get, no one answers. Byrnzie asks if you guys support the ethnic cleansing or stealing of the Palestinian lands, all u guys respond with is we support Israel. Translation-fuck Palestine and Israel can do NO WRONG. Blind support for a rogue nation, ya, something to be proud about.
You know, I could tell you that this is entirely unfair to me since I've repeatedly voiced my own criticisms of Israel's policies in no uncertain terms. But apparently it doesn't matter what I actually say since if I disagree with you about anything at all I must be a blind apologist.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Yosi, I'll give u that, you do criticize Israel's policy towards the Palestinians to a point. I would like to know what you think SHOULD happen to those terrorist settlers who burned that Palestinian alive? I just want to know what u think. I'd ask the other 2 who have posted in this thread but I'm tired of asking them over and over again.
Does anyone following this thread (because clearly it's a debate between two people) think that there can realistically be a peace between Jews and Arabs? These two have been going in circles for what seems to be forever. Byrnzie and yosi are two very smart people, and can't agree on ANY point the other makes. So why would any of us think that the politicians can get anything done? The little that I know about middle east politics include that both Isreal and Palestine are guilty of horrible atrocities. Until both sides can forget about the past and truly want peace, nothing will ever get accomplished.
Does anyone following this thread (because clearly it's a debate between two people) think that there can realistically be a peace between Jews and Arabs? These two have been going in circles for what seems to be forever. Byrnzie and yosi are two very smart people, and can't agree on ANY point the other makes. So why would any of us think that the politicians can get anything done? The little that I know about middle east politics include that both Isreal and Palestine are guilty of horrible atrocities. Until both sides can forget about the past and truly want peace, nothing will ever get accomplished.
So what am I last-12, a fucking idiot? I kid, I'll give it to them both, they both are very smart and passionate about this cause. Here's to 1 day all if us sitting together over a pint. Byrnzie is paying of course.....
Does anyone following this thread (because clearly it's a debate between two people) think that there can realistically be a peace between Jews and Arabs? These two have been going in circles for what seems to be forever. Byrnzie and yosi are two very smart people, and can't agree on ANY point the other makes. So why would any of us think that the politicians can get anything done? The little that I know about middle east politics include that both Isreal and Palestine are guilty of horrible atrocities. Until both sides can forget about the past and truly want peace, nothing will ever get accomplished.
It's a great discussion and I can say I've learned from it.
Yosi has been very dispassionate in his discourse and I've been very impressed with his patience and ability to articulate his position. I've been on the other end of Byrnzie's 'mocking' tone in another thread and... well... it does tend to piss a guy off. To Byrnzie's credit in this discussion... he's relentless and very well read on this subject- he's more than entitled to his opinion.
To your question... this fight runs deep. This is no easy fix by any stretch of the imagination. I think the only hope lies with Israel withdrawing, but it seems that attitudes and a sense of entitlement will not allow this to happen.
War and conflict is nasty. As deplorable as it is, I understand the indiscriminate launching of missiles launched by Palestine. They will not do well fighting Israel in the traditional manner- from what I have been led to believe... Israel has the upper hand in military strength by a wide margin.
Of course though, now the conflict will escalate as Israel will respond as it will. The divide widens.
I'd be curious to know what percentage of the Palestinian people would prefer to simply drop the issue and forfeit the land? As opposed to fighting what (at this moment) seems like an unwinnable situation, what percentage of people would prefer to concede the area to avoid the violence? Is there an unmistakable level of resolve within every Palestinian... or is it only the extremists that resist the occupation?
With that said, I'd also be curious to know what percentage of Israelis feel they should withdraw from the strip and avoid the conflict? Is it a widespread belief that the land they seek is theirs or is this a reflection of the country's political and military leaders that insist on wresting the land from Palestine?
We see the face of the conflict, but what are the prevalent attitudes for both sides and how prevalent are they?
Yosi has been very dispassionate in his discourse and I've been very impressed with his patience and ability to articulate his position. I've been on the other end of Byrnzie's 'mocking' tone in another thread and... well... it does tend to piss a guy off. To Byrnzie's credit in this discussion... he's relentless and very well read on this subject- he's more than entitled to his opinion.
He's English. Sarcasm, dry wit, and a touch of arrogance is their thing. ) And I love 'em for it.
I'd be curious to know what percentage of the Palestinian people would prefer to simply drop the issue and forfeit the land? As opposed to fighting what (at this moment) seems like an unwinnable situation, what percentage of people would prefer to concede the area to avoid the violence? Is there an unmistakable level of resolve within every Palestinian... or is it only the extremists that resist the occupation?
With that said, I'd also be curious to know what percentage of Israelis feel they should withdraw from the strip and avoid the conflict? Is it a widespread belief that the land they seek is theirs or is this a reflection of the country's political and military leaders that insist on wresting the land from Palestine?
We see the face of the conflict, but what are the prevalent attitudes for both sides and how prevalent are they?
