Clearly, life is better without Saddam [Archive] - Page 2

Tmutarakhan

30-03-2008, 05:43

To expel the British and end immigration being amongst them.
Ending the lives of the immigrants is one way to end immigration, I suppose. There are German punks who think the proper response to Turkish immigration is to exterminate the Turks: there aren't too many actual murders of that kind, but that is because they are a small fraction of a percent of the Germans, not a majority as in the Palestinian case. Similarly, sometimes in America we have people burn crosses on the lawns of black families who move in where they "don't belong", although it's been a while since the last time it escalated to murder.

I don't know whether you also consider the German punks or the cross-burners to be morally praiseworthy, or whether you make some kind of distinction (Western people killing less Westernized people, bad; but the reverse, good?). But it would be silly to cry "GODWIN!" if I refer to the German punks as "neo-Nazis", given that that is what they call themselves. Would it be Godwinizing to refer to the cross-burners as "neo-Nazis" if they prefer a slightly different label for themselves (Aryan Nation, perhaps)? The term "Godwin" should be reserved for calling someone "Nazis" in the purely rhetorical sense of "people I seriously despise". Hamas is not even "neo-Nazi": they're "paleo-Nazi", a survival of the original National Socialist movement. Mufti Husseini, Qassem, etc. did not align with the Nazis merely as an alliance of convenience: it was a union of the like-minded. And Hamas is quite explicit, indeed proud, of this heritage.
But again you go back to throwing in some all-encompassing ideology.
Not a very complicated one: those people are different from us; I don't like having them live next to us; let's kill them.
Two groups, each promised a state of their own?
The original British plan was not for separate states: there was to be one state, in which all groups would have equal citizenship. Muslims would not accept this, since keeping non-Muslims in a second-class citizenship and subjecting them to ritual abasements was psychologically important to them. Britain went to a "two-state" solution in 1924, making the East Bank a Jew-free zone (there were few Jews living there who needed to be expelled) where Arabs who absolutely could not abide living next to Jews could go. Only in the abortive "White Paper" proposal in the 1930's did the idea of partititioning the west side, once again, first emerge.
Just for living within Israel? No, I never said that. They are entitled to go about their lives as much as their neighbours are.
I said that the job of the Israeli military was to minimize the casualties among the Israeli civilians, and you said this was a bad thing.
Apparently we have been talking past each other.
More 'shock horror' rhetoric. If Palestinians had a culture of "murder" I'd imagine they'd be far better at it.
They have not been successful at murdering as often as they used to be, because their freedom of movement and ability to import weapons and weapons-making materials is now under such severe restrictions. You are advocating the removal of those restrictions, which will of course improve the Palestinians' success rate.

Southnesia

30-03-2008, 11:53

Ending the lives of the immigrants is one way to end immigration, I suppose. There are German punks who think the proper response to Turkish immigration is to exterminate the Turks: there aren't too many actual murders of that kind, but that is because they are a small fraction of a percent of the Germans, not a majority as in the Palestinian case. Similarly, sometimes in America we have people burn crosses on the lawns of black families who move in where they "don't belong", although it's been a while since the last time it escalated to murder.

Relevence? Palestinian leaders were not (until Hamas was elected) particularly rascist. Hams puts up an anti-sematic veneer to pacify the populace, but anyone with a modicum of critical thinking can see that any attempt by them to exterminate the Jews would be about as possible as for the Nepalese to exterminate the Chineese.

Occupied peoples do not start genocides.

Hamas is not even "neo-Nazi": they're "paleo-Nazi", a survival of the original National Socialist movement. Mufti Husseini, Qassem, etc. did not align with the Nazis merely as an alliance of convenience: it was a union of the like-minded. And Hamas is quite explicit, indeed proud, of this heritage.

Hamas is Nazi like the IRA were Nazi- it was purely- and I resate that louder- PURELY an enemy-of-my-enemy thing.

Palestinians as a 'sematic race' (to use the language of the National Socialist) would be maybe the second against the wall if real Nazis turned up in the Middle East.

Not a very complicated one: those people are different from us; I don't like having them live next to us; let's kill them.

And the attitudes are so different when the Palestinians are the ones oppressed and the Jews (noe Israelis) are the jack-booted ones, aren't they.

I said that the job of the Israeli military was to minimize the casualties among the Israeli civilians, and you said this was a bad thing.
Apparently we have been talking past each other.

That is not the job of the Israeli millitary. The job of the Israeli millitary is to serve the interests of the state of Israel (more specifically the rulers of Israel- who often happen to be former army members). Their job, for instance, may be to patrol parts of Palestine, or to shoot up Nobel lauretes at peaceful demonstrations. It also can be to attack democracy by supplying an opposition party with weapons with a cryptic note telling Fatah not to use these weapons to overthrow the government of Palestine under any circumstances, except if they couldn't find anything else to do with them. It might be to evict Arabian Israelis to the Gaza Strip in order to negate their votes. Or to aid in the evacuation of the gaza Strip for the same reason. Or it may just be to invade Lebanon, the West Bank, the Gaza strip or the bit between to ensure that the previous two will never have a common road, and therefore will never be a viable state.

You say that the Israelis are merely defending their state- why, then did they not accept the truce offered by Hamas in 2006? You state that the Palestinians are meraly brutish thugs with no thought in their heads but that of the murder of Jews. Why did they offer the truce? You state that the IDF exists merely to defend Israel. Why, then, do the settlements in Palestine still exist? Why is the area of Palestine between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank still occupied?

You ask why the Gaza strip still fires on Israel, even though Israel no longer occupies it? Several reasons. The Israeli's constant attacks on civilians give a good reason, at least to attempt to prevent them (maybe not to fire on civilians). Their cutting of water, theft of monies, and blockade of basic neccesities are also problems that Hamas wants to fix. Of course all of these have been implemented for the dreadful act of voting for the wrong cadidate- democracy is evil, apparently. When Hamas staged their prison break into Egypt- committing the terrible crime of shopping- they made themselves unimginably popular, and Israel ensured that those who are, at least for now, her enemies will win every fair election indefinately.

The greatest reason is that the West Bank remains occupied- part of the same state despite Israeli attempt to create the contrary.

Southnesia

30-03-2008, 12:01

United Beleriand

30-03-2008, 12:20

Has anyone seen the hanging?Only the mobile phone video of it. Saddam died with his eyes wide open.

Nodinia

30-03-2008, 13:06

Ending (.....), of this heritage..

More gross generalisations. One wonders why the Jewish locals in Haifa asked that the local Arab population be left and not expelled, were they such a rabid crew as you portray.

The original British plan was not for separate states: there was to be one state, (....), first emerge...

More ranting, which ignores that some of the earliest calls to "Palestinians" and for a Palestinian state came from both Christian and muslims.

I said that the job of the Israeli military was to minimize the casualties among the Israeli civilians,...

I'm sure thats one of their jobs. Brutalising the "natives" and protecting the settlements in the OT seems to be a few of the others.

They have not been successful at murdering as often as they used to be, because their freedom of movement and ability to import weapons and weapons-making materials is now under such severe restrictions. You are advocating the removal of those restrictions, which will of course improve the Palestinians' success rate.

The occupation is sowing much of what Israel may well reap.

Tmutarakhan

31-03-2008, 06:11

Relevence? Palestinian leaders were not (until Hamas was elected) particularly rascist.
You are entering into a discussion about not just the present situation but how the violence started in the 1920's. Initially it was directed only against recent immigrants, but in 1929 the leadership broadened the campaign to cover ALL Jews, including the communities in Hebron (immigrated in 1492; wiped out), Tsefad and East Jerusalem (who had been there since before the Arabs).
Occupied peoples do not start genocides.
The occupation started a half-century after the genocidal campaign.
Hamas is Nazi like the IRA were Nazi- it was purely- and I resate that louder- PURELY an enemy-of-my-enemy thing.
Utter nonsense. The Palestinian leadership such as Mufti Husseini and Izzedin Qassem were whole-heartedly devoted to the Nazi cause. Husseini spent most of the war in Berlin making broadcasts all Muslims to join in the cause of exterminating the Jew, and the rest of his time touring the Balkans to recruit and organize Muslim units of the SS, such as the Bosnian SS whose record of atrocities (extreme even by Balkan standards) contributed much to the lingering hatreds there, and the Algerian SS.
Palestinians as a 'sematic race' (to use the language of the National Socialist) would be maybe the second against the wall if real Nazis turned up in the Middle East.
On the contrary, the Nazis in the Middle East were arming the Palestinians; that is where all their guns in the 1930's came from.
You say that the Israelis are merely defending their state- why, then did they not accept the truce offered by Hamas in 2006? You state that the Palestinians are meraly brutish thugs with no thought in their heads but that of the murder of Jews. Why did they offer the truce?
They offered a temporary truce to build up their armaments. They were not offering a permanent peace. They still intend to kill or drive out all the Jews from 1948 Israel, not just the "occupied territories", as you yourself make clear:
Why is the area of Palestine between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank still occupied?
Because that's where they live, and will continue to live.

Southnesia

31-03-2008, 09:37

You are entering into a discussion about not just the present situation but how the violence started in the 1920's. Initially it was directed only against recent immigrants, but in 1929 the leadership broadened the campaign to cover ALL Jews, including the communities in Hebron (immigrated in 1492; wiped out), Tsefad and East Jerusalem (who had been there since before the Arabs).

The occupation started a half-century after the genocidal campaign.

For a second, lt us cease to debate histroy. It is debatable whether or not Palestine was not wholly in the wrong- it is equally debatable that Israel was not wholly in the wrong.

Utter nonsense. The Palestinian leadership such as Mufti Husseini and Izzedin Qassem were whole-heartedly devoted to the Nazi cause. Husseini spent most of the war in Berlin making broadcasts all Muslims to join in the cause of exterminating the Jew, and the rest of his time touring the Balkans to recruit and organize Muslim units of the SS, such as the Bosnian SS whose record of atrocities (extreme even by Balkan standards) contributed much to the lingering hatreds there, and the Algerian SS.

Both Oswald Mosely and Lord Haw-Haw were violently fascist. Therefore, not only all Britons at the time, but all Britons to the present day who agree with German independence are fascist anti-semites.

On the contrary, the Nazis in the Middle East were arming the Palestinians; that is where all their guns in the 1930's came from.

Of course that Nazi support could not possibly have been a plot to destabilise the British mandate. No, never.

They offered a temporary truce to build up their armaments. They were not offering a permanent peace. They still intend to kill or drive out all the Jews from 1948 Israel, not just the "occupied territories", as you yourself make clear:

Whether or not Hamas, or whoever intends to 'drive out all the Jews' as you put it is a moot point. Also moot is whther Tibet intends to exterminate all the occupants of China, or whther Iraq intends to develop a space-born nuclear program: none of these acts can possibly occur at the present ime, and therefore any attempt to make them occur should be regarded as ludicrous at best or madness at worst. Not an actual basis for policy.

The point, however, remains. Hamas offered a truce followed by fair peace talks. Israel refused. Hamas held fire. Israel did not. Therefore Israel is the agressor.

