Its not a point of view, Its one feeling anyone who lives here felt/feels/will feel in some point of his life. I felt it after Hamas (=terror organization who don't believe in Israel right to exist) was elected right after the Gaza withdrawal, and then almost immediately started shooting at Israeli town of Sderot. I actually felt betrayed. Sometimes, I still feel that way.
Its not a point of view, Its one feeling anyone who lives here felt/feels/will feel in some point of his life. I felt it after Hamas (=terror organization who don't believe in Israel right to exist) was elected right after the Gaza withdrawal, and then almost immediately started shooting at Israeli town of Sderot. I actually felt betrayed. Sometimes, I still feel that way.
there's a lot of things that happened after the elections, wrong from both the sides. From the right side of hamas: they imposed a ceasefire that was indeed valid, also the Brigades of Al'Aqsa obeied to it. Still little groups didn't obey, but you'll agree that the majority agreed, so it is not like dayan said that you "faced more terrorism". From the wrong side: they didn't recognise israel.
From the wrong side of israel: they amplified the colonies in the west bank. They stopped, together with the USA, the humanitarian aid to the palestinians due to the not recognision of isreal by hamas (this was a huge mistake, that hit the population). They didn't have the courage to go into diplomatic talks with hamas. You might say that you can't go into diplomatic talks with someone not recognising your existence, but still sometimes peace requires big courage...
there's a lot of things that happened after the elections, wrong from both the sides. From the right side of hamas: they imposed a ceasefire that was indeed valid, also the Brigades of Al'Aqsa obeied to it. Still little groups didn't obey, but you'll agree that the majority agreed, so it is not like dayan said that you "faced more terrorism". From the wrong side: they didn't recognise israel.
From the wrong side of israel: they amplified the colonies in the west bank. They stopped, together with the USA, the humanitarian aid to the palestinians due to the not recognision of isreal by hamas (this was a huge mistake, that hit the population). They didn't have the courage to go into diplomatic talks with hamas. You might say that you can't go into diplomatic talks with someone not recognising your existence, but still sometimes peace requires big courage...
You don't have to tell me the details, all I'm saying dayan was expressing a feeling, not a point of view - that's it. I'm very aware to all the things we've done, but when Hamas was elected by 80% of the Palestinians... really, I felt like someone stubed me in the heart. 80% it's alot, 80% of Palestinians didn't think I got the right to live even after the Gaza withdrawal. Do you see where my point it?
shiraz, please, give me a definition of the word "terrorist" that wouldn't include also the USA, UK, Israel, Italy, Russian, etc etc etc activities.
Forget it, I'm not gonna start a debate about definitions. For me, one who believes death & murder of jews (or any other nation) is a glorified & sacred act, is a terrorist. For me, Terrorism = state of mind, and that's why Israel is not a terrorist (sure there are some people who think we should kill all arabs, but that's a very small minority), Israel govt is not a terrorist, but Hamas is a group of terrorists, and so is Hizbullah.
Forget it, I'm not gonna start a debate about definitions. For me, one who believes death & murder of jews (or any other nation) is a glorified & sacred act, is a terrorist. For me, Terrorism = state of mind, and that's why Israel is not a terrorist (sure there are some people who think we should kill all arabs, but that's a very small minority), Israel govt is not a terrorist, but Hamas is a group of terrorists, and so is Hizbullah.
That is the most ridiculous, one-eyed, bigoted statement I've ever read on this message board.
"Terrorism = state of mind, and that's why Israel is not a terrorist.."
Those on this board who are struggling to defend the terrorist actions of the Israeli government are looking increasingly desperate and pitiful.
in a previous topic you asked about international law. Well, international law, in the 4th geneva convention states that all the measures must be ensured to avoid kill of civilians. This clearly didn't happen here. I have a question for you: do you think that if the building would have been full of Israeli people, instead than Lebanese, along with some Hezbullah fighters, the israeli army would have bombed it in the same way?
To begin with it hasn't been proven that Israel hit the building. Israel hit targets near the building between 12 and 1 AM. The building didn't collapse until about 7 or 8 AM, which suggests that it very possibly had nothing or very little to do with the Israeli air strike. Furthermore, assuming that this is the IDF's fault (which I am still on the fence over) I'm sure the IDF did not know that so many civilians would be killed. The fact is that the IDF is not stupid and they learn from history. In the 90's they had to suspend another operation in Lebanon because of the accidental targeting of a building in Qana that resulted in 100 civilian deaths. The IDF knows full well what the international response to such an action would be, and therefore would not have killed those people intentionally. (I also think that the IDF strives to act in a moral way, and therefore, and this is the primary reason, would not have targeted intentionally a building they knew to be full of innocent civilians.)
it hasn't been proven that Israel hit the building...In the 90's they had to suspend another operation in Lebanon because of the accidental targeting of a building in Qana that resulted in 100 civilian deaths.