Well, their situations are very different. Israelis, if they support the zionist eretz-israel ambition, want to give nothing up, and in fact want to annex all of the land 'from the river to the sea'. There are definitely Israeli's working toward giving the Palestinians their own sovereign state, tho. I have no idea what the percentages are. For the Palestinians....yes, there are probably a large portion of the people who feel that the Nakba was UN-sanctioned ethnic cleansing; a travesty almost universally opposed by everyone in the region, and imposed on it by western powers. They see it as a crime, and feel that Israel should not exist. I can see their point, but we are well beyond the point of one side kicking the other out completely being a valid solution. Also, the Palestinians could not simply cede the land and become Israeli citizens, even if that was the choice of the majority....Israel would not grant them citizenship, lest the 'demographic problem' affect the 'jewishness' of the state. Israel cannot be a 'self-determined-jewish-democracy', while both incorporating the occupied territories, and granting equal citizenship to all it's inhabitants. This is where the comparisons to, and the differences between South African apartheid come from. Israelis like to say that they are not practising apartheid because the Palestinians are not citizens, they are occupied peoples. So the Palestinians are in limbo. No sovereign nation from which to defend themselves, and no rights under their occupiers. If they were granted citizenship, and the demographic shifts to an Arab majority, Israel will likely no longer be a jewish state. This is where the right of return for Palestinian refugees also becomes such a contentious issue. So do you see the problem here? in a two state solution, both countries can exist. Do they exist peacefully? Probably not. I think eventual peace could come from being a true democracy for all people in the region. But even suggesting a single democratic state will have you called anti-semetic, and accused of wanting to see Israel wiped from the map.
The bottom line in this situation is that as long as the occupation continues, Israel has no legal nor moral right whatsoever to military self defense against Palestinians. period.
I'm sorry, but that is utter nonsense. If I steal from you and you come after me with a knife I still have a right to defend myself. All the more so if you're coming after me in my own home. It is one thing for Hamas to use force against the Israeli military when they make incursions into Gaza. It is quite another to fire missiles into Israeli population centers. Deliberate targeting of civilians is unjustifiable, occupation or no.
Unfortunately, the International Court of Justice, citing reports and statements by Human Rights Watch, the National Lawyers Guild, the Palestine Center for Human rights, Amnesty International, the UN Human Rights Council, Defence for Children International, Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights, and the League of Arab States, all disagree with you. Are they speaking utter nonsense as well? Any comment on the James Marc Leas article, or should we just accept your opinion as fact? My point was - we can go back and forth comparing atrocities all day long. But what it always comes down to is the occupation. Always has, always will. The day Israel ends their oppression of the palestinians is the day they can end the circle jerk of blame, and have a moral ground to stand upon and say 'you started this'. Right now, the occupation is a disease, and the violence and retribution are symptoms, no matter how you choose to spin it, or whatever analogy you choose to muddy the waters with.
Does anyone following this thread (because clearly it's a debate between two people) think that there can realistically be a peace between Jews and Arabs? These two have been going in circles for what seems to be forever. Byrnzie and yosi are two very smart people, and can't agree on ANY point the other makes. So why would any of us think that the politicians can get anything done? The little that I know about middle east politics include that both Isreal and Palestine are guilty of horrible atrocities. Until both sides can forget about the past and truly want peace, nothing will ever get accomplished.
So what am I last-12, a fucking idiot? I kid, I'll give it to them both, they both are very smart and passionate about this cause. Here's to 1 day all if us sitting together over a pint. Byrnzie is paying of course.....
Can we put a decibel restriction on this meeting? If so, first round's on me.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Comments
But I don't hear you criticizing Israel's disproportionate use of force against Palestinian civilians. Once again, trying to turn reality on it's head.
What's your opinion on this?:
http://electronicintifada.net/content/book-review-case-against-israel/5955
As for “terrorism”, which [Micahel Neumann] defines as “random violence against non-combatants”, he distinguishes it from “collateral damage” with the assertion that the latter “involves knowingly killing innocent civilians” while “Terrorism involves intentionally killing innocent civilians”, concluding that “the moral difference is too academic even for an academic.” Why, then, is “terrorism” considered to be particularly morally repugnant, while “collateral damage” tends to be taken in our moral stride?
“Imagine trying to make such a claim. You say: ‘To achieve my objectives, I would certainly drop bombs with the knowledge that they would blow the arms off some children. But to achieve those same objectives, I would not plant or set off a bomb on the ground with the knowledge that it would have that same effect. After all, I have planes to do that, I don’t need to plant bombs.’ As a claim of moral superiority, this needs a little work.”
The Palestinians, he repeats, are without options. Israel has all the options, principally that of unilateral withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, but refuses to use them. Hence he refuses “to pronounce judgment on Palestinian terrorism.”
