Israel: Clearly The Most Racist Country

badbrains

SkeeterB said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

the israeli government is the greatest barrier to peace in the entire middle east.

bibi alienated a bunch of countries this week at the un.

he is digging the graves or rational israeli citizens.

just sayin.

Disagree a bit on this one. Hamas is the greatest barrier. Before Hamas came in to power, the borders were a bit more open, including the border to Egypt. Bibi has clearly made mistakes along the way, but when in Hamas' charter it wants the destruction of Israel, not sure how you can make a point that they aren't the greatest barrier to peace in the middle east.

You mean the democratically elected Hamas? The one the Palestinians voted Into office and then had the US and Israel decide they didn't want to negotiate with? That Hamas?

benjs

badbrains said:

SkeeterB said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

the israeli government is the greatest barrier to peace in the entire middle east.

bibi alienated a bunch of countries this week at the un.

he is digging the graves or rational israeli citizens.

just sayin.

Disagree a bit on this one. Hamas is the greatest barrier. Before Hamas came in to power, the borders were a bit more open, including the border to Egypt. Bibi has clearly made mistakes along the way, but when in Hamas' charter it wants the destruction of Israel, not sure how you can make a point that they aren't the greatest barrier to peace in the middle east.

You mean the democratically elected Hamas? The one the Palestinians voted Into office and then had the US and Israel decide they didn't want to negotiate with? That Hamas?

To be honest, I have agreements and disagreements with what SkeeterB wrote.

The Hamas Charter, for example, is written in a very sensationalist way. Things that jump out at me as needing revision in order to agree with Khaled's Meshaal's statements that Palestinians are ready and willing to coexist with other religions:
-In Article Two, there are two Islamic concepts mentioned that would likely be seen as less than agreeable by Jews - "the spreading of Islam", and "conversion to Islam". I'm not in a position to say whether these notions are accurate to Islam, but I can say that psychologically, Jews do not recruit from outside of Judaism, and this would create a disconnect. If someone wants to convert to Judaism, they are welcome to, but most forms of Jewish missions take place from within Judaism (i.e. programs that try to strengthen bonds between a Jew and his or her culture, rather than attempting to explain Judaism to non-Jews).
-In Article Three, the reference to Jihad is certainly one which would be seen as contentious. It seems there is disagreement amongst the Muslim world in regards to what a Jihad really means, but I think it was you, Byrnzie or fuck who mentioned the fact that true Islam actually proposes that communicating with non-Muslims present opportunities to learn from people outside of the Islamic faith. My understanding of a Jihad is that it represents a resistance force to wrong-doing: I see nothing wrong with that concept, but perhaps it could be clarified within the Charter that the Hamas definition of Jihad does not involve indoctrination or suppression of free will as retribution to said wrong-doing. This would serve to assuage the Israeli security concerns.
-In Article Six, the Charter refers to an attempt to "raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned". I disagree with Muslim rule over the region just as I disagree with Jewish rule over the region, because both notions present a sense of superiority and don't represent true coexistence. I would expect the Israeli government would feel the same: calling for a return to secular rule independent of religion would seem to be the most equitable. It should be noted that this specifically addresses coexistence with other religions, for anyone who claims that the Charter refers to the abolishment of Jews (and not just Israel).
-Article Eight refers to the Qur'an as the future constitution of a Palestinian state. This could not do, for the same reason the Bible could not be viewed as the constitution of Israel.
-Article Eleven refers to the necessity of Islamic Sharia governing the land of Palestine which it justifies because it is considered an Islamic Waqf - again, this represents the notion of religious superiority and can not be allowed: and any presence of equivalent acts within Israel should be condemned.
-Article Twelve suggests a right to Muslim land with a tightly correlated nationalism and religious creed. Just as I question Israeli right to Jewish land based on biblical claim, Palestinian Muslims need to be held to the same standards and it is wrong to refer to the rightful attainment of it based on claim from the Qur'an.
-Article Thirteen is blatantly anti-peace, and calls for fighting for liberation. Since the definition of liberation is Muslim rule, this seems no more or less fair or equitable than Israeli Jews fighting for their perceived right to Jewish rule - which Hamas readily condemns.
-Article Fifteen specifically utters the words "It is necessary to instil in the minds of the Muslim generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem". This can not be the case when it comes to resolution. I condemn that notion when Jews say that it is an attack on Jews' rights to be Jews, and I feel the same way here. This problem needs to be viewed as a humanitarian problem first and foremost.
-Article Sixteen compares Zionism to Nazism. I'm not going to touch this one with a ten foot pole, but if you make a sensationalist remark for the sake of making a sensationalist remark, you are going to offend and instil anger - instead of reasonable response. This is a form of semantics that deviated from moderatism which could breed civility, instead opting for something known to be a sensitive topic which could breed sensitivity, anger, and a diminished credibility.
-Article Twenty-Two ventures into conspiracy theory territory, claiming Jews were responsible for WWI and WWII, the League of Nations and eventually the UN and the Security Council. A constitution must not allude to unproven notions, that's simply not fair.
-Condemning the PLO for its promotion of secularism is an attack on a secular future for the region. It is an unacceptable solution for Israel to allow Islamic superiority instead of Jewish superiority - neither party has this right. If changes happen, they must be changes which shift towards secularism.
-Article Thirty-Two states that "Leaving the circle of struggle with Zionism is high treason, and cursed be he who does that". This is thought control at its finest, with severe ramifications for civil disobedience. As always, I feel that undue or unethical indoctrination is worthy of condemnation.