Because that's where they live, and will continue to live.

Let me give you a tedious metaphor. In a crazy bizzaro world, Mexicans decide that they want to live over the border in the United States, as well as their native Mexico, which the UN and the US has said they can have. The US government refuses them. Many Americans are annoyed at this- anyone should have access to their country. However, in direct breach of American law, the Mexicans occupy the land anyway. They decide that they want some houses- they build them on top of American houses, and between two halves of the US and therefore that prevent the US ever being a viable state. The Mexicans decide that they want water: they use 80% of the US's water. The United States inform the Mexicans that there are certain laws in the US that they must obey. They Mexicans may not like them, but this is irrelevent because the Mexicans are in US territory. The Mexicans inform the US that they will not obey US law, as they are not US citizens. The US attempts to evict them result in bloody battle which the Americans, with no army to speak of, lose. The Mexicans living in the settlements are annoyed that the wrong party hs been democratically elected- instead of voting themselves, they kill the wrong party candidate, and give the opposition weapons, in order to create a millitary dictatorship. They do this while cutting off the water supply, stealing the American's only source of income, due to the Mexicans near daily bombing of important buisness sites, and their blocking of all roads. They also besiege the south bit of America. They also imply that they are the only democracy in the middle east, and all problems incurred by Mexican occupation are solely caused by the US.

All resistence to the Mexican settling is terrorism.

Israeli's in settlements live in Palestine- land that, for better or worse, is Palestinian. Their continued occupation prevents Palestine ever existing. Without Palestinian's permission, under Israeli law, and protected by the Israeli army. If they regarded themselves as Palestinians, that would be perfectly fine. Anything else is a selfish land-grab.

To use a certain Ad-Hominum before you do, all I have seen in your posts are anti-sematic pro-terror lies and propaganda. :) Have a nice day. :upyours:

Nodinia

31-03-2008, 11:50

The occupation started a half-century after the genocidal campaign..

so we've dropped 'chaotic' violence and gone back to the Arab=disciplined MONOLITHIC Nazi movement crap again. I repeat my example of Haifa above.

Utter nonsense. (.....)SS...

So the mufti is the one by which all Palestinians are judged? A good thing that most of us don't apply that logic to Ariel Sharon and Jews .

Secondly, even if every Arab in the area did actually wear jackboots and heiled Hitler 5 times a day in the 1930's, it does not justify the colonisation of their country by an outside force. If it wasnt good enough for the Germans, Italians or Japanese, I don't see why it should be for them.

Because that's where they live, and will continue to live.

Thats a justification for colonialism?

Tmutarakhan

01-04-2008, 04:58

For a second, lt us cease to debate histroy.
We cannot discuss the topic at all without the history. If there were no memories, then all we would have would be Israelis living where they now live and Palestinians living where they now live, and what is your problem with that?
Both Oswald Mosely and Lord Haw-Haw were violently fascist. Therefore, not only all Britons at the time, but all Britons to the present day who agree with German independence are fascist anti-semites.
Mosely, unlike Mufti Husseini, was not the elected leader of Great Britain. Haw-Haw, unlike Qassem, was not the leader of an armed leading a bloody revolt. There is no comparison at all. British fascists were a fraction of a percent of the population: you can find a fraction of a percent who are extremist, anywhere. The extremists of the settler movement are a few percent of the Israeli population: too large to be negligible (particularly when the political system in Israel often leaves the balance of power held hostage by the parliamentary seats this faction holds) but still a small minority. But the percentage of the Palestinian population who are extremist enough to support random pointless murders has always been in the double digits, usually a strong majority, and has controlled the official leadership.
Of course that Nazi support could not possibly have been a plot to destabilise the British mandate. No, never.
That, and kill a lot of Jews, both aims that the Palestinians wholeheartedly agreed with.
Whether or not Hamas, or whoever intends to 'drive out all the Jews' as you put it is a moot point. Also moot is whther Tibet intends to exterminate all the occupants of China, or whther Iraq intends to develop a space-born nuclear program: none of these acts can possibly occur at the present ime, and therefore any attempt to make them occur should be regarded as ludicrous at best or madness at worst.
That is why I do not support an independent Palestinian state, which would give them greater opportunities to carry out their intentions. That they continue to express such "ludicrous" intentions, and commit pointless acts of destruction despite the utter lack of any realistic possibility that it could further their intentions in any way, is, indeed, "madness".
The point, however, remains. Hamas offered a truce followed by fair peace talks. Israel refused. Hamas held fire. Israel did not.
No, Hamas did not hold fire. That is why we are in this situation.
Let me give you a tedious metaphor...
The premise of your metaphor is that Mexico has sufficient power to overwhelm the United States (as opposed to our world, in which indeed Anglo and Latino settlers moved into the same areas and came to blows, with Mexico losing a lot of territory as a result). Granting that premise, it would be very unwise for the President of the US to make it official policy to encourage the random murder of Mexican immigrants; this would certainly lead to a war, and if the US lost such a war, quite naturally Mexico would seize a lot of territory and never give it back. We were not actually provoked by Mexico nearly so extremely (Santa Ana was more corrupt than brutal, and did not actually aim to massacre a lot of Anglos; the Alamo was a "military target" by any reasonable definition), and yet there is no chance that we are going to give back the territory we took from them.

All resistence to the Mexican settling is terrorism.
What does this word "resistance" even mean in your vocabulary? Randomly murdering whatever person you can manage to kill does not "resist" anything. To "resist" something means to make it more difficult for that undesired thing to occur. I cannot off the top of my head think of any Palestinian action that has ever "resisted" anything.
Israeli's in settlements live in Palestine- land that, for better or worse, is Palestinian. Their continued occupation prevents Palestine ever existing. Without Palestinian's permission, under Israeli law, and protected by the Israeli army. If they regarded themselves as Palestinians, that would be perfectly fine. Anything else is a selfish land-grab.
I am not going to defend the West Bank settlers, who must eventually be made to clear out just like the Gaza settlers were made to. Unfortunately the behavior of the Gazans has made it politically impossible for the Israeli leadership to make any such move in the past year or so; but it will have to happen.
To use a certain Ad-Hominum before you do, all I have seen in your posts are anti-sematic pro-terror lies and propaganda. :) Have a nice day. :upyours:
I have used no ad hominems against you, and have no intention of doing so

Tmutarakhan

01-04-2008, 05:24

so we've dropped 'chaotic' violence and gone back to the Arab=disciplined MONOLITHIC Nazi movement crap again.
The Palestinian leadership has been malignant, conducting propaganda campaigns urging random acts of murder. The followership has been undisciplined, committing random acts of murder in a sporadic fashion often not under any effective control by the leadership. Both of these points I would have thought were obvious and undeniable: which are you wanting to deny?
I repeat my example of Haifa above.
Jews urged Arabs to try living peaceably side-by-side. Some did, and are still there. Most refused. Your point?
So the mufti is the one by which all Palestinians are judged? A good thing that most of us don't apply that logic to Ariel Sharon and Jews .
Who is "us"? Most pro-Palestinians do indeed apply that logic to Sharon and the Jews. A nation cannot help but be "collectively punished" for its leaders, especially when those leaders are elected: I never voted for W and have never accepted his legitimacy, but I cannot escape the negative consequence of W's actions, nor should I expect to escape them.
Secondly, even if every Arab in the area did actually wear jackboots and heiled Hitler 5 times a day in the 1930's, it does not justify the colonisation of their country by an outside force. If it wasnt good enough for the Germans, Italians or Japanese, I don't see why it should be for them.
Germans were ousted from 20% of former German territory, and Italians and Japanese from smaller portions of their former territories; those areas were indeed resettled, or "colonized" if you must use that word, by people of other ethnicities. That is what happens when you start a war and lose it.
Thats a justification for colonialism?
I don't think the "colonial" analogy holds much water here. You have to have a home country before you can have a colony. The Jews didn't have any homeland before they started immigrating to Palestine, which is after all where they came from to begin with.

Southnesia

01-04-2008, 07:13

Germans were ousted from 20% of former German territory, and Italians and Japanese from smaller portions of their former territories; those areas were indeed resettled, or "colonized" if you must use that word, by people of other ethnicities. That is what happens when you start a war and lose it.

Fortunately for your metaphor, Palestine is not the agressor. Israel refused an offer of cease-fire and negotiations for a longer term peace. Hensethe war would be over if it were not for the actions of Israel- hense Israel is the agressor.

I don't think the "colonial" analogy holds much water here. You have to have a home country before you can have a colony. The Jews didn't have any homeland before they started immigrating to Palestine, which is after all where they came from to begin with.

You keep throwing this smokecreen up. We are not debating about the merits, or lack therof, of zionism. Zionism extists, to evict the Jews and destroy the state of Israel is simply impossible.

The Jews now have a homeland. It is called Israel. Palestinians, on the other hand and who have an equal claim to the land, do not. Whether they should get one or not is the only topic of the debate.

Everything in the 1969 border of Israel is Israel. Everything that the UN says that they don't get, isn't. Every Israeli who is currently under Israeli law, ect and not in Israel is a colonist and in a colony.

Southnesia

01-04-2008, 07:42

We cannot discuss the topic at all without the history. If there were no memories, then all we would have would be Israelis living where they now live and Palestinians living where they now live, and what is your problem with that?

Sorry. I meant to say 'ancient history with minimal similaritiy or relevence to the present situaton.'

Mosely, unlike Mufti Husseini, was not the elected leader of Great Britain. Haw-Haw, unlike Qassem, was not the leader of an armed leading a bloody revolt. There is no comparison at all. British fascists were a fraction of a percent of the population: you can find a fraction of a percent who are extremist, anywhere. The extremists of the settler movement are a few percent of the Israeli population: too large to be negligible (particularly when the political system in Israel often leaves the balance of power held hostage by the parliamentary seats this faction holds) but still a small minority. But the percentage of the Palestinian population who are extremist enough to support random pointless murders has always been in the double digits, usually a strong majority, and has controlled the official leadership.

Very well. The new goalposts suit a German metaphor better:

Hitler was elected and Paulus was a millitary commander. Both were from Germany, and had considerable support early in their lives.

Therefore, all Germans to the present day are fascists.

That, and kill a lot of Jews, both aims that the Palestinians wholeheartedly agreed with.

They also wanted to kill a few British troops. However, mentioning that would reflect the majority opinion that Jews were not evil, nor should all be killed, but that all of Palestine should be ruled by the Palestinians. This would not suit your anti-sematic lies, and therefore never happened.

That is why I do not support an independent Palestinian state, which would give them greater opportunities to carry out their intentions. That they continue to express such "ludicrous" intentions, and commit pointless acts of destruction despite the utter lack of any realistic possibility that it could further their intentions in any way, is, indeed, "madness".

That is why I do not support an independent Jewish state, which would give them greater opportunities to carry out their intentions. That they continue to express such "ludicrous" intentions, and commit pointless acts of destruction despite the utter lack of any realistic possibility that it could further their intentions in any way, is, indeed, "madness".