In light of your comments above it is obvious that you will give your unconditional support for every single act of Israeli terrorism. Your lame excuses, and justifications are truly sick. I suppose that you believe the illegal occupation and the resulting terror which follows from it is also 'an accident'.
I also think that the IDF strives to act in a moral way
I would have understood, but not agreed, your "moral way" statement after one day of bombing. But after more than two weeks and looking at the results, do you really think it?
Yesterday the Hezbollah crossed Israel's northern board via Lebanon, and attacked two patrol jeeps using RPG's deep into Israeli territory. They ended up with killing 3 Israeli's soldiers and kidnapping 2 of them. Israel immediately sent a tank in order to chase the Hezbollah terrorists, but they managed to bomb it and kill yet another 4 Israelis troops & injured 3 more. Israel decided to bomb some roads & bridges in southern Lebanon, in order to stop the terrorists from getting too far away with the Israeli hijacked soldiers (as they try to do many times in the past). It didn't work out. Instead, Hezbollah had started massive missals attack towards large civilian populations in northern parts of Israel. To this point they killed 2 Israeli civilians, injured 90, and caused lots of property damage. They are still shooting while I'm writing this post.
All the massive Israeli attack toward southern Lebanon is a *response* to Hezbollah's deliberate constant shooting towards Israelis civilians since last morning. It has nothing to do with Gaza and the occupied territories in southern Israel. Israel moved out of Lebanon 6 years ago and never went back. During those years Hezbollah kept shooting missals towards Israel from time to time, and even kidnapped & killed 3 Israelis soldiers (the same way they did yesterday). Israel never responded to all of the above, but yesterday it was too much – Hezbollah literally started a deliberate massive attack towards Israeli civilians FOR NO REASON.
Ok, they've just shot 2 missals at my hometown, port city of Haifa, for the very first time in history. That means really bad news for everybody.
Fuck.
hang in there chief
dublin 1996 london 2000 dublin 2006 prague 2006 copenhagen 2007 london 2007 rotterdam 2009 london 2009 dublin 2010 belfast 2010 vienna 2014 amsterdam 2014 london 2018
To begin with it hasn't been proven that Israel hit the building. Israel hit targets near the building between 12 and 1 AM. The building didn't collapse until about 7 or 8 AM, which suggests that it very possibly had nothing or very little to do with the Israeli air strike.
So are you suggesting that the Labenese blew the building up themselves Davan?
The Independent 31 July 2006
And in Qana, of all places. For only 10 years ago, this was the scene of another Israeli massacre, the slaughter of 106 Lebanese refugees by an Israeli artillery battery as they sheltered in a UN base in the town. More than half of those 106 were children. Israel later said it had no live-time pilotless photo-reconnaissance aircraft over the scene of that killing * a statement that turned out to be untrue when The Independent discovered videotape showing just such an aircraft over the burning camp. It is as if Qana * whose inhabitants claim that this was the village in which Jesus turned water into wine * has been damned by the world, doomed forever to receive tragedy.
And there was no doubt of the missile which killed all those children yesterday. It came from the United States, and upon a fragment of it was written: "For use on MK-84 Guided Bomb BSU-37-B". No doubt the manufacturers can call it "combat-proven" because it destroyed the entire three-storey house in which the Shalhoub and Hashim families lived. They had taken refuge in the basement from an enormous Israeli bombardment, and that is where most of them died.
That is the most ridiculous, one-eyed, bigoted statement I've ever read on this message board.
"Terrorism = state of mind, and that's why Israel is not a terrorist.."
Those on this board who are struggling to defend the terrorist actions of the Israeli government are looking increasingly desperate and pitiful.
it is not a stupid answer: it is the right answer. "Terrorism" is really a state of mind, in the sense that everyone gives to the word terrorism the more convenient meaning for his own aims...
