Everyone needs to watch this video

soulsinging

Commy wrote:

ideally both sides agree to it, but the aggressor should be the first to call off hostilities.

By its very definition, the fact that the aggressor began its aggression in the first place is a pretty good indication that it doesn't much care to call of hostilities. If it was so inclined, it would never have begun hostilities in the first place.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

but just a few posts ago, you said any settlers living on occupied land are valid targets. children live there too. but I guess if they get hit with some homemade rockets, thats life.

although it does make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside that you wouldnt specifically target children. even though you call them "valid targets"

They're living on stolen land. If they don't like the sporadic bottle rocket attacks then they can simply fuck off back to America.

I regard the 'children' in the video clip I posted as valid targets. As far as I'm concerned, any Israeli settler who verbally abuses, spits at, throws stones and rocks, beats, or murders a Palestinian is a valid target.

That's just my opinion.


Edit: I'll add this qualification - again, this is just my opinion, as I don't speak for anyone but myself; any settler who is too young to know any better - babies e.t.c, - and also those settlers who do not engage in open aggression and hostility to their neighbours (perhaps some of these people were coerced into moving onto stolen land by the benefits offered by the Israeli government) these people do not quailify as legitimate targets in my opinion. As for those tens of thousands of settlers who are there by dint of the Zionist ethnic cleansing campaign, and who routinely engage in terrorising their Arab neighbours; as far as I'm concerned they deserve everything they get.

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

Sorry, but one attack with 6 dead isn't going to catch America's eye. It would take time, and a consistent demonstration of Israel's brutality. Otherwise, it's like an alcoholic wanting a gold star for keeping clean a month and then falling off the wagon at the first sign of trouble. American sentiment won't change overnight.

So 60 years of Israeli brutality isn't enough?

It would seem not. And for 60 of those years, Americans didn't get the kind of news exposure we do now. We were distracted by vietnam, Iran Contra, Latin America, etc. Palestine was not a priority. In addition, for many of those 60 years, the violence was mutual, a confused mess of Islam and Judaism that Americans didn't understand. There was also the guilt over the holocaust and the blind eye many Christian groups turned to it. There were a lot of factors working against real in depth coverage of the plight Palestine for a very long time. I would say that it's only in the last 20 years at best that Americans have started to get the REAL picture of what's going on there... and even then, there's been enough terrorism to make the Palestinians LOOK as culpable as Israel, even if they weren't. The tide is turning on Israel. But every time Hamas shoots of a rocket that kills a civilian, it sets their cause back a bit... American are simply too paranoid about Islamic terrorism. Yes, Israel does far worse, far more regularly. Nobody said It was fair, but there you have it.

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

Edit: I'll add this qualification - again, this is just my opinion, as I don't speak for anyone but myself; any settler who is too young to know any better - babies e.t.c, - and also those settlers who do not engage in open aggression and hostility to their neighbours (perhaps some of these people were coerced into moving onto stolen land by the benefits offered by the Israeli government) these people do not quailify as legitimate targets in my opinion. As for those tens of thousands of settlers who are there by dint of the Zionist ethnic cleansing campaign, and who routinely engage in terrorising their Arab neighbours; as far as I'm concerned they deserve everything they get.

You gotta be fucking kidding me. This is exactly what we've been saying for 15 pages and you've been telling us is proof that we support Israeli genocide.

Byrnzie

soulsinging wrote:

By its very definition, the fact that the aggressor began its aggression in the first place is a pretty good indication that it doesn't much care to call of hostilities. If it was so inclined, it would never have begun hostilities in the first place.

Exactly, it's called Zionism.

"We must expel the Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

"The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country."
-- Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.

"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.


http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4176.shtml
'...One who supports an ideology of racism and militarist expansionism cannot ignore the suffering that results. Despite the protestations of the Zionist left that Zionism should be taken back to its pure, just roots, Zionism is a captive of its own tragic flaws. There is no such thing as a "just Zionism," just as there is no such thing as a "just white supremacism" or "just colonialism." A system that enshrines bigotry, that establishes one people as the chosen people of a state, whatever the putative justifications, cannot but discriminate and oppress.