These must be addressed by Hamas representatives. When you look for the trends, it all boils down to one concept which must be observed:
It is not acceptable to condemn Jewish rule while calling for Islamic rule. When there are conflicting opinions of who has claim to the land, it seems clear to me that secular rule is the only option for the one-state solution that Hamas proposes in its document. For a two-state solution, both Israel and Palestine would have to have absolutely 100% set in stone borders, and take a strongly anti-expansionist stance, as for a permanent solution, one party's liberties may not be infringed upon by another.

I put the onus on Khaled Meshaal and other senior Hamas operatives to address these issues, so that SkeeterB and many other Jews can stop saying "but they want to kill us" (which is a legitimate concern in light of witnessing evidence like the Hamas Charter - the closest thing to a constitution that the Palestinian regions seem to have at the moment).

What I will say is that the Hamas Charter was written in 1988 and Meshaal has stated that it is a "piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot changed for internal reasons". I find this to be bullshit, and think it ought to be revised. He is right, however, that it is largely irrelevant, if only for the reason that it was written in 1988, and that Netanyahu still leads the country's aggressive suppression of Palestinians and their liberties today - 26 years later.

SkeeterB

badbrains said:

SkeeterB said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

the israeli government is the greatest barrier to peace in the entire middle east.

bibi alienated a bunch of countries this week at the un.

he is digging the graves or rational israeli citizens.

just sayin.

Disagree a bit on this one. Hamas is the greatest barrier. Before Hamas came in to power, the borders were a bit more open, including the border to Egypt. Bibi has clearly made mistakes along the way, but when in Hamas' charter it wants the destruction of Israel, not sure how you can make a point that they aren't the greatest barrier to peace in the middle east.

You mean the democratically elected Hamas? The one the Palestinians voted Into office and then had the US and Israel decide they didn't want to negotiate with? That Hamas?

Very flawed argument. Hamas has been on the US terrorist list prior to 9/11. Even so, if Isis was 'democratically' elected into office as the lead party in Syria, would that mean the U.S. would want to negotiate with them? Please see both sides of the argument.

benjs

SkeeterB said:

badbrains said:

SkeeterB said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

the israeli government is the greatest barrier to peace in the entire middle east.

bibi alienated a bunch of countries this week at the un.

he is digging the graves or rational israeli citizens.

just sayin.

Disagree a bit on this one. Hamas is the greatest barrier. Before Hamas came in to power, the borders were a bit more open, including the border to Egypt. Bibi has clearly made mistakes along the way, but when in Hamas' charter it wants the destruction of Israel, not sure how you can make a point that they aren't the greatest barrier to peace in the middle east.

You mean the democratically elected Hamas? The one the Palestinians voted Into office and then had the US and Israel decide they didn't want to negotiate with? That Hamas?

Very flawed argument. Hamas has been on the US terrorist list prior to 9/11. Even so, if Isis was 'democratically' elected into office as the lead party in Syria, would that mean the U.S. would want to negotiate with them? Please see both sides of the argument.

SkeeterB, I'd say your argument is equally flawed. The US has an incredibly obvious interest in maintaining control in the Middle East (largely through its relationship with Israel). In addition, I don't know whose label I would trust when defining 'terrorist organizations', but I would certainly question the rights of a country who has dropped atomic bombs, who has dispelled Agent Orange in Vietnam leading to generations of deformities and health issues, and who on a regular basis, intervenes in global conflict without UN consent, and without just cause to facilitate instabilities to governments around the world (and rarely fixes them) when it helps them economically. Not to mention the American government's insistence that they stand by Israel at any cost: whenever you use the term 'at any cost', you are diplomatically stating that you just don't give a shit about negative humanitarian ramifications. Most terrorist organizations masquerade in noble actions, while acting in heavy-handed extremes, using terms like 'at any cost', with the end goal of their own gain while deluding the public to think otherwise: for these reasons, it seems to me that the US ought to be on the US's terrorist list.

badbrains

benjs said:

SkeeterB said:

badbrains said:

SkeeterB said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

the israeli government is the greatest barrier to peace in the entire middle east.

bibi alienated a bunch of countries this week at the un.

he is digging the graves or rational israeli citizens.

just sayin.