No, Hamas did not hold fire. That is why we are in this situation.

Incorrect. Hams has not used suicide bombing since they were elected, and stopped firing missiles at millitary targets in 2005 (before they were elected). Israel refused to sign a ceasefire, and decided to subvert democracy. THAT is why we are in this situation.

What does this word "resistance" even mean in your vocabulary? Randomly murdering whatever person you can manage to kill does not "resist" anything. To "resist" something means to make it more difficult for that undesired thing to occur. I cannot off the top of my head think of any Palestinian action that has ever "resisted" anything.

Resistence is indeed where you make an act more difficult to commit. For insatance, Hamas' threat of terrorist (and other) attacks on IDF soldiers in and out of uniform acts as a deterrent to Israeli acts of terror. It doesn't work, bu it might some day, if Palestine got any international support, anywhere, ever. Israeli terror attacks, on the other hand, have no deterrence value. Israel has shown that it will continue to launch terrorists attacks which far outstip the cababilities of Hamas, whether or not Hamas launches attacks as well. Another examplle is that of Hezbolla. When Israel started a war with Lebanon in 2006, Hezbolla had 2000 rockets ready to fire on Israeli millitary targets. A small number of them were fired on Tyre in order to deter the Israelis from attacking. This didn't work, so the Lebanese were forced to launch about half of them at IDF troops, as all of the civilians had either fled, or were hiding in impregnable bunkers.

I am not going to defend the West Bank settlers, who must eventually be made to clear out just like the Gaza settlers were made to. Unfortunately the behavior of the Gazans has made it politically impossible for the Israeli leadership to make any such move in the past year or so; but it will have to happen.

When they have left, hamas will no longer have anything to fight about (except if the Israelis keep shooting, in which case they will defend themselves). I doubt that they will leave, though.

Nodinia

01-04-2008, 09:00

Mosely, unlike Mufti Husseini, was not the elected leader of Great Britain.

You aren't trying to say Husseini was elected, are you?

: you can find a fraction of a percent who are extremist, anywhere. The extremists of the settler movement are a few percent of the Israeli population: too large to be negligible (particularly when the political system in Israel often leaves the balance of power held hostage by the parliamentary seats this faction holds) but still a small minority.

Yet the Israeli state spends a large amount of time, effort and cash to aid them...Obviously theres far more support for them than you'd like to think.

But the percentage of the Palestinian population who are extremist enough to support random pointless murders has always been in the double digits, usually a strong majority, and has controlled the official leadership.

Do you have a few examples of where - specifically - "random pointless murder" was on list of policies of the PLO or PFLP, for instance?

That, and kill a lot of Jews, both aims that the Palestinians wholeheartedly agreed with..

The religon/ethnicity of the state occupying them is neither here nor there. The reaction would be the same regardless.

That is why I do not support an independent Palestinian state, which would give them greater opportunities to carry out their intentions. That they continue to express such "ludicrous" intentions, and commit pointless acts of destruction despite the utter lack of any realistic possibility that it could further their intentions in any way, is, indeed, "madness"...

The stereotype of the feckless, bloodthirsty Arab rises again....

The premise of your (.....)from them."...

A rant that rests on a number of presumptions.

What does this word(....)" anything.."...

I can. Not very "random" either.
Thirteen IDF soldiers killed in Gaza
link (http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2004/5/Six%20IDF%20soldiers%20killed%20in%20Gaza%2011-May-2004)

I am not going to defend the West Bank settlers, who must eventually be made to clear out just like the Gaza settlers were made to. Unfortunately the behavior of the Gazans has made it politically impossible for the Israeli leadership to make any such move in the past year or so; but it will have to happen..."...

Yes, poor Israel, what can it do....All those nasty Gazans wanting the rest of their people free from occupation too....

The Palestinian leadership has been malignant, conducting propaganda campaigns urging random acts of murder. The followership has been undisciplined, committing random acts of murder in a sporadic fashion often not under any effective control by the leadership. Both of these points I would have thought were obvious and undeniable: which are you wanting to deny?..."...

So its chaotic, then its an organized Nazi campaign, then its a chaotic Nazi campaign, and now you've shifted tenses.

Jews urged Arabs to try living peaceably side-by-side. Some did, and are still there. Most refused. Your point??..."...

No, "Jews" urged the Haggannah to stop forcing the Arabs out and the Arabs to stay, despite threats and provocation. You seem hell bent on making this issue center around "Jews". I was unaware that there was a monolithic "Jewish" hive-mind anymore than there was an Arab one.

Who is "us"? Most pro-Palestinians do indeed apply that logic to Sharon and the Jews.??..."...

This is news to me.

Germans were ousted from 20% of former German territory, and Italians and Japanese from smaller portions of their former territories; those areas were indeed resettled, or "colonized" if you must use that word, by people of other ethnicities. That is what happens when you start a war and lose it..??..."...

I would have thought being expelled en masse from what is now Israel quite punishment enough.

I don't think the "colonial" analogy holds much water here. You have to have a home country before you can have a colony. .??..."...

So you don't recognise the state of Israel?

Tmutarakhan

01-04-2008, 22:20

Sorry. I meant to say 'ancient history with minimal similaritiy or relevence to the present situaton.'
The history is not "ancient" when it is still within living memory, and the present situation remains quite similar.
If either side let bygones be bygones, there wouldn't be a fight: the fight is all about competing versions of the past. The Palestinians believe, based on their version of the pre-1948 history, that they are entitled to reverse the outcome of the 1948 war; that is never going to happen, as you seem to acknowledge, but THEY need to be convinced of that. The Palestinians seem to want the Israelis to confess being in the wrong in 1948, which the Israelis, based on their version of their history, do not believe that they were.
Hitler was elected and Paulus was a millitary commander. Both were from Germany, and had considerable support early in their lives.
Therefore, all Germans to the present day are fascists.
What I am saying is not that "all" Germans were fascists, even before 1945, but that all Germans suffered the consequences of Hitler's actions up to 1945, and could not reasonably have expected anything else, until they repudiated fascism. If the Germans had not surrendered, but rather vowed to keep fighting until the outcome of 1945 was reversed, and because they found soldiers too hard a target, resorted to shooting American tourists, bombing British schools, pushing Frenchmen off cruise boats, and hijacking Russian planes, well then of course they would still be occupied to the present day.
They also wanted to kill a few British troops. However, mentioning that would reflect the majority opinion that Jews were not evil, nor should all be killed, but that all of Palestine should be ruled by the Palestinians. This would not suit your anti-sematic lies, and therefore never happened.
Your sentences here do not make much sense; could you try to clarify what you are even saying? Both the Nazis and the Palestinians, of course, wanted to kill a few British troops, as well as killing a lot of Jews; those aims were completely compatible, of course, and I have no problem with "mentioning that". I am not sure who the "majority" is that you are claiming had the opinion that Jews were not evil and should not be killed: the majority of Nazis? The majority of Palestinians? I do not think that was the majority opinion of either. Nor am I sure what you mean by "anti-sematic lies", or what you are claiming "never happened".
That is why I do not support an independent Jewish state
They don't need your support: they already have their state, and the power to keep it.
The Palestinians on the other hand want a state, which they do not have, and do not have the power to bring about. Therefore they need support. To get it, they would need to show that they can be trusted, and trust is what they have not earned.
Incorrect. Hams has not used suicide bombing since they were elected
Hamas claims responsibility for the Dimona suicide bombing (so does Al Aqsa and the Popular Front; apparently all three were involved to some extent).
... and stopped firing missiles at millitary targets in 2005 (before they were elected).
Hamas has never filed missiles "at military targets". Its missiles do not even have sufficient accuracy to be targeted in such a way: they are just lobbed at towns, to kill randomly whoever happens to be in the area.
Israel refused to sign a ceasefire
Hamas wanted a breather to restock their missile supply and plan new attacks. Israel has no reason to grant that.
Resistence is indeed where you make an act more difficult to commit. For insatance, Hamas' threat of terrorist (and other) attacks on IDF soldiers in and out of uniform acts as a deterrent to Israeli acts of terror.
No, it doesn't deter Israeli actions in any way. Quite the contrary.
It doesn't work, bu it might some day, if Palestine got any international support, anywhere, ever.
Palestine does have international support somewhere: within the Arab world. The bombings and rockets ensure, however, that the Palestinians will never have support from elsewhere.
Israeli terror attacks, on the other hand, have no deterrence value.
They don't aim at "deterrence", but at actual prevention. When a rocket launcher is killed, he won't launch any more rockets.
When they have left, hamas will no longer have anything to fight about
Except what you call "the area between Gaza and the West Bank", otherwise known as the state of Israel. Hamas has always maintained that they will fight until they have driven out the Jews from every square inch. This is delusional, as you acknowledge, but tell THEM that.

Tmutarakhan

01-04-2008, 23:38

You aren't trying to say Husseini was elected, are you?
In the same sense that British Prime Ministers are "elected": technically, the PM is appointed, but the monarch always (except in case of deadlock, as last happened in 1940) appoints the leader of the party which won the elections. Hitler wasn't "elected Chancellor", technically, either: he was appointed by Hindenberg, but of course, appointed because his party won the elections.
Husseini's faction won the council elections (overwhelmingly) so the Mandate authorities recognized him as the administrative head of his community.
Yet the Israeli state spends a large amount of time, effort and cash to aid them...Obviously theres far more support for them than you'd like to think.
As I pointed out, the "Weimar rules" (disparagingly so called after the interwar German system which paralyzed the state in a similar way) governing the Israeli Parliament give an inordinate amount of power to the small parties when no single party has a majority (as usually results). A party with barely 5% of the votes can hold the whole government hostage.
What can be said is that there is no solid consensus against the settlers. If the big parties, both left and right, agreed that removing the settlers would create peace, then their 5% of the seats would not matter: but this hasn't happened. For a while there was a consensus to at least try removing settlers, when Sharon of all people put forth the idea of unilaterally dismantling the presence in Gaza, but the outcome of the experiment has left very little faith that removing settlers from the West Bank would accomplish anything.
Do you have a few examples of where - specifically - "random pointless murder" was on list of policies of the PLO or PFLP, for instance?
They call it "resistance". I call it "random pointless murder".
The religon/ethnicity of the state occupying them is neither here nor there. The reaction would be the same regardless.
Bullshit. How many times did the Palestinians bomb Egyptians or Jordanians?
The stereotype of the feckless, bloodthirsty Arab rises again....
It arises from the fact of bloodthirsty, yet thoroughly ineffective, Arab actions.
I can. Not very "random" either.
You cite actions, which while at least against military personnel rather than random civilians, were not aimed at protecting any Palestinian in any way, or making it harder to plant settlements, or... One action was to make it more difficult to destroy rocket launchers, another to make it more difficult to stop the smuggling of rocket parts, another to stop soldiers from assisting an old Palestinian woman: what are they "resisting"? They are resisting any infringement on their "right" to keep launching rockets at random civilians. Their aim is not to do any good for Palestinians, but just to do evil to Israelis. That may give them some emotional satisfaction, but it does not serve any constructive purpose.
Yes, poor Israel, what can it do....All those nasty Gazans wanting the rest of their people free from occupation too....
And wanting to blow up housewives and little boys, you keep forgetting that part.