Byrnzie and Puck, who are you two? Are you Jews? Are you Arabs? Are you Muslims? Have either of you ever been to Israel? Have either of you ever even been to the Middle East? Have you ever read an Israeli paper, or watched Israeli TV? Have you ever listened to Israeli music? Have you ever seen the hatred for Israel throughout the Arab world manifest, perhaps most explicitly in cartoons, cartoons taken directly from Nazi propoganda? Do you know that you could never find the same sort of incitement to hate anywhere in Israel except for the extreme right fringe? Do you know how many songs there are on Israeli radio wishing for peace? Do you have any idea how strong the left is in Israel? Do you have any idea that the military is made up of our children who are drafted out of high school, and our fathers and brothers who must serve in the reserves into their forties? (not to mention our sisters and daughters.) Do you know what, given this, the death of a soldier means to people here? It is the death of our children, and our siblings, and our fathers. Have you ever heard of the four mothers movement? Do you know the first thing about us? How can you say that you hold human life sacred and decry the deaths in Lebanon, but step up to defend people who deny the Holocaust while working to bring about a new genocide of the Jews? Have you ever read the Hamas covenant? Do you have any idea what they stand for? How can you support people that murder innocents on buses and in restaurants, and at family meals, and in their beds? Have you ever heard about what happened in the children's house in Misgav Am? The Park Hotel bombing? The dolphinarium? Have you seen the image of the Palestinian man holding up his blood soaked hands in celebration after he helped beat to death two reservists, fathers, who just happened to take a wrong turn into Rammallah? Do you realize that Hamas sets out with intent to kill as many civilians as possible and celebrates their deaths, while Israel has worked to minimize civilian deaths, and mourns their loss because we expect better of ourselves? Have you heard about the 23 Israeli soldiers killed in Jenin because rather than bombing the refugee camp the army decided to send in soldiers to avoid civilian casualties? How can your memory be so short? How can you not remember that suicide bombings in Israel only started in the 90's after the Oslo process began and Israel started handing over territory to the PA? Why are you willfully ignorant of the fact that it was only after Israel offered Arafat virtually everything he asked for that the current wave of violence erupted? A terrorist is one who willfully and intentionally kills civilians for political ends. This means their aim was to kill civilians. Hamas is a terrorist organization. There can be no justifiable military target in a bus full of children. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. They fire randomly into Israeli towns and cities full of civilians and not at legitimate military targets. Israel, though they kill civilians, acts with different intent. They try to hit only military targets. They have not carpet bombed Beirut, or napalmed southern Lebanon, though they surely could have if they had wanted to. If you can not grasp even this fundamental distinction then there is nothing to talk about.
Not quite as desperate, pathetic, (and angry) as those who continually try to defame the US and Israel with their "sympathy" for terrorist groups.
If Israel withdraws from the occupied territories and begins abiding by international law, then you can begin speaking of right and wrong. Until that happens you have no credibility. Israel has been the main aggressor for the past 58 years and continues to be so. I think you and your fellow countrymen need to start taking a long hard look at yourselves rather than attempting to blame all your problems on everybody else. The whole world - minus the U.S - is disgusted by the actions of your government. Does this not tell you anything? And don't fall back on the all too easy answer of saying that 'the world' is anti-semitic'. Begin by taking a long hard look at yourself and your country's history.
I would have understood, but not agreed, your "moral way" statement after one day of bombing. But after more than two weeks and looking at the results, do you really think it?
Sorry for speaking for him again:
There is no "moral way" in war, but there are some moral actions.
Warning civilians in advance, allowing a safe "humanitarian corridor" paths during a war and providing some "transparency" by enabling the media to do their jobs on the battlefield are considered to be moral actions, which not too many (if any) official forces support.
In terms of results? Like I said, there are no moarl wars, and that one is not exception.
So are you suggesting that the Labenese blew the building up themselves Davan?
The Independent 31 July 2006
And in Qana, of all places. For only 10 years ago, this was the scene of another Israeli massacre, the slaughter of 106 Lebanese refugees by an Israeli artillery battery as they sheltered in a UN base in the town. More than half of those 106 were children. Israel later said it had no live-time pilotless photo-reconnaissance aircraft over the scene of that killing * a statement that turned out to be untrue when The Independent discovered videotape showing just such an aircraft over the burning camp. It is as if Qana * whose inhabitants claim that this was the village in which Jesus turned water into wine * has been damned by the world, doomed forever to receive tragedy.
And there was no doubt of the missile which killed all those children yesterday. It came from the United States, and upon a fragment of it was written: "For use on MK-84 Guided Bomb BSU-37-B". No doubt the manufacturers can call it "combat-proven" because it destroyed the entire three-storey house in which the Shalhoub and Hashim families lived. They had taken refuge in the basement from an enormous Israeli bombardment, and that is where most of them died.
I am suggesting that it may have been a tragic accident unrelated to Israel's air strike. There is video evidence taken by an aerial drone that was positioned over Qana that shows a truck with a rocket launcher on it driving up to the building and parking under it. It is very possible that the building also contained explosives or rockets used by Hezbollah that may have gone off and caused the building to collapse. Regardless, let me say this. If the IDF were to place their artillary and tanks and weapons depots in and under civilian buildings, thus turning those buildings into military targets I would be furious with the IDF for knowingly putting civilians in danger. This is what Hezbollah does, and yet no one is talking about their share in the responsibility for Lebanese civilian deaths.