Michael Neumann:
'The Zionists and their camp followers did not come simply to "find a homeland," certainly not in the sense that Flanders is the homeland of the Flemish, or Lappland of the Lapps. They did not come simply to "make a life in Palestine." They did not come to "redeem a people". All this could have been done elsewhere, as was pointed out at the time, and much of it was being done elsewhere by individual Jewish immigrants to America and other countries. The Zionists, and therefore all who settled under their auspices, came to found a sovereign Jewish state.'


'Zionism was from the start an ill-considered and menacing experiment in ethnic nationalism. Neither history nor religion could justify it. The Jews had no claim to Palestine and no right to build a state there. Their growing need for refuge may have provided some limited, inadequate, short-term moral sustenance for the Zionist project, but it could not render that project legitimate. The mere fact of later suffering cannot retroactively convert a wrong into a right: my attempt to usurp your land does not become legitimate simply because I am wrongly beaten by someone else, far away, when my project is near completion. Nor did the well founded desperation of the Jews during the Nazi era provide any justification for Zionism; at most it provided an excuse. If someone is murdering my family in Germany, that does not entitle me to your house in Boston, or my "people" to your country. All Jews fleeing Hitler were indeed entitled to some refuge. One might even suppose that it was the obligation of the whole world, including the Palestinians, to do what they could to provide such refuge. But this is not the whole story.
For one thing, those with ample means to provide refuge, and those who are responsible for the need, have by far the greater share of responsibility. The Palestinians fell into neither category. Even more important, there is an enormous difference between providing refuge and providing a sovereign state. No amount of danger or suffering requires this, and indeed it may conflict with the demand for refuge. Simply to control one's own affairs isn't always the safest alternative. Arguably, for instance, the Jews were safer in the United States, where they are not sovereign, than they ever were in Israel. This is not only a fact but was always a reasonable expectation, so the need for refuge is also no basis for Zionism...

If there are any great lessons to be learned from the Nazi era , they are to watch out for fascism, racism, and ethnic nationalism. Supporting Israel hardly embodies these lessons.'

Byrnzie

soulsinging wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Edit: I'll add this qualification - again, this is just my opinion, as I don't speak for anyone but myself; any settler who is too young to know any better - babies e.t.c, - and also those settlers who do not engage in open aggression and hostility to their neighbours (perhaps some of these people were coerced into moving onto stolen land by the benefits offered by the Israeli government) these people do not quailify as legitimate targets in my opinion. As for those tens of thousands of settlers who are there by dint of the Zionist ethnic cleansing campaign, and who routinely engage in terrorising their Arab neighbours; as far as I'm concerned they deserve everything they get.

You gotta be fucking kidding me. This is exactly what we've been saying for 15 pages and you've been telling us is proof that we support Israeli genocide.

That's not what you've been saying at all. You've been saying that Israeli civilians - including settlers - don't qualify as legitimate targets.

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Edit: I'll add this qualification - again, this is just my opinion, as I don't speak for anyone but myself; any settler who is too young to know any better - babies e.t.c, - and also those settlers who do not engage in open aggression and hostility to their neighbours (perhaps some of these people were coerced into moving onto stolen land by the benefits offered by the Israeli government) these people do not quailify as legitimate targets in my opinion. As for those tens of thousands of settlers who are there by dint of the Zionist ethnic cleansing campaign, and who routinely engage in terrorising their Arab neighbours; as far as I'm concerned they deserve everything they get.

You gotta be fucking kidding me. This is exactly what we've been saying for 15 pages and you've been telling us is proof that we support Israeli genocide.

That's not what you've been saying at all. You've been saying that Israeli civilians - including settlers - don't qualify as legitimate targets.