You operate under the assumption that if the post-1967 occupation ended, so would the violence. But look, I'm old enough to remember before the 1967 war. Rockets falling on Israeli towns didn't usually make the American papers back then-- because that happened every day, it was just part of the background noise, no more headline-worthy than "another child starves to death in Africa". Now, I do recall this one story, about a Saiqa activist (whatever happened to Saiqa, anyway?) captured in the Golan, who was taken on a tour of the towns and kibbutzim that he had been showering with rockets for years: he said that he had been told he was firing on military bases; when he learned what he had actually been doing, he was sad and ashamed. So, maybe if the 1967 borders were restored, Palestinians would indeed feel less inclined to keep bombing towns. That's the $64 million dollar question: would they stop it, or just use the more forward positions and greater freedom of movement to bomb with more intensity, like before? That is what the Gaza withdrawal was intended to test. The results so far have persuaded almost all Israelis that withdrawing from the West Bank would, far from stopping the violence, increase it, just like the Lebanon withdrawal did.
So its chaotic, then its an organized Nazi campaign, then its a chaotic Nazi campaign, and now you've shifted tenses.
It's a floor wax and a dessert topping!
No, "Jews" urged the Haggannah to stop forcing the Arabs out and the Arabs to stay, despite threats and provocation. You seem hell bent on making this issue center around "Jews".
No, I'm just trying to figure out what your point is. Some on the Jewish side wanted to push all the Arabs out; others hoped that the Arabs could be talked into living with them in peace; a few of the Arabs were willing to try living in peace, but most were not. OK. What's your point? That not every Palestinian is remorselessy, implacably hostile? This false-dichotomy argument has been all over any kind of thread that mentions Muslims: if somebody has the nerve to mention that there are a sufficiently large number of violent Muslims to make them a serious concern, this is turned in to "But not all Muslims are like that!" Sure, and not all Germans were in the Wehrmacht, and not all Russians were in the Red Army, and not all Americans are invading Iraq right now, and not all Spaniards massacred Indians, and not all Confederates owned slaves...
I would have thought being expelled en masse from what is now Israel quite punishment enough.
It was a hardship, just like it was a hardship during those same years for the comparable number of Jews who were expelled from the Arab countries, the larger number of Germans who were expelled from Silesia, Pomerania, Prussia, and Alsace, and the vastly larger number of Chinese who were expelled from the mainland. All of those people built new lives for themselves, instead of insisting upon re-fighting the war they'd already lost so that they could bring new and greater hardships upon the heads of their children.
So you don't recognise the state of Israel?
??? I thought you were saying that the very existence of Israel was "colonialism". Apparently you meant instead that, given the existence of (1948 borders) Israel, that the West Bank land-grabs are "colonialism"? If that is what you meant, you aren't going to have an argument partner; I have said before and will say again that the West Bank settlers are indefensible. They are not a crime on the level of murderers, however, and until the Palestinians are willing to put a stop to their murderers, nothing is going to happen.

Nodinia

02-04-2008, 10:05

In the same sense that British Prime Ministers are "elected": technically, the PM is appointed, but the monarch always (except in case of deadlock, as last happened in 1940) appoints the leader of the party which won the elections. Hitler wasn't "elected Chancellor", technically, either: he was appointed by Hindenberg, but of course, appointed because his party won the elections.
Husseini's faction won the council elections (overwhelmingly) so the Mandate authorities recognized him as the administrative head of his community..

When he ran to become Mufti, he came fourth.

If the big parties, both left and right, agreed that removing the settlers would create peace, then their 5% of the seats would not matter: but this hasn't happened. ..

...but its not as simple as removal. Its the continued active support of their growth over 40 years.

For a while there was a consensus to at least try removing settlers, when Sharon of all people put forth the idea of unilaterally dismantling the presence in Gaza, but the outcome of the experiment has left very little faith that removing settlers from the West Bank would accomplish anything...

...but that was never part of a policy of withdrawal, just consolidation.

They call it "resistance". I call it "random pointless murder"....

....So you effectively label every attempt to resist with a negative in order to dismiss even the concept of "resistance". Perhaps your efforts could next be spent trying to replace "occupy" with "hug".

Bullshit. How many times did the Palestinians bomb Egyptians or Jordanians?
"....

Presumably the same number of times an Egyptian settlers occupied land that had its previous tenants forcibly removed under a semi-apartheid regime.....

It arises from the fact of bloodthirsty, yet thoroughly ineffective, Arab actions."....

Completely unlike the non-blood thirsty yet very effective Israeli actions...

You cite actions, which while at least against military personnel rather than random civilians, (......), but it does not serve any constructive purpose.."....

...which all rather conveniently omits mention of the continued presence in the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem, the control of the borders and the odd "targeted killing".

And wanting to blow up housewives and little boys, you keep forgetting that part.......

Well as its the occupier showing a marked lead in that field, I would not have thought it too relevant to drag in the whole dead civillian thing.......

So, maybe if the 1967 borders were restored, Palestinians would indeed feel less inclined to keep bombing towns. .......

Maybe.

That is what the Gaza withdrawal was intended to test........

Emm...no. Gaza was conducted for a number of reasons, but seeing if the Palestinians would be nice was not one of them.

No, I'm just trying to figure out what your point is. Some on the Jewish side wanted to push all the Arabs out; others hoped that the Arabs could be talked into living with them in peace; a few of the Arabs were willing to try living in peace, but most were not. ........

Most were expelled before a door to door survey on the subject was conducted....The treatment of those occupied and those who stayed subsequently would be bound to influence a modern one somewhat negatively, I'd wager.

. All of those people built new lives for themselves, instead of insisting upon re-fighting the war they'd already lost so that they could bring new and greater hardships upon the heads of their children.........

They didn't find themselves occupied by the same people that expelled them not 20 years earlier either......

??? I thought you were saying that the very existence of Israel was "colonialism". Apparently you meant instead that, given the existence of (1948 borders) Israel, that the West Bank land-grabs are "colonialism"? If that is what you meant, you aren't going to have an argument partner; I have said before and will say again that the West Bank settlers are indefensible. They are not a crime on the level of murderers, however, and until the Palestinians are willing to put a stop to their murderers, nothing is going to happen.

Seeing as theres no need (apart from Israeli government incentives) to move to the West Bank, and theres really no place for palestinians to go, its fairly obvious who the aggressor is here. Until theres a withdrawal, why should any action stop? Its not like the settlements have stopped expanding, and whats poured out of those concrete mixers is considerably more effective as a weapon of war than the glorified fireworks fired at Sderot.

Tmutarakhan

02-04-2008, 22:29

When he ran to become Mufti, he came fourth.
Sigh... let me try again to explain to you how these things work.
I am sure there are at least 3 Labor MP's in Britain who got more votes than Gordon Brown. That is totally irrelevant. The Prime Minister is not the MP who got the most votes, but the leader of the party who won the most seats.
I am sure there are at least 3 Congressmen who got more votes than Nancy Pelosi. That is totally irrelevant. The Speaker of the House is not the Representative who got the most votes, but the leader of the party who won the most seats.
The elections were for a legislative council. Husseini's faction won almost all of the seats. Three of the candidates from his party turned out to draw more votes than he himself did: so? They weren't "running to become Mufti"; they recognized Husseini as their leader.
They didn't find themselves occupied by the same people that expelled them not 20 years earlier either......
Precisely! That is because the Jewish, German, and Chinese refugees who lost their homes 1945-1950 did not spend the next 20 years refighting the war they had already decisively lost, until they lost again even more disastrously. Taiwan would be the nearest analogy, since they did indeed hang on, for a quarter-century, to the fiction that they were going to reconquer China: but they didn't actually spend all that time lobbing rockets at the mainland, because if they had, they would have been squashed like a bug, and they had the wit to realize that.
For the 20 years after their expulsion, the Arab refugees were living with and governed by fellow Arabs, just like the Jews, Germans, and Chinese moved in on fellow Jews, Germans, and Chinese. There was no difference in the level of destitution: most of them had lost just about everything. The difference is that Jews, Germans, and Chinese assisted their fellows to rebuild new lives. If instead the Germans had spent all their time lobbing rockets at Poland and killing any Americans or Russians they could get ahold of, then of course, Germany would still be under occupation.
....So you effectively label every attempt to resist with a negative in order to dismiss even the concept of "resistance".
I have a perfectly good concept of what "resistance" is. The history of the French Resistance does not involve blowing up German housewives or little boys, or planting bombs in pizza shops or markets. They actually obstructed the ability of the German war machine, to the best of their abilities. That is what I mean by "resisting".
What do the Palestinians do? You did point to examples where they obstructed the Israeli military, but only to the end of resisting the interdiction of rocket-launches against civilians (or in one case, resisting the attempts of the IDF to assist a Palestinian, an instance that really didn't help your argument!). I can't see any point to their actions, except to kill civilians, for sheer killing's sake.
Completely unlike the non-blood thirsty yet very effective Israeli actions...
Very effective. They have achieved an indepedent state for the past sixty years, while the Palestinians only had a quasi-independent state for three (and forfeited that, because even the other Arabs found them incapable of self-control). The number of rockets launched them since the occupation has been markedly less than pre-1967. The wall and other severe restrictions on the number of Palestinians allowed to enter Israel have cut down the number of bombings. You yourself point out that Israelis take many fewer casualties than the Palestinians do, unlike in the earlier history. The Israeli actions are designed to minimize the number of Israeli casualties, and they are much more effective at that than Palestinian actions are at minimizing Palestinian casualties-- largely because, of course, Palestinian actions don't even aim at protecting Palestinians (but rather, expose Palestinian bystanders to greater danger).
Emm...no. Gaza was conducted for a number of reasons, but seeing if the Palestinians would be nice was not one of them.
Seeing how the Palestinians would respond was high among the subjects discussed among Israelis debating whether to go through with it.
One of the Likud's leading opponents to the withdrawal plan, Minister Uzi Landau, criticized the media yesterday for not having asked Sharon strong questions about his retreat plan - but the answers Sharon gave to some of the questions he was asked were also not particularly strong. Haaretz, for instance, queried if he thought that the terrorists "are correct in viewing an Israeli exit from Gaza as a victory," to which the Prime Minister responded,
"Let's say we had reached a peace agreement and we had to get out of much larger areas than now. Would that not be seen as a victory over Israel? It would be seen in exactly the same way." However, his Vice Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, has already said that the government plans to withdraw from "much larger areas" in the future, thus that the benefits of the present plan are not quite clear.

Haaretz: "Your critics argue that unilateral withdrawal is a reward for the terrorists."
Prime Minister Sharon: "And today, when we are there, is there no terror?"