Disagree a bit on this one. Hamas is the greatest barrier. Before Hamas came in to power, the borders were a bit more open, including the border to Egypt. Bibi has clearly made mistakes along the way, but when in Hamas' charter it wants the destruction of Israel, not sure how you can make a point that they aren't the greatest barrier to peace in the middle east.

You mean the democratically elected Hamas? The one the Palestinians voted Into office and then had the US and Israel decide they didn't want to negotiate with? That Hamas?

Very flawed argument. Hamas has been on the US terrorist list prior to 9/11. Even so, if Isis was 'democratically' elected into office as the lead party in Syria, would that mean the U.S. would want to negotiate with them? Please see both sides of the argument.

SkeeterB, I'd say your argument is equally flawed. The US has an incredibly obvious interest in maintaining control in the Middle East (largely through its relationship with Israel). In addition, I don't know whose label I would trust when defining 'terrorist organizations', but I would certainly question the rights of a country who has dropped atomic bombs, who has dispelled Agent Orange in Vietnam leading to generations of deformities and health issues, and who on a regular basis, intervenes in global conflict without UN consent, and without just cause to facilitate instabilities to governments around the world (and rarely fixes them) when it helps them economically. Not to mention the American government's insistence that they stand by Israel at any cost: whenever you use the term 'at any cost', you are diplomatically stating that you just don't give a shit about negative humanitarian ramifications. Most terrorist organizations masquerade in noble actions, while acting in heavy-handed extremes, using terms like 'at any cost', with the end goal of their own gain while deluding the public to think otherwise: for these reasons, it seems to me that the US ought to be on the US's terrorist list.

Thank you ben

SkeeterB

benjs said:

SkeeterB, I'd say your argument is equally flawed. The US has an incredibly obvious interest in maintaining control in the Middle East (largely through its relationship with Israel). In addition, I don't know whose label I would trust when defining 'terrorist organizations', but I would certainly question the rights of a country who has dropped atomic bombs, who has dispelled Agent Orange in Vietnam leading to generations of deformities and health issues, and who on a regular basis, intervenes in global conflict without UN consent, and without just cause to facilitate instabilities to governments around the world (and rarely fixes them) when it helps them economically. Not to mention the American government's insistence that they stand by Israel at any cost: whenever you use the term 'at any cost', you are diplomatically stating that you just don't give a shit about negative humanitarian ramifications. Most terrorist organizations masquerade in noble actions, while acting in heavy-handed extremes, using terms like 'at any cost', with the end goal of their own gain while deluding the public to think otherwise: for these reasons, it seems to me that the US ought to be on the US's terrorist list.

I don't agree with all US foreign policies, as I don't agree with all of Israel's policies either. What I don't care for is the fact that people dislike the US, then, when they need the US, they say they aren't doing enough. You're seeing it in Syria right now.

That being said, to your last point, is the US hijacking planes, beheading innocent people, etc? I consider acts of terrorism those that the people have to hide their plans and purposefully go only after innocent civilians. The US clearly doesn't do that. They announce everything they're doing, whether it's right or wrong and normally, the intent is not to kill innocent civilians. That being said, the irony is that the US chastised Israel for not pinpointing their attacks, but I assure you that innocent civilians are getting killed in their current airstrikes against ISIS, so it does bug me that the US speaks out of both sides of their mouth. My guess is that we have different views of what a terrorist is, so no need to really go into that.

The issue on this message board is the fact that it seems like Israel can do no right and the Palestinians have done nothing wrong. I do appreciate that you pointed out flaws in the Hamas charter, but there are some here that feel that Palestinians have done absolutely nothing wrong. I don't read everything on here since believe it or not, as a huge Pearl Jam fan, my life doesn't revolve around this board anymore (it did when I worked in a boring corporate office). However, for some to just attack Israel and not take any blame on the Palestinians side is very narrow minded and it's very difficult to have any type of civil discussion with these certain people. It would be nice to see both sides. I've spoken to some and have gotten a better understanding of the Palestinian point of view. I feel that there are some who could care less what the Israeli point of view is.

yosi

badbrains said:

SkeeterB said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

the israeli government is the greatest barrier to peace in the entire middle east.

bibi alienated a bunch of countries this week at the un.

he is digging the graves or rational israeli citizens.

just sayin.