Byrnzie and Puck, who are you two? Are you Jews? Are you Arabs? Are you Muslims? Have either of you ever been to Israel? Have either of you ever even been to the Middle East? Have you ever read an Israeli paper, or watched Israeli TV? Have you ever listened to Israeli music? Have you ever seen the hatred for Israel throughout the Arab world manifest, perhaps most explicitly in cartoons, cartoons taken directly from Nazi propoganda? Do you know that you could never find the same sort of incitement to hate anywhere in Israel except for the extreme right fringe? Do you know how many songs there are on Israeli radio wishing for peace? Do you have any idea how strong the left is in Israel? Do you have any idea that the military is made up of our children who are drafted out of high school, and our fathers and brothers who must serve in the reserves into their forties? (not to mention our sisters and daughters.) Do you know what, given this, the death of a soldier means to people here? It is the death of our children, and our siblings, and our fathers. Have you ever heard of the four mothers movement? Do you know the first thing about us? How can you say that you hold human life sacred and decry the deaths in Lebanon, but step up to defend people who deny the Holocaust while working to bring about a new genocide of the Jews? Have you ever read the Hamas covenant? Do you have any idea what they stand for? How can you support people that murder innocents on buses and in restaurants, and at family meals, and in their beds? Have you ever heard about what happened in the children's house in Misgav Am? The Park Hotel bombing? The dolphinarium? Have you seen the image of the Palestinian man holding up his blood soaked hands in celebration after he helped beat to death two reservists, fathers, who just happened to take a wrong turn into Rammallah? Do you realize that Hamas sets out with intent to kill as many civilians as possible and celebrates their deaths, while Israel has worked to minimize civilian deaths, and mourns their loss because we expect better of ourselves? Have you heard about the 23 Israeli soldiers killed in Jenin because rather than bombing the refugee camp the army decided to send in soldiers to avoid civilian casualties? How can your memory be so short? How can you not remember that suicide bombings in Israel only started in the 90's after the Oslo process began and Israel started handing over territory to the PA? Why are you willfully ignorant of the fact that it was only after Israel offered Arafat virtually everything he asked for that the current wave of violence erupted? A terrorist is one who willfully and intentionally kills civilians for political ends. This means their aim was to kill civilians. Hamas is a terrorist organization. There can be no justifiable military target in a bus full of children. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. They fire randomly into Israeli towns and cities full of civilians and not at legitimate military targets. Israel, though they kill civilians, acts with different intent. They try to hit only military targets. They have not carpet bombed Beirut, or napalmed southern Lebanon, though they surely could have if they had wanted to. If you can not grasp even this fundamental distinction then there is nothing to talk about.
Leave Puck78 out of it, he is not one-sided man, he actually reads our replays, he is not a demagogic person and he knows how to debate and still respect the other "side".
*edit: and he usually knows what he is talking about.
Leave Puck78 out of it, he is not one-sided man, he actually reads our replays, he is not a demagogic person and he knows how to debate and still respect the other "side".
I apologize. I'm just a little frustrated at the moment, and I guess I lashed out. It just seems the world has turned upside down and right has become wrond, and wrong has become almost right. I don't know, I'm just becoming more cynical by the day. I'm sorry Puck if my criticism was unfair towards you. Your response to the "moral way" post was fair, though I differ in my opinion of the situation. I didn't see your response until after I posted my, I don't know, monologue. Apologies.
Leave Puck78 out of it, he is not one-sided man, he actually reads our replays, he is not a demagogic person and he knows how to debate and still respect the other "side".
*edit: and he usually knows what he is talking about.
it is not a stupid answer: it is the right answer. "Terrorism" is really a state of mind, in the sense that everyone gives to the word terrorism the more convenient meaning for his own aims...
But when you say 'everyone' you mean everyone except Israelis, right?
step up to defend people who deny the Holocaust while working to bring about a new genocide of the Jews? How can you support people that murder innocents on buses and in restaurants, and at family meals, and in their beds? Why are you willfully ignorant of the fact that it was only after Israel offered Arafat virtually everything he asked for that the current wave of violence erupted?
Firstly, can you please offer an example of when I have stepped up to defend people who deny the holocaust? (You aren't speaking of Chomsky here again are you - I'll say it again for the 10th time, although I'm beginning to believe that you only hear what you want to hear - he wrote an article defending free speech, not an article denying the holocaust).
Secondly, can you provide an example of when I have defended the actions of suicide bombers, as opposed to expressing an understanding of what motivates these same suicide bombers?
Lastly, what conditions did Arafat actually accept from Israel? Do you know what was put forward at the Oslo accords and at the Hebron agreement, for example? Arafat was agreeing to a situation which would have destroyed any hope for a two state solution. He had agreed to let Israel carve up the West bank and 'increase' the settlements. This was obviously greeted with anger and hostility by the other parties, and it is why the agreements failed. these U.S sponsored 'agreements' have always been one sided and unworkable, which is why an international consensus is needed - relating to the 1967 borders - something which the U.S has singulary blocked for 38 years.