Haaretz: "Do you think that terror will continue after the withdrawal?"
Sharon: "I don't see the terror stopping. I hope there will be a decline in terror..."
Reprint (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/60632)
He calls the withdrawal "a remarkable process … that will have an enormous impact on everything that will happen thereafter, in the State of Israel and in the Middle East." He emphasizes its unilateral nature: "we don't have to wait anymore, that we really don't need the United States to lead the process in the Middle East, we will lead this process in the Middle East." He then soars with this theme of leadership:

We will lead it because it's good for us. And we will lead it because it may do good to the Palestinians. And we believe that if it will be good for us and will be good for the Palestinians, then it will be good. It will bring more security, greater safety, much more prosperity, and a lot of joy for all the people that live in the Middle East. … Everything depends on the success of this disengagement.

Then comes the plaintive Song of Oslo that I never expected to hear from a leader of Likud:

And we all desperately need it. We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies, we want that we will be able to live in an entirely different environment of relations with our enemies. We want them to be our friends, our partners, our good neighbors.
For all the talk of a grizzled, post-Oslo realistic approach to the Palestinians, Olmert still proffers some old (and one would think discredited) hopes, saying this friendship

is within reach if we will be smart, if we will dare, if we will be prepared to take the risks, and if we will be able to convince our Palestinian partners to be able to do the same. So that together we will move forward in this direction of building up different relations, better understanding, and greater trust between us and them.

In an insight into the Sharon camp's thinking, Olmert explains the logic of the withdrawal:

We have reached the conclusion that this is essential in order to change the realities and to move forward to break the status quo, and to start something that ultimately will lead to a new dialogue between us and the Palestinians.

Oh, in other words, the hopes of Oslo really do live on. Further confirmation of Likud's ascent to Cloud Cuckoo Land comes next:

we know that there is no alternative and we pray that the Palestinians will understand that there is no alternative. And if they will understand what we know now than things will change. And we will spare no effort in order to convince them, not by fighting with them, not by killing them, not by reaching out for their leaders, but by sitting with them, and talking with them, and helping them, and cooperating with them, and partnering with them in order to establish a new foundation for economic growth, for cooperation, for the improvement of the quality of life of the Palestinians and the Israelis, so that the Middle East will indeed become what it was destined to be from the outset, a paradise for all the world.

It does not get much more woolly-minded than that.

Olmert ends by praying that with the removal of all Israelis from Gaza, "a new morning of great hope will emerge in our part of the world." He also prays that "the Palestinian leadership will seize this opportunity, will become as responsible as they need to be, will manifest courage and determination."
...
(The blogger [Pipes] illustrates the right-wing thinking at the time:) Although the Gaza gambit is portrayed as unilateral, the above speech sure sounds like a plea for the Palestinians to respond in kind. In other words, it's really just another Israeli concession in hopes of winning a later reward from the Palestinians.

Blog (http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/504)
[Sharon] understood that in the Palestinian case the majority has no control over the minority. . .. He understood that Palestinian terrorism is in part not national at all, but religious. Therefore, granting national satisfaction will not solve the problem of this terrorism. This is the basis of his approach that first of all the terrorism must be eradicated and only then can we advance in the national direction. Not to give a political slice in return for a slice of stopping terrorism, but to insist that the swamp of terrorism be drained before a political process begins... What's important is the formula that asserts that the eradication of terrorism precedes the start of the political process... And with the annulment of that principle, Israel would find itself negotiating with terrorism. And because once such negotiations start it's very difficult to stop them, the result would be a Palestinian state with terrorism . . .
The disengagement plan is the preservative of the sequence principle.

Here, I am picking out the actual remarks by Weissglas (Sharon's chief of staff) from a right-winger article blasting a left-winger columnist interpreting the original interview as meaning that the whole peace process was going to be "frozen" since the Palestinians would never ever stop the terrorism: here is the whole tit-for-tat (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=6&x_article=793).

Nodinia

03-04-2008, 09:48

Precisely! That is (......)under occupation.].

Yet the nature of the occupation and the situation the two found themselves in is different.

I have a perfectly good concept of what "resistance" is. (.....) I can't see any point to their actions, except to kill civilians, for sheer killing's sake..].

You seem to have an over romanticised view of war and resistance.

(and forfeited that, because even the other Arabs found them incapable of self-control).

Completely unlike their erstwhile"if in doubt, drop a bomb" neighbours in Israel.

Whats that? 'O thats different'? I never expected you to say such a thing!

Here, I am picking out the actual remarks by Weissglas (Sharon's chief of staff) from a right-winger article blasting a left-winger columnist interpreting the original interview as meaning that the whole peace process was going to be "frozen" since the Palestinians would never ever stop the terrorism: here is the whole tit-for-tat (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=6&x_article=793).

Not quite the way the rest of us read it.

Instead of wasting 30,000 troops guarding 8,000 settlers, you could withdraw, appear to be "generous", wrong foot the opposition and begin progress towards a finalisation of borders, without having to go through the whole problems of "talks" and listen to people talking about compromise.......
said there had been no intention to freeze the "political process as such".

"But there was definitely an intention not to hold a political process with the PNA [Palestinian National Authority] in its present state," he told Israeli radio.

In his interview for Haaretz, he described disengagement from Gaza as "formaldehyde".

"It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians," he said.

Israel is planning to pull all its settlers out of Gaza and the troops that protect them as part of its plan but it will maintain control of Gaza's borders, coastline and airspace. Four West Bank settlements are also to be evacuated.

Mr Weisglass boasted that he had in effect secured US approval "that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all".

"The rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns," he joked.

Considering how ineffective Palestinian "Terrorism" generally is, it seems its more being used as a political point scorer than an actual worry, ' you gave in to terrorists' being perhaps along the lines of the Americans 'you're against the troops'/'soft on terror'.

Shayamalan

03-04-2008, 10:29

What seems to be the difference in the case of the US trying to rebuild Iraq is that they are trying to buck history. In just about any case of regime change in the 20th Century, it has been a commonly-held fact that there ends up being massive civil unrest, many times to the point of civil war, in the country. Obviously, when this happens, the infrastructure and quality of life of the country go temporarily down the drain. The only two exceptions that come to my mind in this case were Germany and Japan just after World War II, only because Germany's infrastructure was already in a shambles after the war and Japan, remarkably, changed its regime to a constitutional monarchy (of the emperor) quite peacefully (with battleships parked at their shores). In both cases, foreign countries made large investments in the rebuilding of their economies, either through government, in the case of the Marshall Plan, or the military, in Japan's case, though the US military in Japan did not have to face widespread insurgency. In the case of the US in Iraq, that's the difference. I am quite sure the military would like to be able to use much more of the money alloted to the war to help the Iraqis rebuild their infrastructure and services, but they have to work to make sure that infrastructure will be safe from attack once it is built before they can think about building it. Unfortunately, the "quagmire" is that one of the reasons the insurgents are attacking is the very presence of our troops in their country. It is not clear whether or not, if Saddam had not planned for any heirs upon his death, the country would have gone into civil war. However, the current situation is just following the same path as (in chronological order as I can think of them) the Habsburg Empire, Ireland (both parts), the Spanish Franquista regime, India, China, Cuba, Libya, Iran, Saddam's rise to power in Iraq, and all of the other regime changes through this century that were not mentioned (except Spain's return to democracy in 1975).

Tmutarakhan

03-04-2008, 18:24

Yet the nature of the occupation and the situation the two found themselves in is different.
And WHY did they end in different situations, when the initial situation was quite similar? That is the question you don't seem to want to understand. During the same years, several hundred thousand Jews, a million or so Arabs, a couple million Germans, and several million Chinese fled their homes, mostly without nothing except what they could carry, and mostly resettled among fellow Jews, Arabs, Germans, and Chinese respectively.
On the board from which I found this one, I knew a Jew whose parents were expelled from Iraq at this time: does he kill as many Iraqi Muslims as he can? Of course not, what a question. He has no interest whatsoever in continuing that old fight, no interest in going back to the old property. His family just built a new life for themselves (they went to Britain rather than Israel).
The Germans did not continue the fight, partly because they were under occupation (and in the first years, it was more brutal in the Russian zone and sometimes even in the French zone than anything the Palestinians have ever known), but mostly because they could plainly see they were beaten, and also came to see that their side of the war had been very much in the wrong. This is why they got their independence back.
The Chinese in Taiwan did continue the fantasy of refighting the war they had lost, but did not think that randomly killing people on the mainland would do any good: why would they think so? Why would anyone?
You seem to have an over romanticised view of war and resistance.
No I don't. You need to get real. There is nothing in the history of the French Resistance that is remotely like the purposeless activity you call "resistance" when Palestinians engage in it.
Completely unlike their erstwhile"if in doubt, drop a bomb" neighbours in Israel.

Whats that? 'O thats different'? I never expected you to say such a thing!
Yes, the Israeli behavior was completely unlike. When the cease-fire agreement was reached in 1949, the Israelis ceased firing. The Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, and Lebanese also ceased firing at that time. Only the Palestinian state in Gaza refused to cease fire, despite Egypt and Jordan's repeated insistences that a cease-fire was necessary if there was to be any hope of a resolution that could serve the Palestinians' interest: the 1949 UN resolution expressed the hope that refugees, both Arab and Jewish, who were "willing to live at peace with their neighbors" be permitted to return, and at that time it did not seem implausible that this might actually happen.
Then agents of the Palestinian state murdered the king of Jordan, aborting all negotiations. That is why there is no Palestinian state: Egypt shut it down.
Not quite the way the rest of us read it.

Instead of wasting 30,000 troops guarding 8,000 settlers, you could withdraw, appear to be "generous", wrong foot the opposition and begin progress towards a finalisation of borders, without having to go through the whole problems of "talks" and listen to people talking about compromise.......
said there had been no intention to freeze the "political process as such".

"But there was definitely an intention not to hold a political process with the PNA [Palestinian National Authority] in its present state," he told Israeli radio.

In his interview for Haaretz, he described disengagement from Gaza as "formaldehyde".

"It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians," he said.

Israel is planning to pull all its settlers out of Gaza and the troops that protect them as part of its plan but it will maintain control of Gaza's borders, coastline and airspace. Four West Bank settlements are also to be evacuated.

Mr Weisglass boasted that he had in effect secured US approval "that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all".

"The rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns," he joked.

If Palestinians stop the terrorism, there will be further moves to Palestinian independence. If not, then not. It is their choice: it always has been.
Weisglass cynically assumed that the Palestinians would show themselves to be utterly incapable of acting in a rational manner. So far, he has been proven right.
Considering how ineffective Palestinian "Terrorism" generally is...
I thought calling them "feckless" was just a stereotype?
But of course, it does have an effect: it does not have any effect of advancing Palestinian interests or defending any Palestinian from harm, but it has the effect of killing and mutilating people. You may consider that unimportant, though if it was a family member of yours I think you would see it differently. It is inexcusable, and intolerable. Either it will stop, because the Palestinians stop it; or it will be kept to a minimum, because the Israelis will keep the Palestinians under heavy lockdown, and kill as many perpetrators as they can, without much concern about how many bystanders they also kill in the process. You know this. They know it too. It is their choice. It always has been.