Disagree a bit on this one. Hamas is the greatest barrier. Before Hamas came in to power, the borders were a bit more open, including the border to Egypt. Bibi has clearly made mistakes along the way, but when in Hamas' charter it wants the destruction of Israel, not sure how you can make a point that they aren't the greatest barrier to peace in the middle east.

You mean the democratically elected Hamas? The one the Palestinians voted Into office and then had the US and Israel decide they didn't want to negotiate with? That Hamas?

I know I'm piling on somewhat at this point, but this "democratically elected Hamas" thing has become a knee jerk reaction from some corners and deserves to be addressed. It's just such an irrelevant argument. The Nazis were also democratically elected. Should the world have respected everything they did? Just cause they were elected doesn't mean that the rest of the world is obligated to deal with them.

blueandwhite

yosi said:

badbrains said:

SkeeterB said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

the israeli government is the greatest barrier to peace in the entire middle east.

bibi alienated a bunch of countries this week at the un.

he is digging the graves or rational israeli citizens.

just sayin.

Disagree a bit on this one. Hamas is the greatest barrier. Before Hamas came in to power, the borders were a bit more open, including the border to Egypt. Bibi has clearly made mistakes along the way, but when in Hamas' charter it wants the destruction of Israel, not sure how you can make a point that they aren't the greatest barrier to peace in the middle east.

You mean the democratically elected Hamas? The one the Palestinians voted Into office and then had the US and Israel decide they didn't want to negotiate with? That Hamas?

I know I'm piling on somewhat at this point, but this "democratically elected Hamas" thing has become a knee jerk reaction from some corners and deserves to be addressed. It's just such an irrelevant argument. The Nazis were also democratically elected. Should the world have respected everything they did? Just cause they were elected doesn't mean that the rest of the world is obligated to deal with them.

On the flip side, "Hamas the terrorist organization" is bandied about when justifying illegal settlements or heavy-handed military responses against a society which is clearly outgunned. It's never Israel's fault that thousands of women and children are killed in their attacks on Palestine. At the same time, Israel staunchly refuses to stop or condemn the settlements that continue to pop up in the West Bank. "Hamas the terrorist organization" has also become a knee jerk reaction from some to justify any assault on Palestine irrespective of any justification.

benjs

blueandwhite said:

yosi said:

badbrains said:

SkeeterB said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

the israeli government is the greatest barrier to peace in the entire middle east.

bibi alienated a bunch of countries this week at the un.

he is digging the graves or rational israeli citizens.

just sayin.

Disagree a bit on this one. Hamas is the greatest barrier. Before Hamas came in to power, the borders were a bit more open, including the border to Egypt. Bibi has clearly made mistakes along the way, but when in Hamas' charter it wants the destruction of Israel, not sure how you can make a point that they aren't the greatest barrier to peace in the middle east.

You mean the democratically elected Hamas? The one the Palestinians voted Into office and then had the US and Israel decide they didn't want to negotiate with? That Hamas?

I know I'm piling on somewhat at this point, but this "democratically elected Hamas" thing has become a knee jerk reaction from some corners and deserves to be addressed. It's just such an irrelevant argument. The Nazis were also democratically elected. Should the world have respected everything they did? Just cause they were elected doesn't mean that the rest of the world is obligated to deal with them.

On the flip side, "Hamas the terrorist organization" is bandied about when justifying illegal settlements or heavy-handed military responses against a society which is clearly outgunned. It's never Israel's fault that thousands of women and children are killed in their attacks on Palestine. At the same time, Israel staunchly refuses to stop or condemn the settlements that continue to pop up in the West Bank. "Hamas the terrorist organization" has also become a knee jerk reaction from some to justify any assault on Palestine irrespective of any justification.

And at the end - why can't we just call them Hamas? I wouldn't refer to Israel as the "Holy Land" or the "only truly democratic society in the Middle East", nor the "lunatic, racist state" that many refer to it as. I would simply call it Israel. I wouldn't call Hamas a "terrorist organization" nor "the democratically elected Hamas" - just Hamas. Let an entity's actions dictate how we feel about it: any labelling is just a form of attempted indoctrination.

benjs

SkeeterB said:

benjs said:

SkeeterB, I'd say your argument is equally flawed. The US has an incredibly obvious interest in maintaining control in the Middle East (largely through its relationship with Israel). In addition, I don't know whose label I would trust when defining 'terrorist organizations', but I would certainly question the rights of a country who has dropped atomic bombs, who has dispelled Agent Orange in Vietnam leading to generations of deformities and health issues, and who on a regular basis, intervenes in global conflict without UN consent, and without just cause to facilitate instabilities to governments around the world (and rarely fixes them) when it helps them economically. Not to mention the American government's insistence that they stand by Israel at any cost: whenever you use the term 'at any cost', you are diplomatically stating that you just don't give a shit about negative humanitarian ramifications. Most terrorist organizations masquerade in noble actions, while acting in heavy-handed extremes, using terms like 'at any cost', with the end goal of their own gain while deluding the public to think otherwise: for these reasons, it seems to me that the US ought to be on the US's terrorist list.

