Israel is the Greatest!

12346»

Comments

  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    rebornFixer wrote:
    My position on the issue is wholly pragmatic: If the Israelis are going to stop the violence, the Palestinians will need to renounce organizations like Hamas.

    why is it that Hamas must be renounced yet the Israeli gov't which purpetrates greater violent acts is not?
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris_x wrote:
    rebornFixer wrote:
    My position on the issue is wholly pragmatic: If the Israelis are going to stop the violence, the Palestinians will need to renounce organizations like Hamas.

    why is it that Hamas must be renounced yet the Israeli gov't which purpetrates greater violent acts is not?

    Again, my basic point is that both sides must renounce violence. If Hamas were to form the Palestinian government and then agreed to renounce violence except in self-defense, great, that might work too.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    rebornFixer wrote:
    Again, my basic point is that both sides must renounce violence. If Hamas were to form the Palestinian government and then agreed to renounce violence except in self-defense, great, that might work too.

    again ... but Israel has not renounced violence ... why the focus on hamas?
  • Pepe Silvia
    Pepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    rebornFixer wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    rebornFixer wrote:
    My position on the issue is wholly pragmatic: If the Israelis are going to stop the violence, the Palestinians will need to renounce organizations like Hamas.

    why is it that Hamas must be renounced yet the Israeli gov't which purpetrates greater violent acts is not?

    Again, my basic point is that both sides must renounce violence. If Hamas were to form the Palestinian government and then agreed to renounce violence except in self-defense, great, that might work too.


    you better watch out or yosi will get mad at you, he started this thread about Israel, NOT hamas! :P
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • yosi
    yosi NYC Posts: 3,167
    i didn't make the rules, yosi, and for this board they say you can't derail a thread, take it up with kat and pearl jam - Pepe Silva

    Just reminding you what you yourself said Pepe, just in case you'd like to be consistent.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • Pepe Silvia
    Pepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    yosi wrote:
    i didn't make the rules, yosi, and for this board they say you can't derail a thread, take it up with kat and pearl jam - Pepe Silva

    Just reminding you what you yourself said Pepe, just in case you'd like to be consistent.

    i am being consistent, i wasn't the one bringing up Hamas
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    yosi wrote:
    Pepe I did read it. It specifically stresses in the definition of apartheid that the crime involves one racial group dominating and oppressing another racial group, and seeking to do so in perpetuity. That is not what is happening in Israel. The emphasis placed on race in the definition makes it clear that for "apartheid" to apply the crime has to be racially motivated. Israel, to repeat the obvious yet again, is not motivated by racial concerns. Furthermore, neither Israelis nor Palestinians constitute a racial group. They are both national groups, and in the case of Israelis at least, it is a national group that is incredibly racially diverse. You keep focusing on the part of the definition that says "one group oppressing another," but you ignore everything else.

    Here, I'll post it again for the third time. Try ignoring it again.

    'In 2002, a statutory definition of the crime of apartheid was provided by Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The crime of apartheid was included as one of several crimes against humanity, and encompassed inhumane acts such as torture, murder, forcible transfer, imprisonment, or persecution of an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, or other grounds, "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."[189] This change to defining the crime of apartheid as discrimination on the grounds of national, ethnic or cultural group rather than racial group alone increased the applicability of the law to Israeli policy in the West Bank.'

    Also, it's funny how you now try and pretend that Israel is not motivated by racial concerns. Why are the settlements Jewish-only? And how do you account for the high degree of racial discrimination within Israel?

    Michael Neumann:
    'Zionism has never been a movement for the defence of the Jewish religion.; on the contrary, many of the most religious Jews abhor it. It was never even a movement in defence of some cultural entity; when the Zionist movement began, Jews had no common language and their traditions were in many cases wildly dissimilar or simply abandoned altogether. Zionism was a movement that advocated not so much the defense of an ethnic group, as the formation of such a group in Palestine, where those who were thought to fit a certain semi-racial category were to find refuge. It was a lovely dream where all Jews would live happily together and, with typical Wilsonian obliviousness, no one seemed to notice that those who did not pass ethnic muster had no place in this fantasy. If they were to be tolerated, welcomed, even loved, it was to be at the pleasure of the Jews. Of that there could be no mistake. This is exactly the sort of vulnerable subordination that Jews, quite understandably, were trying to escape. "Trust us, we'll be nice" is not a promise endorsed by the historical record.

    Zionists respond with fury when their movement is identified with racism. Many ethnic supremacists do. They protest that they do not advocate their own superiority, but simply want a land or culture of their own. But that is of necessity a land where one race is guaranteed supremacy: whether or not this is on grounds of intrinsic superiority hardly matters. And that such movements and attitudes gain respectability is not the fault of the Zionists, much less of the Jews, but of an idiotically false tolerance of ethnic nationalism.'


    http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann10142009.html
    'Jew', in other words, does not refer to those who espouse Judaism or embrace Jewish culture. 'Jew' means 'of Jewish ancestry'. In virtually every Canadian jurisdiction, ancestry is explicitly cited as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Ancestry is just a contemporary stand-in for the older notion of race and is generally used in references to racial discrimination.(**) Like skin colour, it's something you cannot change, and therefore a particularly repugnant basis for determining civic status.

    For the homeland to *belong* to the Jews is for them to have *sovereignty* there. Thus Article 7(a) of Israel's Basic Law stipulates that "A candidates' list shall not participate in the elections to the Knesset if its objects or actions, expressly or by implication, include... negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people." The Jewish people, in other words, are sovereign, and hold the power of life and death over all non-Jewish inhabitants under state control. Lest this seem overdramatic, note how the Israeli ministry of justice commented on a court case in March 2009: "The State of Israel is at war with the Palestinian people, people against people, collective against collective."(***)

    So a miracle appears among us. The very ideology of homelands and peoples under whose auspices the Jews were all but exterminated has become the sustaining ideology of Israel, a state devoted to Jewish ethnic sovereignty.

Categories