Nodinia

03-04-2008, 21:48

And WHY did they end in different situations, when the initial situation (.....) This is why they got their independence back..

...which again ignores the fact they were left stateless, and are now being colonised. I might point out that if one instance of defeat and expulsion had put off everyone who had encountered it, there would not be - amongst other things- an Israel today. Telling them to lie down while actively walking on them helps not at all, as there is no "peace dividend". Every ceasefire has seen a vast increase in settlement expansion and construction, as Israel scrambles to hold as much territory as possible in the event of a deal being struck.

No I don't. You need to get real. There is nothing in the history of the French Resistance that is remotely like the purposeless activity you call "resistance" when Palestinians engage in it...

You blame Palestinian activities for the carnage that Israel wreaks.
What did the Germans do in retaliation for French resistance attacks?
What did the French resistance do to those deemed "colloborators" during and after the war?
Were the trains that were derailed empty?
Were the French cities that were bombed unoccupied?

And I take it you are familiar with the bombing campaign from the air by all sides during the war?

If Palestinians stop the terrorism, there will be further moves to Palestinian independence. If not, then not. It is their choice: it always has been.
Weisglass cynically assumed that the Palestinians would show themselves to be utterly incapable of acting in a rational manner. So far, he has been proven right....

I see no evidence of that. I see much more of what I outlined being the case. Do I have to dig up the various expansion plans for the West Bank begun soon after the Gazan withdrawal?

It is inexcusable, and intolerable..

Its entirely understandable and inevitable, given what happens there on an all too regular basis.......

From 31 March 2008
"Mobile homes for an illegal Israeli settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) got the go-ahead within a week of Israeli bulldozers demolishing Palestinian homes and property in the area. It emerged last Wednesday (26 March) that Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak has approved the transfer of five mobile homes to the Israeli settlement of Teneh Omarim in the region.

Only the week before, Israeli army bulldozers demolished nine homes and two livestock enclosures in several Palestinian villages in the southern occupied West Bank. The demolitions were carried out on 19 March in the hamlets of Qawawis, Imneizil, al-Dairat and Umm Lasafa in the South Hebron Hills. "
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/feature-stories/unlawful-homes-israeli-settlers-demolitions-palestinians-20080331

I see no choice there except that of resistance in whatever form possible. It would be unhuman to meekly accept such treatment.

Tmutarakhan

03-04-2008, 22:25

...which again ignores the fact they were left stateless
No, they were left with a state, which they could have kept if they CEASED FIRE. They chose to continue the fighting, although the fighting had gone decisively against them, rather than to have a recognized independent state. They continue to make this choice.
You blame Palestinian activities for the carnage that Israel wreaks.
What did the Germans do in retaliation for French resistance attacks?
What did the French resistance do to those deemed "colloborators" during and after the war?
Were the trains that were derailed empty?
Were the French cities that were bombed unoccupied?
You are completely missing the point. Perhaps you are constitutionally incapable of seeing it. There is always "collateral damage" in war, but death just for death's sake is not the aim of acts of war.
The French resistance actions had a PURPOSE of obstructing German abilities to do harm to the French. The Palestinian actions do not serve any such purpose.
I see no evidence of that. I see much more of what I outlined being the case.
Israel will never pull back from the West Bank until the Palestinians stop terrorism. Never. The US will never compel Israel to pull back from the West Bank until the Palestinians stop terrorism. Never.
Weissglas appears to have been cynically hoping that the Palestinians would be fools, so that the West Bank settlements could go on unobstructed. Others in Israel however did hope it would go the other way; that is how the Gaza withdrawal got majority support. The fact that Weissglas turns out to have been right is not proof that nobody in Israel was hoping the Gaza withdrawal would lead to the Palestinians stopping the violence.
Its entirely understandable and inevitable......
Then I will hunt down and kill your family... I'm sure you will "understand".
I see no choice there except that of resistance in whatever form possible.
What, in the Palestinian actions, can you possibly describe as "resistance"? Nothing they do has any effect of "resisting" the Israeli actions.
There are some in Israel who believe in giving freedom to the Palestinians because they think it is the right thing to do. But politics involves mutual self-interest: Israel as a whole is never going to give freedom to the Palestinians until it is seen as safer for Israelis to do so. The Palestinians have done everything they could to make sure that Israelis see their safety only in locking Gaza tight (until every Gazan starves if need be) and pushing Palestinians out of as much of the West Bank as possible, and to make sure that they get little or no sympathy or assistance from the world outside their Arab co-ethnics (who give them only lip-service anyway). This is what they have been doing for 90 years, and that is how they got in this deep a hole.
"The definition of insanity is to keep on doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." -- Bill Wilson

Andaras

03-04-2008, 23:58

Ummm, just to confirm the Iraqis did set up their own democracy after Saddam was toppled, the CPA banned it saying it wasn't 'legitimate' and instead appointed the Interim Government and later held 'elections' with only pro-US candidates running. The CPA was careful in that Bremer made sure the neoliberal reforms he forced on the country were made permanent with the new Constitution.

Nodinia

04-04-2008, 09:44

No, they were left with a state, which they could have kept if they CEASED FIRE. They chose to continue the fighting, although the fighting had gone decisively against them, rather than to have a recognized independent state. They continue to make this choice.

Yet the alternative to violence is yet more settlement. Clearly not a "reward".

You are completely missing the point. Perhaps you are constitutionally incapable of seeing it. There is always "collateral damage" in war, but death just for death's sake is not the aim of acts of war.
The French resistance actions had a PURPOSE of obstructing German abilities to do harm to the French. The Palestinian actions do not serve any such purpose..

According to you, they don't. Yet the idea that so many have dedicated so much over so long to "death just for death's sake" fails to hold up to scrutiny.

Israel will never pull back from the West Bank until the Palestinians stop terrorism. ..

Which implies a static Israeli presence, as oppossed to an aggressive and growing one. Any ceasefire has seen more go in, not any come out.

Never. The US will never compel Israel to pull back from the West Bank until the Palestinians stop terrorism. Never...

..again implying that its some form of static post-conflict occupation, not a colonial enterprise.
The US will do whatever suits itself. For current purposes its suits them to keep Israel as a close ally and by nessecary extension, shaft the Palestinians. However should Iraq ever emerge as a stable client state, that could change. Sharons pull out of Gaza happened in the initial relative calm after the invasion of Iraq, influenced by such a fear.

What, in the Palestinian actions, can you possibly describe as "resistance"? Nothing they do has any effect of "resisting" the Israeli actions.
There are some in Israel who believe in giving freedom to the Palestinians because they think it is the right thing to do. But politics involves mutual self-interest: Israel as a whole is never going to give freedom to the Palestinians until it is seen as safer for Israelis to do so. ...

...Israeli safety is a secondary consideration to the annexation of as much of the West Bank and Jerusalem as possible. Primarily its about expansion. I find it odd that you can point out the ineffectiveness of Palestinian violence, yet then cite it as a justification for occupation. You might also explain how (as in the example from Amnesty) demolishing Arab homes while building yet more colonists aids the situation (unless of course you think its a good solution to just expel them all) .

The Palestinians have done everything they could to make sure that Israelis see their safety only in locking Gaza tight (until every Gazan starves if need be) and pushing Palestinians out of as much of the West Bank as possible,
"

I'm glad that you admit to that. However as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah are all groups founded in the 1980's, perhaps somebody might sit down think that the slow drip ethnic cleansing is in fact counter-productive.

Tmutarakhan

04-04-2008, 18:49

Yet the alternative to violence is yet more settlement. Clearly not a "reward".
No, the alternative to violence is a dismantling of settlements and creation of an independent Palestinian state. Stopping the violence FIRST is an absolute pre-requisite: it always has been (in 1949-51, the price of UN recognition of the Palestinian state was accepting the cease-fire, but they chose statelessness).

You (and Southnesia) have spoken of occasions when the rocket-launches etc. have stopped temporarily-- but the Palestinians were still stockpiling for future attacks. This is not the same as stopping, once and for all. Compare: the IRA tried to get Britain to settle for its "cease-fire", but Britain would not make peace unless the IRA "disarmed", a very different thing.

Or compare: there have also been periods when the Israeli government has not allowed any new settlements to start (sending soldiers to dismantle "hilltop trailers" by radical settlers who were defiant). But, the existing settlements were still there (and still expanding in population, and building new houses) so the Palestinians did not consider this to be at all the same as actually stopping the settlements (removing them, once and for all). So it can equally be said (as Netan-yahoo and his ilk do say) that the only "reward" for stopping settlements is more terrorism.
According to you, they don't. Yet the idea that so many have dedicated so much over so long to "death just for death's sake" fails to hold up to scrutiny.
??? How so?

Consider the little boy who was blown up to start the latest battle in Gaza. He was playing soccer, and the rocket certainly had the effect of preventing him from ever doing that again (he lost both legs, and may not live). But supposedly the motive was that he lives in the same country as people who were operating some bulldozers hundreds of miles away. Did this actually stop the bulldozers? Can you pretend that the rocket launchers were under any delusion that this would serve the purpose of stopping the bulldozers? Or was the purpose nothing else except "if bad things happen to some of our people, bad things will happen to some of yours"? This is the line of thinking, that doing bad things to the other side without any protection or benefit whatsoever to your own side is, in and of itself a "good" thing, that I call "death for death's own sake".

Now you have been making excuses for the rocket-launchers, surely a more
"aggressive" action than playing soccer, and your family members are related to you, so by your standards it is "understandable and inevitable" that somebody kill your family members: not that this would accomplish any purpose of actually stopping any rocket launches, but hurting somebody who is on the same side as the rocket launchers is a "good " thing. "Understandably and inevitably" then, if somebody did in fact kill your family members, you would then kill someone who lived in the same country as the perpetrator, or was from the same ethnic group: that would make things right, yes?
Which implies a static Israeli presence, as oppossed to an aggressive and growing one.
I was not implying any such thing, anymore than when you decrying the expansion of the settlements you are implying that freezing all the existing ones in place would be acceptable to you.
The US will do whatever suits itself.
OF COURSE WE WILL. All humans act first and foremost in their self-interests. Altruistic impulses do exist, but there are not enough people acting on them at any given time to expect political outcomes to be settled on any other basis except mutual self-interest. Israelis contribute to the world, in science, technology, literature, and the arts: it is in our interests (economic, military, sentimental, you name it) to keep the state of Israel going. Palestinians contribute precious little, except inventive new ways of killing people: we have no interest in seeing them given greater freedom of action. What do I (personally) owe the Palestinians? I curse them every time I go through an airport: those obstructions are the only contribution that Palestinians have made to my life.

The Palestinians cannot achieve an independent state, a rollback of the settlements, or even mild relaxations of the occupation conditions on their own power, but need others to assist them. They will not get assistance from others until they bring others to see it as being in their own interests.
...Israeli safety is a secondary consideration to the annexation of as much of the West Bank and Jerusalem as possible.
Not to most Israelis: get real. Israelis would gladly chuck all the settlements if they believed that would end the nonsense, but after Gaza, there are hardly any Israelis left who believe that. There are Israelis who believe that rolling back the settlements would increase the terrorism while expanding the settlements will decrease it, the exact opposite of what the Palestinians need them to believe; and then there are others (probably a large majority, although I don't have recent poll numbers) who don't really care much about the settlement-- because they assume that Palestinian terrorism will remain about the same levels regardless, whether settlements are dismantled or expanded or left as they are.