I don't agree with all US foreign policies, as I don't agree with all of Israel's policies either. What I don't care for is the fact that people dislike the US, then, when they need the US, they say they aren't doing enough. You're seeing it in Syria right now.

That being said, to your last point, is the US hijacking planes, beheading innocent people, etc? I consider acts of terrorism those that the people have to hide their plans and purposefully go only after innocent civilians. The US clearly doesn't do that. They announce everything they're doing, whether it's right or wrong and normally, the intent is not to kill innocent civilians. That being said, the irony is that the US chastised Israel for not pinpointing their attacks, but I assure you that innocent civilians are getting killed in their current airstrikes against ISIS, so it does bug me that the US speaks out of both sides of their mouth. My guess is that we have different views of what a terrorist is, so no need to really go into that.

The issue on this message board is the fact that it seems like Israel can do no right and the Palestinians have done nothing wrong. I do appreciate that you pointed out flaws in the Hamas charter, but there are some here that feel that Palestinians have done absolutely nothing wrong. I don't read everything on here since believe it or not, as a huge Pearl Jam fan, my life doesn't revolve around this board anymore (it did when I worked in a boring corporate office). However, for some to just attack Israel and not take any blame on the Palestinians side is very narrow minded and it's very difficult to have any type of civil discussion with these certain people. It would be nice to see both sides. I've spoken to some and have gotten a better understanding of the Palestinian point of view. I feel that there are some who could care less what the Israeli point of view is.

Syria has its hands tied, and I would venture to guess that their request for assistance is out of nothing but the most dire of necessity, and an existential crisis within its political boundaries. The responsible thing to do, in my opinion, would be for the US to deny that request for assistance initially, and suggest that this is a topic for the UN to decide. Your military's strength does not dictate the necessity for hasty and thoughtless intervention.

And no, the US aren't hijacking planes or beheading innocent people. But how can you honestly say that dropping of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the dissemination of spray dioxin in Vietnam, even consider the weight of their actions in regards to loss of innocent life? That to me is unequivocally terrorism. In fact, it's terrorism done in such a cowardice way so as to prevent any feelings of guilt or remorse: from that distance, you don't see the faces of the men, women, children, babies, that you've melted, maimed, and deformed.

As for your last paragraph, I actually agree with you about your later sentences. I know I can get preachy on this topic, but universal empathy must be practiced in order for any tangible change to occur. Empathize with all parties involved in a conflict, learn about why they feel and act the way they do, and then encourage those involved to do the same thing. Sometimes I forget how few Israeli perspectives are around here, and that's largely because back in the real world, I'm very much living within a Jewish community which is notoriously pushy when presenting Israeli opinion pieces.

Drowned Out

Why the inferences that Syria requested help from the US against the IS? I keep hearing this, but it isn't true...Unless something has changed since I last had this discussion...
The statement issued by the Syrian govt was that they were willing to cooperate with other countries "as long as the cooperation is approached in a serious manner, without double standards, and does not weaken Syria"...“Being serious in combating terrorism isn’t achieved by transgressing against others’ sovereignty. It is a achieved through serious political work to dry up its sources and cooperating with the Syrian government, because we know better than anyone else what is happening on our land.” They know full well the US is directly involved in the civil war there, trying to overthrow them...and judging by this comment, they know that US intervention against the IS is a foot in the door for the US to attempt imposition of a no-fly zone and go all Libya on them. The inference that they requested help gives credence to the bullshit humanitarian mission angle the west is hyping in Syria.

For a thread attempting to show that Israel is not a monolithic society with supremacist views, throwing this in there is a bit ironic:
"For those who need a reminder not to blindly accept the received wisdom on this forum". Because people have gravitated to the Palestinian side after reviewing years of posts and information on this board, information you have countered as eloquently as any supporter of the occupation I've seen - we are blind? Also (skeeter) : not sure who in this forum thinks the Palestinians have done nothing wrong. Stop trying to portray Israel's critics as unreasonable or extremist. How condescending and belittling these comments are! I thought that was supposed to be Byrnzie's thing?
Anyway, welcome back yosi. July/august was a helluva time for the board's most strident Zionist/Israeli nationalist to take a break from the forum.

SkeeterB

benjs said:

Syria has its hands tied, and I would venture to guess that their request for assistance is out of nothing but the most dire of necessity, and an existential crisis within its political boundaries. The responsible thing to do, in my opinion, would be for the US to deny that request for assistance initially, and suggest that this is a topic for the UN to decide. Your military's strength does not dictate the necessity for hasty and thoughtless intervention.