You aren't speaking of Chomsky here again are you - I'll say it again for the 10th time, although I'm beginning to believe that you only hear what you want to hear - he wrote an article defending free speech, not an article denying the holocaust
I don't want to go out of topic, but i'd like to give my opinion on this: Chomsky might have written an article just to defend free speech, not to deny the holocaust... but to do it referring to someone who denies the holocaust is really poor taste...
A terrorist is one who willfully and intentionally kills civilians for political ends. Israel, though they kill civilians, acts with different intent. They try to hit only military targets.
A terrorist is also one who willfully and intentionally kills civilians in order to steal their land. Israel has killed countless thousands of Palestinian civilians over the past few decades. Firing missiles into crowds of demonstrators, shooting children in the head for throwing stones, shelling a crowded beach, carrying out extra-judicial assassinations, bulldozing homes, engaging in an illegal military occupation - these are acts of terrorism.
I don't want to go out of topic, but i'd like to give my opinion on this: Chomsky might have written an article just to defend free speech, not to deny the holocaust... but to do it referring to someone who denies the holocaust is really poor taste...
Fair point. And Chomsky did state after the event that he regretted allowing his article to be used as the preface to the book. He was making a point that free speech is free speech, without qualification. But yes. It was in poor taste.
Firstly, can you please offer an example of when I have stepped up to defend people who deny the holocaust? (You aren't speaking of Chomsky here again are you - I'll say it again for the 10th time, although I'm beginning to believe that you only hear what you want to hear - he wrote an article defending free speech, not an article denying the holocaust).
Secondly, can you provide an example of when I have defended the actions of suicide bombers, as opposed to expressing an understanding of what motivates these same suicide bombers?
Lastly, what conditions did Arafat actually accept from Israel? Do you know what was put forward at the Oslo accords and at the Hebron agreement, for example? Arafat was agreeing to a situation which would have destroyed any hope for a two state solution. He had agreed to let Israel carve up the West bank and 'increase' the settlements. This was obviously greeted with anger and hostility by the other parties, and it is why the agreements failed. these U.S sponsored 'agreements' have always been one sided and unworkable, which is why an international consensus is needed - relating to the 1967 borders - something which the U.S has singulary blocked for 38 years.
First, let me say that "firstly" is grammatically incorrect. Second, you may not have explicitly stated support for Holocaust denial or for Hamas, but you argue with such rage about the evil's of Israel, which from where I'm sitting is simply trying to defend itself from such people after having tried to give them what they wanted only to find that it wasn't enough. I find it sickening that you can point the finger at Israel, and go on and on about every percieved injustice they have committed, and yet you have so little venom for the far more monstrous people Israel is attempting to fight. To me this says something.
As for what was offered to Arafat, either you accept what everyone who was at the table says was offered, aside from the Palestinians who rejected the deal and have an interest in not admitting to what was actually offered, or you don't. However, seeing as how the American account of the deal matches exactly what Israel says they offered it seems to me that the only way you can avoid the truth is to blindly accept the Palestinian narrative and construct some sort of conspiracy theory, as you seem to have done, about America and Israel conspiring to crush the Palestinians under foot. Sorry but I don't buy it and I don't think most rational people buy it either. Now, would you like to answer my questions as stated above? Do you actually know the first thing about Israel? Come on, don't be afraid. I'm only asking you to expose yourself as a two bit hack with no idea of what you're talking about.
A terrorist is also one who willfully and intentionally kills civilians in order to steal their land. Israel has killed countless thousands of Palestinian civilians over the past few decades. Firing missiles into crowds of demonstrators, shooting children in the head for throwing stones, shelling a crowded beach, carrying out extra-judicial assassinations, bulldozing homes, engaging in an illegal military occupation - these are acts of terrorism.
I'm sorry, we are simply coming from two different places that can't be reconciled. But let me say that I am truly glad the world is not run by people who think with as little moral and political clarity as you, because if it was I shudder to think what kind of world we would live in.
Oh, yeah, I forgot. You say that you only try to show why people would use terrorism, and yet we've heard from someone who struggled through apartheid without ever resorting to such monstrous tactics. People are incredible things, and the fact is that they are capable of being independent moral actors. As our South African friend showed with his own example one need not debase oneself and throw morality to the wind to fight oppression. What have the Palestinians gained from terrorism? They have so twisted their society that they are now incapable of living in peace. Given the chance to show the world that they could create a functioning polity in Gaza they instead turned to in fighting and terrorism against Israel, because at this point they have bred so much hate, and destroyed so much law, that a civil society is simply beyond them for the foreseeable future. And that is truly truly tragic. You say that you are only trying to show why someone would turn to terrorism, but to me it seems that you are simply turning the Palestinians into eternal victims. They are never responsible for their actions because it is always the occupations fault. I'll say this. You do the Palestinians a disservice. They will never build the sort of society they deserve unless they cease to see themselves, and cease to be abbeted in their perception of themselves as victims, and begin to act as adults and take responsibility for what they sow.