I think your whole belief that the occupation and the settlements are the cause of terrorism is just a lack of perspective: how old are you? I have only been to Israel once, for a few months as part of a Wanderjahr after graduating college, over thirty years ago. I found reasons to resent the systematic discriminations against non-Jews (do you think I am going to tell you Israel is perfect in every way? if so, you are misunderstanding): in my own situation, after my plane-ticket back to the European continent was stolen and I didn't have enough money to buy a new one, I washed dishes in hotels to make up the shortfall, only to find that tickets can only be bought with hard currency, and non-citizens (if I had been Jewish, I would have been an automatic citizen) could not exchange Israeli currency for foreign (I had to get my Mom to bail me out).

But what struck me most was the pervasive worry about the terrorists: in the most recent major incidents, a Palestinian had broken into a nursery school and murdered a bunch of two-year-olds, and then some were caught trying to land on a Tel Aviv beach where I had just been swimming, in rubber rafts packedc with explosives. Once, I got lost for hours looking for the youth hostel and was so tired of lugging all my bags that I left them under some bushes while I ran down a couple roads to get my bearings; of course, my bags were gone when I got back and I was told, "They probably weren't stolen; the police must have them." The police chief was FURIOUS with me: he stuck his finger right at my eye and shouted "Don't you EVER do that! DON'T YOU EVER DO THAT!!! NOT IN ISRAEL! NOT IN ISRAEL!!!"

Of course, back then the Palestinians weren't responding "understandably and inevitably" to settlements in the occupied terrorities: because there weren't any settlements. And I should have known better, because I had been hearing about what the Palestinians do ever since I was a little kid. Of course, when I was a little kid there weren't settlements in the occupied territories either, because there weren't any occupied territories. The "reasons" that "explain" the Palestinian behavior change, but the behavior never does. I was sick of hearing about it when I was a little kid, and now I am getting to be an old man.
I find it odd that you can point out the ineffectiveness of Palestinian violence, yet then cite it as a justification for occupation.
As I keep trying to point out, it is "ineffective" in the sense of having no positive effects for any Palestinians. It certainly is effective, in killing and maiming people: that effect is very real.
You might also explain how (as in the example from Amnesty) demolishing Arab homes while building yet more colonists aids the situation (unless of course you think its a good solution to just expel them all) .
If you want me to defend the West Bank settlers, I am not going to, I told you that a long time ago.

The settlers, of course, do believe that expelling them all is what it will come down to in the end. Maybe they are right, but I am not prepared to go that far as of yet.
However as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah are all groups founded in the 1980's, perhaps somebody might sit down think that the slow drip ethnic cleansing is in fact counter-productive.
The militants change names, breaking away from old groups to form new groups, over questions of tactics or just ego-fights over who is top dog; the "movement" has always been more than a little bit "chaotic", another thing that doesn't change. Hamas claims to be the institutional continuation of Ikhwan, from the 1930's; but the Ikhwan veterans were rather moribund during the 1960's and 1970's.

What they call themselves nowadays doesn't really matter anyway. Saiqa used to launch a lot more rockets than Hamas or Hezbollah ever have managed to.

Nodinia

04-04-2008, 23:26

No, the alternative to violence is a dismantling of settlements and creation of an independent Palestinian state. Stopping the violence FIRST is an absolute pre-requisite: it always has been (in 1949-51, the price of UN recognition of the Palestinian state was accepting the cease-fire, but they chose statelessness)..

...which again seems to equate settlements to army bases or fixed items. It rather ignores their growth, and their different nature.

You (and Southnesia) have spoken of occasions when the rocket-launches etc. have stopped temporarily-- but the Palestinians were still stockpiling for future attacks. )..

According to you. However we do know for an absolute fact that every ceasefire has seen a massive increase in settlement expansion.

This is not the same as stopping, once and for all. Compare: the IRA tried to get Britain to settle for its "cease-fire", but Britain would not make peace unless the IRA "disarmed", a very different thing.)..

The Good Friday agreement was signed in 1998. Disarming was to occur two years after but only occurred at the end of a long process in 2005 when the ceasefire was offically declared to be permanent cessation. It was always contingent on certain steps being taken by the British beforehand.

Or compare: there have also been periods when the Israeli government has not allowed any new settlements to start (sending soldiers to dismantle "hilltop trailers" by radical settlers who were defiant). But, the existing settlements were still there (and still expanding in population, and building new houses) so the Palestinians did not consider this to be at all the same as actually stopping the settlements (removing them, once and for all). So it can equally be said (as Netan-yahoo and his ilk do say) that the only "reward" for stopping settlements is more terrorism.
.)..

I think not. Even if the Palestinian diet was primarily composed of human flesh seasoned with pepper, they have a right to their own state. As Israel is perfectly capable of defending its borders, its planting of civillans outside its borders is clearly naked colonialism.

Consider the little boy ..

If you want to check the figures, you'll find that for every one child thats been killed you can throw out, I can answer with about 8 or 9, including a very large number killed by single sniper shots to the head, some in their classrooms. Thats the second or third time you've tried to turn this into "LOOKIT THE ATROCITY"!!!!!", though seeing as you'd come out the worse, I can't quite work out why....

I was not implying any such thing, anymore than when you decrying the expansion of the settlements you are implying that freezing all the existing ones in place would be acceptable to you...

A genuine freeze, as oppossed to just stopping official works and then turning a blind eye to "other" ones would be a blessed sign of goodwill on the part of Israeli Government. A start, as it were.

. What do I (personally) owe the Palestinians? I curse them every time I go through an airport: those obstructions are the only contribution that Palestinians have made to my life....

...which might make you wonder how it is to go through the West Bank as a Palestinian.

Not to most Israelis: get real. Israelis would gladly chuck all the settlements if they believed that would end the nonsense, ....

Yet their Government has shown no sign of doing so for the last 4 decades. Its built slow, its built fast and occassionally 'not noticed' others building, but its never stopped.....

but after Gaza, there are hardly any Israelis left who believe that. (*.....)n old man..

And I'm quite sure the Palestinian side can say the same thing, from the explusions of 1947, the cross border reprisals of the 1950's and the occupation from 1967....

Tmutarakhan

05-04-2008, 06:29

...which again seems to equate settlements to army bases or fixed items.
?????? Sometimes I cannot figure out at all how you get from what I wrote to what you are responding, and this is one of those times. No, I have no misconception that settlements are like army bases. What I am saying is that if you, or the Palestinians, want to see the settlements removed, the terrorism has to STOP, permanently. You can rail all you like about how the settlements are wrong, and I am not going to disagree with you; I am just telling you the facts about what is and is not going to happen.
[Tmut]...the Palestinians were still stockpiling for future attacks
According to you.
No, according to THEM.
However we do know for an absolute fact that every ceasefire has seen a massive increase in settlement expansion.
You may know such a thing, but I don't. Present some sources here: maybe you are correct, but I would be interested to see what you count as a "ceasefire" by the Palestinians, and what you count as a "massive" increase in settlements by the Israelis. My impression (which may of course be mistaken) is that there has been no particular correlation at all between terrorist upsurges/lulls and settlement expansions/freezes.
Even if the Palestinian diet was primarily composed of human flesh seasoned with pepper, they have a right to their own state.
No. Cannibal tribes in Amazonia and Papua have not been granted statehood. They have been forced to change their behaviors, or else, they have been exterminated.
If you want to check the figures, you'll find that for every one child thats been killed you can throw out, I can answer with about 8 or 9
You are blaming the Israelis for successfully lowering their own casualties to where they are taking fewer losses than the Palestinian side. Calling for the end of the occupation without a cessation of the violation is asking the Israelis to voluntarily go back to taking more deaths on their side.

Again I have to ask how old you are? You don't seem to remember what it used to be like, when the Palestinians weren't so tied down.
Thats the second or third time you've tried to turn this into "LOOKIT THE ATROCITY"!!!!!"
I thought it was much more than the second or third time. You seem constitutionally incapable of recognizing that an atrocity IS an atrocity, which is the point that I keep trying to get you to understand. Are you just going to repeat the "so's your old man" argument, gee, let's look at some other terrible things done by the other side, or do you have it in your heart to say that the mutilating of a little boy does not, in and of itself, accomplish any good purpose whatsoever? The Palestinians seek the deaths and manglings of people FOR THE SAKE OF THE DEATH AND MANGLING, alone, although it does not do any good for any Palestinian, does not obstruct the ability of Israelis to kill or mangle Palestinians, does nothing except satisfy revenge urges. Israelis attempt to kill the Palestinians who are actually attacking them, thereby protecting other Israelis: in the course of this, they also kill innocent bystanders and often display a morally reprehensible indifference to that, but there is not the complete divorce from any sense of purpose at all which I find so profoundly inexcusable in the Palestinians.
A genuine freeze, as oppossed to just stopping official works and then turning a blind eye to "other" ones
As I pointed out, Israeli soldiers frequently tear down the "other" constructions during the official freezes.
...which might make you wonder how it is to go through the West Bank as a Palestinian.
Again we are just talking past each other. My point was not to say that the airport hassles were a major impediment in my life, or to compare them to what Palestinians go through. The point is that the existence of Palestinians is a pure negative, with nothing positive to offset it. Suppose that all the Palestinians, rather than just being expelled, had died in 1948: for this hypothetical, assume they died of a plague or other natural cause, since if it was by genocide that itself would surely have lingering baleful effects. My life, and the life of almost everyone on the planet, would be better for their absence. That's a terrible thing to say about anyone, let alone a whole nation of people, but it's true. I'm sure there are several people who have some received some great kindness or another from a Palestinian, whose absence would leave a hole in their life, but for most people, the net effect of the existence of Palestinians has been a negative.

The Jews have (historically, and to the present) made a contribution to human knowledge and culture far out of proportion to their numbers. The Arabs have also made great contributions (over the whole history, at least, if not so much lately). But this Palestinian subgroup? What are they going to do, if they are given a state? Continually arm for futile warfare? Train and export troublemakers? It would be wonderful if they got their state, settled down to grow oranges and olives and figs, started some industry, became a net contributor rather than a drag on the world, but is that really what is realistic to expect?
Yet their Government has shown no sign of doing so for the last 4 decades.
Three. It started in the Begin regime, in the late 70's.
And I'm quite sure the Palestinian side can say the same thing, from the explusions of 1947, the cross border reprisals of the 1950's and the occupation from 1967....
In 1947, it was the Arabs expelling the Jews. In response, Israel beat them badly. In the 50's, the Palestinians continually made attacks. In response, Israel always beat them badly. Finally in 1967, Israel clobbered them. By now they ought to "trust" that violence can be relied upon to make things worse and worse for them. Usually, wars end when the losing side surrenders. Not always: Keegan's "War Before Civilization" mentions the case of the Salt Pomo of California, who were very proud of controlling an important source of salt for the neighboring tribes, who didn't just have to bring trade goods but also make ritual self-abasements to get their salt; some incident during one of the salt purchases caused the resentments to explode into violence (this was before there was much white presence so we only have some conflicting folklore collected a couple generations later to explain exactly how it started, as if it matters) and the Salt Pomo were driven off-- but, they refused ever to give up, and kept attacking and attacking to try and reconquer the salt flats, until they were wiped out to the last man (and other tribes were decimated during the wars). The Palestinians seem determined to play the role of the Salt Pomo.