And no, the US aren't hijacking planes or beheading innocent people. But how can you honestly say that dropping of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the dissemination of spray dioxin in Vietnam, even consider the weight of their actions in regards to loss of innocent life? That to me is unequivocally terrorism. In fact, it's terrorism done in such a cowardice way so as to prevent any feelings of guilt or remorse: from that distance, you don't see the faces of the men, women, children, babies, that you've melted, maimed, and deformed.

As for your last paragraph, I actually agree with you about your later sentences. I know I can get preachy on this topic, but universal empathy must be practiced in order for any tangible change to occur. Empathize with all parties involved in a conflict, learn about why they feel and act the way they do, and then encourage those involved to do the same thing. Sometimes I forget how few Israeli perspectives are around here, and that's largely because back in the real world, I'm very much living within a Jewish community which is notoriously pushy when presenting Israeli opinion pieces.

Actually, I was referring to the Syrian people, not the government. Anyway, although I wasn't alive when it happened, but I am a big proponent of the Monroe Doctrine. Unfortunately, World War 1 screwed that up despite the US being extremely reluctant to go to war. Since then, the shit hit the fan with the US being involved with everyone's affairs, especially after World War 2.

In regard to the atomic bombs, the US gave very fair warning to Japan about the atomic bomb. The Japanese did not believe the US had an atomic bomb. What the US didn't know was how much devastation it would cause. They knew it was going to be bad, but not as bad as what occurred. The US told the Japanese they had a second bomb and told them to unconditionally surrender or else. Again, the Japanese did not believe the US and refused to surrender unconditionally. The US dropped the second bomb. The Japanese finally surrendered, conditionally of course. The bottom line is that I define terrorists as those who conceal their plans to do harm to the civilians. In this case, the Japanese knew what was coming and ignored the warning. I do agree that those in power could give two shits about the repercussions of humanity. In regard to Vietnam and Agent Orange, well, as we all know, the US should never have gone there in the first place. Agent Orange was completely wrong but the US was clueless as it was the first time they were ever losing a war. So, they went to some awful tactics.

SkeeterB

Drowned Out said:

Why the inferences that Syria requested help from the US against the IS? I keep hearing this, but it isn't true...Unless something has changed since I last had this discussion...
The statement issued by the Syrian govt was that they were willing to cooperate with other countries "as long as the cooperation is approached in a serious manner, without double standards, and does not weaken Syria"...“Being serious in combating terrorism isn’t achieved by transgressing against others’ sovereignty. It is a achieved through serious political work to dry up its sources and cooperating with the Syrian government, because we know better than anyone else what is happening on our land.” They know full well the US is directly involved in the civil war there, trying to overthrow them...and judging by this comment, they know that US intervention against the IS is a foot in the door for the US to attempt imposition of a no-fly zone and go all Libya on them. The inference that they requested help gives credence to the bullshit humanitarian mission angle the west is hyping in Syria.

Also (skeeter) : not sure who in this forum thinks the Palestinians have done nothing wrong. Stop trying to portray Israel's critics as unreasonable or extremist. How condescending and belittling these comments are! I thought that was supposed to be Byrnzie's thing?

I guess that someone is no longer here, but he was one of them and it seemed he was very biased and did not allow for a civil discussion. I wasn't involved in every discussion nor read every post, so if he was inclusive of both sides, then sorry.

I never said anything about Israel's critics as unreasonable or extremist. I just am asking for people to look at both sides. If that's belittling to you, I apologize.

Drowned Out

SkeeterB said:

Drowned Out said:

Why the inferences that Syria requested help from the US against the IS? I keep hearing this, but it isn't true...Unless something has changed since I last had this discussion...
The statement issued by the Syrian govt was that they were willing to cooperate with other countries "as long as the cooperation is approached in a serious manner, without double standards, and does not weaken Syria"...“Being serious in combating terrorism isn’t achieved by transgressing against others’ sovereignty. It is a achieved through serious political work to dry up its sources and cooperating with the Syrian government, because we know better than anyone else what is happening on our land.” They know full well the US is directly involved in the civil war there, trying to overthrow them...and judging by this comment, they know that US intervention against the IS is a foot in the door for the US to attempt imposition of a no-fly zone and go all Libya on them. The inference that they requested help gives credence to the bullshit humanitarian mission angle the west is hyping in Syria.

Also (skeeter) : not sure who in this forum thinks the Palestinians have done nothing wrong. Stop trying to portray Israel's critics as unreasonable or extremist. How condescending and belittling these comments are! I thought that was supposed to be Byrnzie's thing?