As for what was offered to Arafat, either you accept what everyone who was at the table says was offered, aside from the Palestinians who rejected the deal and have an interest in not admitting to what was actually offered, or you don't. However, seeing as how the American account of the deal matches exactly what Israel says they offered it seems to me that the only way you can avoid the truth is to blindly accept the Palestinian narrative and construct some sort of conspiracy theory, as you seem to have done, about America and Israel conspiring to crush the Palestinians under foot. Sorry but I don't buy it and I don't think most rational people buy it either. Now, would you like to answer my questions as stated above? Do you actually know the first thing about Israel? Come on, don't be afraid. I'm only asking you to expose yourself as a two bit hack with no idea of what you're talking about.
As for your comment about the word 'firstly' being grammatically incorrect, you are wrong. As for the rest of your nonsensical spiel, it is apparent that you are not thinking before you are typing your posts, and are not relying on any factual grounding for what you say, but are merely spouting vitriol for the sheer sake of it. Perhaps your pride or ego feels threatened? I don't really care. It's just a bit sad reading your desperate attempts to justify the actions of your government. I have nothing against Israelis. I have nothing against Americans. On the other hand, I believe that the governments of both countries should be tried at the Hague for crimes against humanity.
As for passages which include such things as '..seeing as how the American account of the deal matches exactly what Israel says they offered it seems to me that the only way you can avoid the truth is to blindly accept the Palestinian narrative and construct some sort of conspiracy theory.." I can't comment on them because they make no sense.
And as for being a "..two bit hack with no idea of what you're talking about", that's fine. It simply fits in with a lot of the other purely subjective nonsense which I have been reading from certain quarters on this thread.
As for your comment about the word 'firstly' being grammatically incorrect, you are wrong. As for the rest of your nonsensical spiel, it is apparent that you are not thinking before you are typing your posts, and are not relying on any factual grounding for what you say, but are merely spouting vitriol for the sheer sake of it. Perhaps your pride or ego feels threatened? I don't really care. It's just a bit sad reading your desperate attempts to justify the actions of your government. I have nothing against Israelis. I have nothing against Americans. On the other hand, I believe that the governments of both ountries should be tried at the Hague for crimes against humanity.
As for passages which include such things as '..seeing as how the American account of the deal matches exactly what Israel says they offered it seems to me that the only way you can avoid the truth is to blindly accept the Palestinian narrative and construct some sort of conspiracy theory.." I can't comment on them because they make no sense.
And as for being a "..two bit hack with no idea of what you're talking about", that's fine. It simply fits in with a lot of the other purely subjective nonsense which I have been reading from certain quarters on this thread.
Please tell me who you are, and where you are coming from because I honestly cannot comprehend how you can hold the views you hold and avoid every serious issue thrown your way. Who are you? And don't say that I'll do anything to support my government. I've already said I thought the occupation was wrong. What I don't understand is why you can't get yourself out of the reality of the 80's and into the reality of today.
Comments
Its not a point of view, Its one feeling anyone who lives here felt/feels/will feel in some point of his life. I felt it after Hamas (=terror organization who don't believe in Israel right to exist) was elected right after the Gaza withdrawal, and then almost immediately started shooting at Israeli town of Sderot. I actually felt betrayed. Sometimes, I still feel that way.
From the wrong side of israel: they amplified the colonies in the west bank. They stopped, together with the USA, the humanitarian aid to the palestinians due to the not recognision of isreal by hamas (this was a huge mistake, that hit the population). They didn't have the courage to go into diplomatic talks with hamas. You might say that you can't go into diplomatic talks with someone not recognising your existence, but still sometimes peace requires big courage...
www.amnesty.org.uk
www.amnesty.org.uk
You don't have to tell me the details, all I'm saying dayan was expressing a feeling, not a point of view - that's it. I'm very aware to all the things we've done, but when Hamas was elected by 80% of the Palestinians... really, I felt like someone stubed me in the heart. 80% it's alot, 80% of Palestinians didn't think I got the right to live even after the Gaza withdrawal. Do you see where my point it?
So you're accusing Davan of demagogy then Shiraz?
Forget it, I'm not gonna start a debate about definitions. For me, one who believes death & murder of jews (or any other nation) is a glorified & sacred act, is a terrorist. For me, Terrorism = state of mind, and that's why Israel is not a terrorist (sure there are some people who think we should kill all arabs, but that's a very small minority), Israel govt is not a terrorist, but Hamas is a group of terrorists, and so is Hizbullah.
That is the most ridiculous, one-eyed, bigoted statement I've ever read on this message board.
"Terrorism = state of mind, and that's why Israel is not a terrorist.."
Those on this board who are struggling to defend the terrorist actions of the Israeli government are looking increasingly desperate and pitiful.