How is that different from:
"any settler who is too young to know any better - babies e.t.c, - and also those settlers who do not engage in open aggression and hostility to their neighbours"
?

Byrnzie

soulsinging wrote:

How is that different from:
"any settler who is too young to know any better - babies e.t.c, - and also those settlers who do not engage in open aggression and hostility to their neighbours"
?

So you're saying that all settlers are either too young to know any better or don't engage in open aggression and hostility to their neighbours?

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

How is that different from:
"any settler who is too young to know any better - babies e.t.c, - and also those settlers who do not engage in open aggression and hostility to their neighbours"
?

So you're saying that all settlers are either too young to know any better or don't engage in open aggression and hostility to their neighbours?

No, I'm saying that from the beginning we were saying exactly what you just said, that innocent (ie. those that don't engage in open aggression and hostility) civilians should not be targeted.

Byrnzie

soulsinging wrote:

No, I'm saying that from the beginning we were saying exactly what you just said, that innocent (ie. those that don't engage in open aggression and hostility) civilians should not be targeted.

Actually, that's not what was said. You and Jlew both said that 'unarmed civilians' shouldn't be targeted. You didn't say those not engaged in open hostility and aggression. You see, there are settlers who verbally abuse Palestinians on a daily basis, who spit at them, and beat them with their fists. These settlers are unarmed. Are they therefore not legitimate targets for attack?

Also, there are those who use stones, rocks, and/or baseball bats. Do these qualify as 'unarmed'?

Commy

soulsinging wrote:

Commy wrote:

ideally both sides agree to it, but the aggressor should be the first to call off hostilities.

By its very definition, the fact that the aggressor began its aggression in the first place is a pretty good indication that it doesn't much care to call of hostilities. If it was so inclined, it would never have begun hostilities in the first place.

that's exactly why we have international law and the UN.


Or are you saying let it go? or are you saying the palestinians should lay down their arms? and continue to be barricaded and bombed and kept in a police state/concentration camp?





your asking the guy getting robbed to trust the guy robbing him, that if he puts down his weapons the guy hitting him with a baseball bat just might stop.


in the middle east, that's putting a lot of faith in your worst enemy. not gonna happen.

NoK

I don't understand how someone could think if the Palestinians stop all attacks it might help their cause. The major flaw in this is that you are viewing the israelis as a defensive nation when in reality they are an absurdly offensive terrorist nation. The israelis throughout this century have endlessly shown they want to take over Gaza, the West bank, Lebanon and even parts of Syrian. Contrary to popular belief they started the 1948 war and the 1967 war to grab more land.

You forget that the israelis had total control over Gaza a few years back and only pulled out of it because it was becoming too costly to sustain protection in those areas. The only reason they couldn't sustain the total domination of Gaza was because of those random Palestinian attacks against the israeli military and the extremist settlers of gaza.

So what do you think will happen if the Palestinians stop all attacks and tell the israelis we have no more weapons.. seriously what do you think will happen?

jlew24asu

NoK wrote:

I don't understand how someone could think if the Palestinians stop all attacks it might help their cause.

that would be me. and I must be INSANE to call for an end to violence. what ever was I thinking? second of all, it would help their cause. for one, Israel wouldn't have a reason to smack the fuck out of them.

but according to you, Palestinians should continue (rocket) attacks on Israel. please tell me, how do those benefit the Palestinian cause?

NoK wrote:

The major flaw in this is that you are viewing the israelis as a defensive nation when in reality they are an absurdly offensive terrorist nation. The israelis throughout this century have endlessly shown they want to take over Gaza, the West bank, Lebanon and even parts of Syrian. Contrary to popular belief they started the 1948 war and the 1967 war to grab more land.

You forget that the israelis had total control over Gaza a few years back and only pulled out of it because it was becoming too costly to sustain protection in those areas. The only reason they couldn't sustain the total domination of Gaza was because of those random Palestinian attacks against the israeli military and the extremist settlers of gaza.