I guess that someone is no longer here, but he was one of them and it seemed he was very biased and did not allow for a civil discussion. I wasn't involved in every discussion nor read every post, so if he was inclusive of both sides, then sorry.

I never said anything about Israel's critics as unreasonable or extremist. I just am asking for people to look at both sides. If that's belittling to you, I apologize.

No need to apologize, I didn't feel belittled....was just making the point that it was fairly common from all sides on any heated topic, this one in particular...that was the criticism often levelled at Byrnzie. But for the most part there are only 5 maybe 7-8 tops, regular contributors on this board who like to give the palestinian side, so critizing 'some' of us sounds like a generalization of our overall views as a collective....if that makes any sense.

benjs

yosi said:

Here's the story about Jerusalem if you want to read it (too long to post the text):
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-jerusalem-approach-20140912

Yosi,

Thanks so much for sharing this. I'll admit I didn't read it in as much detail as I plan on during non-working hours, but there were some very interesting insights in here. My favourite lines: "Isolation is intellectually impoverishing. It is better to be confused daily by speaking with people who see the world differently."

It reminds me of the critical distinction people have come to accept when referring to the city of Toronto: it's not a melting pot, it's a salad bowl - pockets of individuals who maintain their integrity and do not assimilate and share cultures with each other - they remain discrete entities. It was so mind-blowing to me, in Malaysia, to see the way the different cultural and religious identities truly mingled. I found it to be incredibly beautiful and inspiring. Even in as multi-cultural of a city as Toronto, I don't get the sense of that being the case here - we don't inspire or borrow or learn from each other, we just live in our respective communities.

So now that we've talked about the necessity of understanding each others' cultures and religious backgrounds within Israel and the Palestinian regions, what's the next actionable step? We've recognized a necessity for empathetic training. So who does the responsibility fall upon to implement programs like this in either of Israel or the Palestinian regions? This is an open question for anyone who has suggestions, but Yosi, I'd love to hear your response to this in particular, since you are immersed within the societies that we outside of Israel and the Palestinian regions can only make suppositions about.

yosi

Drowned Out said:

Anyway, welcome back yosi. July/august was a helluva time for the board's most strident Zionist/Israeli nationalist to take a break from the forum.

You can thank the bar exam for my absence in July. August I just didn't have the energy to argue in circles. Plus, I realized that I'm no longer interested in doing so. And I'm not sure how I feel about being described as "strident." Somehow I feel like that makes me out to be a Likudnik when that couldn't be further from the truth. I'd describe myself as an ardent liberal-Zionist, though I suppose that for some people anyone espousing a Zionist position is strident.

Idris

SkeeterB said:

benjs said:

Syria has its hands tied, and I would venture to guess that their request for assistance is out of nothing but the most dire of necessity, and an existential crisis within its political boundaries. The responsible thing to do, in my opinion, would be for the US to deny that request for assistance initially, and suggest that this is a topic for the UN to decide. Your military's strength does not dictate the necessity for hasty and thoughtless intervention.

And no, the US aren't hijacking planes or beheading innocent people. But how can you honestly say that dropping of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the dissemination of spray dioxin in Vietnam, even consider the weight of their actions in regards to loss of innocent life? That to me is unequivocally terrorism. In fact, it's terrorism done in such a cowardice way so as to prevent any feelings of guilt or remorse: from that distance, you don't see the faces of the men, women, children, babies, that you've melted, maimed, and deformed.

As for your last paragraph, I actually agree with you about your later sentences. I know I can get preachy on this topic, but universal empathy must be practiced in order for any tangible change to occur. Empathize with all parties involved in a conflict, learn about why they feel and act the way they do, and then encourage those involved to do the same thing. Sometimes I forget how few Israeli perspectives are around here, and that's largely because back in the real world, I'm very much living within a Jewish community which is notoriously pushy when presenting Israeli opinion pieces.

That being said, to your last point, is the US hijacking planes, beheading innocent people, etc? I consider acts of terrorism those that the people have to hide their plans and purposefully go only after innocent civilians. The US clearly doesn't do that. They announce everything they're doing, whether it's right or wrong and normally, the intent is not to kill innocent civilians.

In regard to the atomic bombs, the US gave very fair warning to Japan about the atomic bomb. The Japanese did not believe the US had an atomic bomb. What the US didn't know was how much devastation it would cause. They knew it was going to be bad, but not as bad as what occurred. The US told the Japanese they had a second bomb and told them to unconditionally surrender or else. Again, the Japanese did not believe the US and refused to surrender unconditionally. The US dropped the second bomb. The Japanese finally surrendered, conditionally of course. The bottom line is that I define terrorists as those who conceal their plans to do harm to the civilians. In this case, the Japanese knew what was coming and ignored the warning. I do agree that those in power could give two shits about the repercussions of humanity. In regard to Vietnam and Agent Orange, well, as we all know, the US should never have gone there in the first place. Agent Orange was completely wrong but the US was clueless as it was the first time they were ever losing a war. So, they went to some awful tactics.