To begin with it hasn't been proven that Israel hit the building. Israel hit targets near the building between 12 and 1 AM. The building didn't collapse until about 7 or 8 AM, which suggests that it very possibly had nothing or very little to do with the Israeli air strike. Furthermore, assuming that this is the IDF's fault (which I am still on the fence over) I'm sure the IDF did not know that so many civilians would be killed. The fact is that the IDF is not stupid and they learn from history. In the 90's they had to suspend another operation in Lebanon because of the accidental targeting of a building in Qana that resulted in 100 civilian deaths. The IDF knows full well what the international response to such an action would be, and therefore would not have killed those people intentionally. (I also think that the IDF strives to act in a moral way, and therefore, and this is the primary reason, would not have targeted intentionally a building they knew to be full of innocent civilians.)
In light of your comments above it is obvious that you will give your unconditional support for every single act of Israeli terrorism. Your lame excuses, and justifications are truly sick. I suppose that you believe the illegal occupation and the resulting terror which follows from it is also 'an accident'.
www.amnesty.org.uk
Not quite as desperate, pathetic, (and angry) as those who continually try to defame the US and Israel with their "sympathy" for terrorist groups.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
hang in there chief
So are you suggesting that the Labenese blew the building up themselves Davan?
The Independent 31 July 2006
And in Qana, of all places. For only 10 years ago, this was the scene of another Israeli massacre, the slaughter of 106 Lebanese refugees by an Israeli artillery battery as they sheltered in a UN base in the town. More than half of those 106 were children. Israel later said it had no live-time pilotless photo-reconnaissance aircraft over the scene of that killing * a statement that turned out to be untrue when The Independent discovered videotape showing just such an aircraft over the burning camp. It is as if Qana * whose inhabitants claim that this was the village in which Jesus turned water into wine * has been damned by the world, doomed forever to receive tragedy.
And there was no doubt of the missile which killed all those children yesterday. It came from the United States, and upon a fragment of it was written: "For use on MK-84 Guided Bomb BSU-37-B". No doubt the manufacturers can call it "combat-proven" because it destroyed the entire three-storey house in which the Shalhoub and Hashim families lived. They had taken refuge in the basement from an enormous Israeli bombardment, and that is where most of them died.
www.amnesty.org.uk
If Israel withdraws from the occupied territories and begins abiding by international law, then you can begin speaking of right and wrong. Until that happens you have no credibility. Israel has been the main aggressor for the past 58 years and continues to be so. I think you and your fellow countrymen need to start taking a long hard look at yourselves rather than attempting to blame all your problems on everybody else. The whole world - minus the U.S - is disgusted by the actions of your government. Does this not tell you anything? And don't fall back on the all too easy answer of saying that 'the world' is anti-semitic'. Begin by taking a long hard look at yourself and your country's history.
Sorry for speaking for him again:
There is no "moral way" in war, but there are some moral actions.
Warning civilians in advance, allowing a safe "humanitarian corridor" paths during a war and providing some "transparency" by enabling the media to do their jobs on the battlefield are considered to be moral actions, which not too many (if any) official forces support.
In terms of results? Like I said, there are no moarl wars, and that one is not exception.
I am suggesting that it may have been a tragic accident unrelated to Israel's air strike. There is video evidence taken by an aerial drone that was positioned over Qana that shows a truck with a rocket launcher on it driving up to the building and parking under it. It is very possible that the building also contained explosives or rockets used by Hezbollah that may have gone off and caused the building to collapse. Regardless, let me say this. If the IDF were to place their artillary and tanks and weapons depots in and under civilian buildings, thus turning those buildings into military targets I would be furious with the IDF for knowingly putting civilians in danger. This is what Hezbollah does, and yet no one is talking about their share in the responsibility for Lebanese civilian deaths.
Leave Puck78 out of it, he is not one-sided man, he actually reads our replays, he is not a demagogic person and he knows how to debate and still respect the other "side".
*edit: and he usually knows what he is talking about.
I apologize. I'm just a little frustrated at the moment, and I guess I lashed out. It just seems the world has turned upside down and right has become wrond, and wrong has become almost right. I don't know, I'm just becoming more cynical by the day. I'm sorry Puck if my criticism was unfair towards you. Your response to the "moral way" post was fair, though I differ in my opinion of the situation. I didn't see your response until after I posted my, I don't know, monologue. Apologies.
www.amnesty.org.uk
But when you say 'everyone' you mean everyone except Israelis, right?
Firstly, can you please offer an example of when I have stepped up to defend people who deny the holocaust? (You aren't speaking of Chomsky here again are you - I'll say it again for the 10th time, although I'm beginning to believe that you only hear what you want to hear - he wrote an article defending free speech, not an article denying the holocaust).
Secondly, can you provide an example of when I have defended the actions of suicide bombers, as opposed to expressing an understanding of what motivates these same suicide bombers?