So what do you think will happen if the Palestinians stop all attacks and tell the israelis we have no more weapons.. seriously what do you think will happen?

(if Hamas publicly announced they would stop attacks and renounce violence)

I think Israel would lift the blockade on Gaza, provide aid, and discuss giving back occupied land with pressure from the Obama administration and Congress.

I think Israel would run out of excuses to use airstrikes and military incursions.

Austicman

The Israelis compain all the time about Hamas occupying schools and hospitals and use that as an excuse to obliterate the building and anyone in it, women and children included. So whats so different about Israeli non combatants in the occupied territories being targeted. If an innocent child has been put in that position by his or her parents that is their fault. If the situation was reversed the Israeli's would be saying that they are using the non combatants as as human shields and that it would not stop them from completing their mission.

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

Or are you saying let it go? or are you saying the palestinians should lay down their arms?

if you stop this ^^^

Commy wrote:

and continue to be barricaded and bombed and kept in a police state/concentration camp?

this will not continue.


its at least worth a try. homemade rockets, which is basically their only form of armed resistance, DOES NOT WORK.

Commy wrote:

your asking the guy getting robbed to trust the guy robbing him, that if he puts down his weapons the guy hitting him with a baseball bat just might stop./quote]

PLEASE no more ridiculous analogies. Israel, the guy with the baseball bat, has specifically said, these problems would end if Hamas lays down its arms.

Commy wrote:

in the middle east, that's putting a lot of faith in your worst enemy. not gonna happen.

sign, ok fine. I give p. continue supporting the firing of worthless rockets. and watch Israel continue to fuck them up in the name of defense. I promise you, as long as the Palastinians continue to do that, America will turn a blind eye to Israel's atrocities in the name of defense.

jlew24asu

Austicman wrote:

The Israelis compain all the time about Hamas occupying schools and hospitals and use that as an excuse to obliterate the building and anyone in it, women and children included. So whats so different about Israeli non combatants in the occupied territories being targeted. If an innocent child has been put in that position by his or her parents that is their fault. If the situation was reversed the Israeli's would be saying that they are using the non combatants as as human shields and that it would not stop them from completing their mission.

Israel is just as wrong as Hamas when they bomb those targets.

NoK

jlew24asu wrote:

that would be me. and I must be INSANE to call for an end to violence. what ever was I thinking? second of all, it would help their cause. for one, Israel wouldn't have a reason to smack the fuck out of them.

but according to you, Palestinians should continue (rocket) attacks on Israel. please tell me, how do those benefit the Palestinian cause?

(if Hamas publicly announced they would stop attacks and renounce violence)

I think Israel would lift the blockade on Gaza, provide aid, and discuss giving back occupied land with pressure from the Obama administration and Congress.

I think Israel would run out of excuses to use airstrikes and military incursions.

You keep accusing Byrnzie of misquoting you when every post you have quoted me on you have misquoted me to further your argument. Did you even read my post? Where did I say this "Palestinians should continue (rocket) attacks on Israel"? I said the attacks WORKED.

I just told you the israelis DID NOT NEED A REASON to start wars or to grab more land.. and even then the world supported them. That was back in the days when Hamas did not even exist. Just a few years back they had internal and external "control" over Gaza with checkpoints and troops riddled everywhere in Gaza. The only thing that drove them out was the fact that they could not sustain the occupation BECAUSE OF THE PALESTINIAN ATTACKS. Yes the attacks worked. Just like the attacks by Hizbullah in Lebanese territory worked to drive the idf out of southern Lebanon in 2000. The Palestinians tried the peaceful route in the 70's and what did it get them? Assassinations.. but you probably call that "history" now.

You also talk about how israel will open the borders if Palestinians halt attacks. Well guess what.. Hamas tried that already and the israelis refused to open up the borders and eventually broke the ceasefire. Even to this day there are airstrikes on Gaza that go unreported and Hamas isn't even sending rockets out. So your whole argument is pointless.