You say,They (U.S) announce everything they're doing, ...Sorry, That is just incorrect.

But so what if the U.S. does announce it's plans? It may make you/us sleep better at night, knowing/thinking that because we announced our plans to destroy an entire village, it's 'alright' because we so generously announced it before hand.

So then, what If ISIS started to give 'advanced' warnings (which they kinda do), then what, they are not terrorists anymore?

The U.S. drops a 5-ton bomb on towns, villages, markets...Knowing full well innocent people will die, and that is not terrorism? 'Shock' and 'awe' (Iraq 2003)...Terrorism? No(according to your logic) , cause they announced it before.

and Agent Orange was not the first (or last) time the U.S. dropped chemicals over people.

The U.S. dropping Depleted Uranium over Iraq causing a sharp rise in Cancer/birth defects...For a 1000 YEARS...babies (Generation after generation) will be born with horrific mutations, due to our dropping of chemicals on the population.

and whats this, the Japanese did not believe the U.S. had a second bomb?

badbrains

Idris said:

SkeeterB said:

benjs said:

Syria has its hands tied, and I would venture to guess that their request for assistance is out of nothing but the most dire of necessity, and an existential crisis within its political boundaries. The responsible thing to do, in my opinion, would be for the US to deny that request for assistance initially, and suggest that this is a topic for the UN to decide. Your military's strength does not dictate the necessity for hasty and thoughtless intervention.

And no, the US aren't hijacking planes or beheading innocent people. But how can you honestly say that dropping of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the dissemination of spray dioxin in Vietnam, even consider the weight of their actions in regards to loss of innocent life? That to me is unequivocally terrorism. In fact, it's terrorism done in such a cowardice way so as to prevent any feelings of guilt or remorse: from that distance, you don't see the faces of the men, women, children, babies, that you've melted, maimed, and deformed.

As for your last paragraph, I actually agree with you about your later sentences. I know I can get preachy on this topic, but universal empathy must be practiced in order for any tangible change to occur. Empathize with all parties involved in a conflict, learn about why they feel and act the way they do, and then encourage those involved to do the same thing. Sometimes I forget how few Israeli perspectives are around here, and that's largely because back in the real world, I'm very much living within a Jewish community which is notoriously pushy when presenting Israeli opinion pieces.

That being said, to your last point, is the US hijacking planes, beheading innocent people, etc? I consider acts of terrorism those that the people have to hide their plans and purposefully go only after innocent civilians. The US clearly doesn't do that. They announce everything they're doing, whether it's right or wrong and normally, the intent is not to kill innocent civilians.

In regard to the atomic bombs, the US gave very fair warning to Japan about the atomic bomb. The Japanese did not believe the US had an atomic bomb. What the US didn't know was how much devastation it would cause. They knew it was going to be bad, but not as bad as what occurred. The US told the Japanese they had a second bomb and told them to unconditionally surrender or else. Again, the Japanese did not believe the US and refused to surrender unconditionally. The US dropped the second bomb. The Japanese finally surrendered, conditionally of course. The bottom line is that I define terrorists as those who conceal their plans to do harm to the civilians. In this case, the Japanese knew what was coming and ignored the warning. I do agree that those in power could give two shits about the repercussions of humanity. In regard to Vietnam and Agent Orange, well, as we all know, the US should never have gone there in the first place. Agent Orange was completely wrong but the US was clueless as it was the first time they were ever losing a war. So, they went to some awful tactics.

You say,They (U.S) announce everything they're doing, ...Sorry, That is just incorrect.

But so what if the U.S. does announce it's plans? It may make you/us sleep better at night, knowing/thinking that because we announced our plans to destroy an entire village, it's 'alright' because we so generously announced it before hand.

So then, what If ISIS started to give 'advanced' warnings (which they kinda do), then what, they are not terrorists anymore?

The U.S. drops a 5-ton bomb on towns, villages, markets...Knowing full well innocent people will die, and that is not terrorism? 'Shock' and 'awe' (Iraq 2003)...Terrorism? No(according to your logic) , cause they announced it before.

and Agent Orange was not the first (or last) time the U.S. dropped chemicals over people.

The U.S. dropping Depleted Uranium over Iraq causing a sharp rise in Cancer/birth defects...For a 1000 YEARS...babies (Generation after generation) will be born with horrific mutations, due to our dropping of chemicals on the population.

and whats this, the Japanese did not believe the U.S. had a second bomb?

You know, this just makes too much sense.