"Israel has a right of self defence, but it does not apply in the Occupied Territories. If the U.S invaded Jamaica and dotted it with settlements, neither the settlers nor the armed forces could invoke any right to defend themselves against the Jamaicans, any more than a robber who invaded your house. So it is with the Israeli's in the Occupied Territories. Their right of self-defense is their right to the least violent defensive alternative. Since withdrawal (perhaps followed by fortifying their own 1948 border) is by far their best and least violent defense, that is all they have a right to do." - Michael Neumann
It's perfectly simple, Israel has the option to end the criminal occupation, and withdraw to it's legal borders. This it refuses to do. Instead it expands it's illegal racist settlements on Palestinian land, and routinely reigns terror on the heads of the Palestinians. And when the Palestinians react with the only means at their disposal - the rockets - you cry foul and pretend to be the victims.
Totally fucking shameless.
And getting back to the assholes who burned that kid alive, we all know NOTHING is gonna happen to them. I wouldn't be surprised if they fucken name a town after them. Ben is pretty much the only Jewish poster on the thread that has actually came out and condemned the shit Israel is doing. None of you others have. We've asked what should happen to the pussy ass killers of that child should get, no one answers. Byrnzie asks if you guys support the ethnic cleansing or stealing of the Palestinian lands, all u guys respond with is we support Israel. Translation-fuck Palestine and Israel can do NO WRONG. Blind support for a rogue nation, ya, something to be proud about.
And when the Palestinians fire some rockets towards Israel, Yosi pleads self-defence.
Typical.
Yet every honest person knows full well that this latest Israeli massacre is simply retaliation for the Hamas-Fatah unity deal.
They to Dare Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby
Book by Paul Findley
They to Dare Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby is a bestselling book that was written in 1985, had a second edition published in 1989 and a third in 2003 by American former Representative/Congressman Paul Findley. Wikipedia
Published: 1985
Author: Paul Findley
Yosi has been very dispassionate in his discourse and I've been very impressed with his patience and ability to articulate his position. I've been on the other end of Byrnzie's 'mocking' tone in another thread and... well... it does tend to piss a guy off. To Byrnzie's credit in this discussion... he's relentless and very well read on this subject- he's more than entitled to his opinion.
To your question... this fight runs deep. This is no easy fix by any stretch of the imagination. I think the only hope lies with Israel withdrawing, but it seems that attitudes and a sense of entitlement will not allow this to happen.
War and conflict is nasty. As deplorable as it is, I understand the indiscriminate launching of missiles launched by Palestine. They will not do well fighting Israel in the traditional manner- from what I have been led to believe... Israel has the upper hand in military strength by a wide margin.
Of course though, now the conflict will escalate as Israel will respond as it will. The divide widens.
I'd be curious to know what percentage of the Palestinian people would prefer to simply drop the issue and forfeit the land? As opposed to fighting what (at this moment) seems like an unwinnable situation, what percentage of people would prefer to concede the area to avoid the violence? Is there an unmistakable level of resolve within every Palestinian... or is it only the extremists that resist the occupation?
With that said, I'd also be curious to know what percentage of Israelis feel they should withdraw from the strip and avoid the conflict? Is it a widespread belief that the land they seek is theirs or is this a reflection of the country's political and military leaders that insist on wresting the land from Palestine?
We see the face of the conflict, but what are the prevalent attitudes for both sides and how prevalent are they?
For the Palestinians....yes, there are probably a large portion of the people who feel that the Nakba was UN-sanctioned ethnic cleansing; a travesty almost universally opposed by everyone in the region, and imposed on it by western powers. They see it as a crime, and feel that Israel should not exist. I can see their point, but we are well beyond the point of one side kicking the other out completely being a valid solution. Also, the Palestinians could not simply cede the land and become Israeli citizens, even if that was the choice of the majority....Israel would not grant them citizenship, lest the 'demographic problem' affect the 'jewishness' of the state. Israel cannot be a 'self-determined-jewish-democracy', while both incorporating the occupied territories, and granting equal citizenship to all it's inhabitants. This is where the comparisons to, and the differences between South African apartheid come from. Israelis like to say that they are not practising apartheid because the Palestinians are not citizens, they are occupied peoples. So the Palestinians are in limbo. No sovereign nation from which to defend themselves, and no rights under their occupiers. If they were granted citizenship, and the demographic shifts to an Arab majority, Israel will likely no longer be a jewish state. This is where the right of return for Palestinian refugees also becomes such a contentious issue. So do you see the problem here? in a two state solution, both countries can exist. Do they exist peacefully? Probably not. I think eventual peace could come from being a true democracy for all people in the region. But even suggesting a single democratic state will have you called anti-semetic, and accused of wanting to see Israel wiped from the map.
My point was - we can go back and forth comparing atrocities all day long. But what it always comes down to is the occupation. Always has, always will. The day Israel ends their oppression of the palestinians is the day they can end the circle jerk of blame, and have a moral ground to stand upon and say 'you started this'. Right now, the occupation is a disease, and the violence and retribution are symptoms, no matter how you choose to spin it, or whatever analogy you choose to muddy the waters with.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
He did send me this video by PM; it's worth a watch. Unfortunate we never see these opinions expressed in western corporate media.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=611753558943669&id=118863654899331