Do you want to know why Byrnzie tells you your argument is pro-Israeli. It is because you keep saying "oh they should both stop any violence for there to be peace". If both sides were losing then your argument would be the best way out but in this case one side is gaining excessively and the other is losing excessively. Your argument may work well in most cases but not in the case of a zionist movement that has ethnic cleansing as one of its goals.

You failed to answer the question I posed so I'll answer it for you. What would it get the Palestinians if they halted attacks and told they israelis we have given up all our weapons? It'll get them the terrorist state of GREATER israel.

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

No, I'm saying that from the beginning we were saying exactly what you just said, that innocent (ie. those that don't engage in open aggression and hostility) civilians should not be targeted.

Actually, that's not what was said. You and Jlew both said that 'unarmed civilians' shouldn't be targeted. You didn't say those not engaged in open hostility and aggression. You see, there are settlers who verbally abuse Palestinians on a daily basis, who spit at them, and beat them with their fists. These settlers are unarmed. Are they therefore not legitimate targets for attack?

Also, there are those who use stones, rocks, and/or baseball bats. Do these qualify as 'unarmed'?

:roll:

What are you a lawyer or something? If you want to play semantics, by all means, have fun diddling yourself all day. We said innocent, unarmed, civilians, and a half dozen other descriptors at various times. I think it was plenty clear who we were referring to. But if playing dumb helps you feel like you were right and vindicated, don't let me piss on your parade.

If you're carrying a bat or rocks, you're not unarmed. If you're assaulting, abusing, or harassing, you're not innocent. Clear?

soulsinging

Commy wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

By its very definition, the fact that the aggressor began its aggression in the first place is a pretty good indication that it doesn't much care to call of hostilities. If it was so inclined, it would never have begun hostilities in the first place.

that's exactly why we have international law and the UN.

Or are you saying let it go? or are you saying the palestinians should lay down their arms? and continue to be barricaded and bombed and kept in a police state/concentration camp?

your asking the guy getting robbed to trust the guy robbing him, that if he puts down his weapons the guy hitting him with a baseball bat just might stop.

in the middle east, that's putting a lot of faith in your worst enemy. not gonna happen.

Hardly. Israel can't be trusted. What I'm saying is that the guy getting robbed needs to get the guy FINANCING the guy who's robbing him to withdraw his support. Israel is irrelevant. They aren't going to stop until the US pulls the plug on them. They have no reason to. Palestine's ONLY hope to gain some measure of justice is to take the US out of the equation so that the international protections and laws can work. To do that, yes, I believe Palestine needs to lay down its arms. The guy hitting him with the baseball might not stop, but the guy that bought and gave him the bat might take it back and now you've got a fairer fight.

soulsinging

NoK wrote:

I don't understand how someone could think if the Palestinians stop all attacks it might help their cause. The major flaw in this is that you are viewing the israelis as a defensive nation when in reality they are an absurdly offensive terrorist nation. The israelis throughout this century have endlessly shown they want to take over Gaza, the West bank, Lebanon and even parts of Syrian. Contrary to popular belief they started the 1948 war and the 1967 war to grab more land.

You forget that the israelis had total control over Gaza a few years back and only pulled out of it because it was becoming too costly to sustain protection in those areas. The only reason they couldn't sustain the total domination of Gaza was because of those random Palestinian attacks against the israeli military and the extremist settlers of gaza.

So what do you think will happen if the Palestinians stop all attacks and tell the israelis we have no more weapons.. seriously what do you think will happen?

No, I'm viewing Israel as a nation that has been ALLOWED to be aggressive due to its unquestioned support by the US. And every time a Palestinian bomb goes off, US support for Israel hardens, US politicians and media have a story to point to to distract and overshadow Israeli atrocities, and Palestine gets a little farther from a fair shake from the UN. It isn't fair, but thre it is.