Lastly, what conditions did Arafat actually accept from Israel? Do you know what was put forward at the Oslo accords and at the Hebron agreement, for example? Arafat was agreeing to a situation which would have destroyed any hope for a two state solution. He had agreed to let Israel carve up the West bank and 'increase' the settlements. This was obviously greeted with anger and hostility by the other parties, and it is why the agreements failed. these U.S sponsored 'agreements' have always been one sided and unworkable, which is why an international consensus is needed - relating to the 1967 borders - something which the U.S has singulary blocked for 38 years.
www.amnesty.org.uk
A terrorist is also one who willfully and intentionally kills civilians in order to steal their land. Israel has killed countless thousands of Palestinian civilians over the past few decades. Firing missiles into crowds of demonstrators, shooting children in the head for throwing stones, shelling a crowded beach, carrying out extra-judicial assassinations, bulldozing homes, engaging in an illegal military occupation - these are acts of terrorism.
Fair point. And Chomsky did state after the event that he regretted allowing his article to be used as the preface to the book. He was making a point that free speech is free speech, without qualification. But yes. It was in poor taste.
First, let me say that "firstly" is grammatically incorrect. Second, you may not have explicitly stated support for Holocaust denial or for Hamas, but you argue with such rage about the evil's of Israel, which from where I'm sitting is simply trying to defend itself from such people after having tried to give them what they wanted only to find that it wasn't enough. I find it sickening that you can point the finger at Israel, and go on and on about every percieved injustice they have committed, and yet you have so little venom for the far more monstrous people Israel is attempting to fight. To me this says something.
As for what was offered to Arafat, either you accept what everyone who was at the table says was offered, aside from the Palestinians who rejected the deal and have an interest in not admitting to what was actually offered, or you don't. However, seeing as how the American account of the deal matches exactly what Israel says they offered it seems to me that the only way you can avoid the truth is to blindly accept the Palestinian narrative and construct some sort of conspiracy theory, as you seem to have done, about America and Israel conspiring to crush the Palestinians under foot. Sorry but I don't buy it and I don't think most rational people buy it either. Now, would you like to answer my questions as stated above? Do you actually know the first thing about Israel? Come on, don't be afraid. I'm only asking you to expose yourself as a two bit hack with no idea of what you're talking about.
I'm sorry, we are simply coming from two different places that can't be reconciled. But let me say that I am truly glad the world is not run by people who think with as little moral and political clarity as you, because if it was I shudder to think what kind of world we would live in.
Oh, yeah, I forgot. You say that you only try to show why people would use terrorism, and yet we've heard from someone who struggled through apartheid without ever resorting to such monstrous tactics. People are incredible things, and the fact is that they are capable of being independent moral actors. As our South African friend showed with his own example one need not debase oneself and throw morality to the wind to fight oppression. What have the Palestinians gained from terrorism? They have so twisted their society that they are now incapable of living in peace. Given the chance to show the world that they could create a functioning polity in Gaza they instead turned to in fighting and terrorism against Israel, because at this point they have bred so much hate, and destroyed so much law, that a civil society is simply beyond them for the foreseeable future. And that is truly truly tragic. You say that you are only trying to show why someone would turn to terrorism, but to me it seems that you are simply turning the Palestinians into eternal victims. They are never responsible for their actions because it is always the occupations fault. I'll say this. You do the Palestinians a disservice. They will never build the sort of society they deserve unless they cease to see themselves, and cease to be abbeted in their perception of themselves as victims, and begin to act as adults and take responsibility for what they sow.
As for your comment about the word 'firstly' being grammatically incorrect, you are wrong. As for the rest of your nonsensical spiel, it is apparent that you are not thinking before you are typing your posts, and are not relying on any factual grounding for what you say, but are merely spouting vitriol for the sheer sake of it. Perhaps your pride or ego feels threatened? I don't really care. It's just a bit sad reading your desperate attempts to justify the actions of your government. I have nothing against Israelis. I have nothing against Americans. On the other hand, I believe that the governments of both countries should be tried at the Hague for crimes against humanity.
As for passages which include such things as '..seeing as how the American account of the deal matches exactly what Israel says they offered it seems to me that the only way you can avoid the truth is to blindly accept the Palestinian narrative and construct some sort of conspiracy theory.." I can't comment on them because they make no sense.
And as for being a "..two bit hack with no idea of what you're talking about", that's fine. It simply fits in with a lot of the other purely subjective nonsense which I have been reading from certain quarters on this thread.
Please tell me who you are, and where you are coming from because I honestly cannot comprehend how you can hold the views you hold and avoid every serious issue thrown your way. Who are you? And don't say that I'll do anything to support my government. I've already said I thought the occupation was wrong. What I don't understand is why you can't get yourself out of the reality of the 80's and into the reality of today.