On another board I saw a recent poll: 66% of Palestinians want to keep launching rockets; 84% approve of the yeshiva killing in Jerusalem. This is sheer insanity. As long as there are strong majorities in favor of purposeless killings, no way can I support a Palestinian state. It is like a violent criminal who is getting angrier and angrier during his imprisonment: it is one thing to say that the guards (the analogue of the Israeli soldiers) should not be brutalizing him, but quite another to say that he should be let out.

Nodinia

05-04-2008, 18:10

?????? Sometimes (.....)and is not going to happen..

And what I'm saying that continuily building civillian settlements, with its attendant brutalities is only going to provoke violence.

No, according to THEM...

Source?

You may know such a thing, but I don't(..........).

Note the years in the Aftermath of Oslo.
http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/stats_data/settler_population_growth/sources_population_growth_1991-2003.html

A pattern which continues - "Rewarding" Abbas, for instance....
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=955968
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=194771

You are blaming the Israelis for successfully lowering their own casualties to where they are taking fewer losses than the Palestinian side. Calling for the end of the occupation without a cessation of the violation is asking the Israelis to voluntarily go back to taking more deaths on their side..

...so you think that Israel is unable to defend its borders?

Again I have to ask how old you are? You don't seem to remember what it used to be like, when the Palestinians weren't so tied down.

The Palestinians seek the deaths and manglings of people FOR THE SAKE OF THE DEATH AND MANGLING, alone, ..

...according to you.

As I pointed out, Israeli soldiers frequently tear down the "other" constructions during the official freezes...

...which is why population growth for settlements averages higher than Israels for the last few years.

Again we are just talking past each other. (....) negative....

Normally when I read somebody say that kind of thing about "Blacks""mexicans" or even occassionally Jews I tell them they're full of shit. You'll pardon me if I keep to the habit here.

The Jews have (historically, and to the present) (.....)than a drag on the world, but is that really what is realistic to expect?....

The pro-Apartheid people used use that one a lot. Had I been around in the days of the "end of Emprire" I'd imagine I'd have been bombarded with it, not to mention the decimation of the Plains Native Americans. Oversimplified, crypto-racist bigotry - shite, to cut to the chase.

Three. It started in the Begin regime, in the late 70's.....

No, there was a greater influx from 1977. The first settlements were established in 1967 in various parts of the OT.
http://www.mideastweb.org/map_israel_settlements.htm

Tmutarakhan

06-04-2008, 20:38

And what I'm saying that continuily building civillian settlements, with its attendant brutalities is only going to provoke violence.
There is always violence anyway. There was violence before there were any settlements, before there was any occupation; there was increased violence after the largest removal of settlements; can you give me any reason to think that there would be any less violence if every settlement was demolished tomorrow?
Note the years in the Aftermath of Oslo.
http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/stats_data/settler_population_growth/sources_population_growth_1991-2003.html

Look in the migration balance column and you will see that, except for a spike in 2000, the number of Israelis (or new migrants to Israel) moving into the West Bank settlements has been on a steady decline throughout the post-Oslo years. The increase in overall numbers is largely because the ultra-religious families have a lot of children (so do Palestinians, for that matter).
The question I asked you was whether you could substantiate your claim ("absolute undoubted fact", you called it) that settlements are expanded every time the Palestinians declare a "cease-fire". I don't see any correlation.

A pattern which continues - "Rewarding" Abbas, for instance....

Here's a followup (http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=11847), in which the Israeli Army has decreed demolition for the illegal construction in Maskiot, acknowledges illegality of the construction in Eli and says it is "working" on it, although apparently rather slowly.
...so you think that Israel is unable to defend its borders?
If we give the Palestinians rocket-launch sites near to all the major population centers, then Israel will take a lot of casualties (rockets don't stop at the customs booth to present their passports), and the way that Israel will "defend its borders" would be to re-occupy the territory. Can you give me any reason to believe that Palestinians would not use their indepedence to escalate the violence?
[Tmut]The Palestinians seek the deaths and manglings of people FOR THE SAKE OF THE DEATH AND MANGLING, alone, ..
...according to you.
If you are going to claim that any other purpose is served, then tell what it is. I have asked you this repeatedly, and all you can say is LOOK AT WHAT THE OTHER SIDE DOES...
The basic moral principle here is: the only justification for doing harm to another is to prevent even worse harm. It is a bad thing to lock a person in a cage, but we do that to thieves, to prevent worse. Shooting at soldiers who are armed and might shoot you and your buddies is an act of war; shooting prisoners who are disarmed and no threat to escape or do you harm is a war crime. Does Israel always act in accord with these principals? Not always, and I will not pretend otherwise; but the Palestinians do not even have this principle in their moral vocabulary. Instead they operate from the principle: if the other side does wrong, then any wrong we do to them is justified. Apparently you do have the same mindset. When I speak to you from my perspective, you do not so much "disagree" as "not get it".
The pro-Apartheid people used use that one a lot. Had I been around in the days of the "end of Emprire" I'd imagine I'd have been bombarded with it, not to mention the decimation of the Plains Native Americans. Oversimplified, crypto-racist bigotry - shite, to cut to the chase.
??? Again I cannot fathom how you got from what I posted to what you respond.

The Palestinians are asking a special favor from me: not "me" personally, but Americans collectively, and the other nations of the world. They want their state, and cannot have it without my help. Why should I want to do them favors? What do I owe them?

Most communities/nationalities/whatever have little effect outside their immediate neighbors. East Timorese have never impacted my life in any way whatsoever, and I expect that is true for most people in the world. I have been impacted by a Kosovar, who got me out of a bad place when I was hitchhiking from Greece back west and gave me a ride halfway across Yugoslavia; thanks, mister, wherever you are; but most people in the world, I expect, have never gotten either help or harm from a Kosovar. Palestinians reached out and touched me, and much of the world, quite gravely during their heyday: the murder of Bobby Kennedy helped give us the Nixon Presidency, and institutional damage from which we have never recovered; the great wave of hijackings in 1968-70 has left its legacy of paranoia and hassles everywhere; the Munich Olympics massacre spoiled, not completely but long-term, one of the occasions of international goodwill.

And mind you, they are asking for more than Kosovo or East Timor. Those two are getting states which are occupied by peacekeeping troops (NATO and UN respectively) to keep some kind of order while things get organized. The Palestinians would never tolerate US troops policing the place instead of Israelis: they'd kill us. The Egyptians and the Jordanians don't want the responsibility back, either: for good reason. The Palestinians apparently want to be left with no supervision at all, although they are dominated by organizations which can only be called criminal. No, this is not going to happen, not without some very great changes in the Palestinian culture, which I see no signs of.
No, there was a greater influx from 1977. The first settlements were established in 1967 in various parts of the OT.
Once in a while you tell me things I did not know, and that is what makes it worthwhile to discuss (although I can hardly conceal that I find you a most disagreeable debating partner, and suspect the feeling is mutual). I did not know there were pre-Begin settlements. I suspect they were quite insignificant however.

Aggretia

07-04-2008, 00:12

You can't really have multiple acid trips in an hour, they usually last 6-12 hours, but I guess if you live in a delusional whacko-world it doesn't really matter.

Nodinia

07-04-2008, 10:49

There is always violence anyway. There was violence before there were any settlements, before there was any occupation; there was increased violence after the largest removal of settlements; can you give me any reason to think that there would be any less violence if every settlement was demolished tomorrow?.

It would mean an end to the "settler" roads, the security set up to protect the settlers, and an end to attacks from the settlers against Arabs unfortunate enough to be near them. This would in turn lessen the daily resentment, open the way for a contigous Palestinian state.

Look in the migration balance column and you will see that, except for a spike in 2000, the number of Israelis (or new migrants to Israel) moving into the West Bank settlements has been on a steady decline throughout the post-Oslo years. The increase in overall numbers is largely because the ultra-religious families have a lot of children (so do Palestinians, for that matter).
The question I asked you was whether you could substantiate your claim ("absolute undoubted fact", you called it) that settlements are expanded every time the Palestinians declare a "cease-fire". I don't see any correlation.
?.

Theres a ceasefire from Abbas now, and new settlment expansions are being declared, on a large scale.
These governments built thousands of new housing units, claiming that this was necessary to meet the "natural growth” of the existing population. As a result, between 1993 and 2000 the number of settlers on the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) increased by almost 100 percent.
http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/200205_Land_Grab.asp

New building in Jewish settlements on occupied land grew substantially in 2003.
Figures released by Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics show that new building in Jewish settlements increased last year by 35%
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3526791.stm

If these are all for "natural growth" I might enquire why they're offering incentives and doing this -
Israeli companies are using UK property shows to sell housing in illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, Guardian Unlimited can reveal.
At the Israel Property Exhibition at Brent town hall, North London last Sunday, one company, Anglo-Saxon Real Estate, was offering for sale properties in Maale Adumim and Maccabim. Both West Bank settlements lie on the Palestinian side of the so-called green line, the pre-1967 boundary and often cited as the border between Israel and a future Palestinian state.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/16/israel

And how precisely does "natural growth" account for an increase of population from 78,000 to 142,000 in 6 years? Are they splitting down the middle?
link (http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/stats_data/settler_populations/Israeli_settler_population_in_occupied_territories.html)

Here's a followup (http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=11847), in which the Israeli Army has decreed demolition for the illegal construction in Maskiot, acknowledges illegality of the construction in Eli and says it is "working" on it, although apparently rather slowly..

Theres about 100 or so "outposts"......
http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=58

. Can you give me any reason to believe that Palestinians would not use their indepedence to escalate the violence?..

They'd actually have something to lose, for starters.

If you are going to claim (....)as "not get it".?..

They do what they do to disrupt Israeli life, so that their suffering is neither unnoticed or without price. Its not "nice" or "pretty" but as all legal avenues have been closed to them, its not really suprising

??? Again I cannot fathom how you got from what I posted to what you respond.".?..

You went on a tirade about the Palestinians which is greatly akin to others I've heard aimed at various groups, from the Irish to Black South Africans to Australian Aboriginals.

The Palestinians are asking a special favor from me: not "me" personally, but Americans collectively, and the other nations of the world. They want their state, and cannot have it without my help. Why should I want to do them favors? What do I owe them?."...

Its not a question of who owes who what. They have a right to determine their own future as much as their Israeli neighbours. One should seek to extend the priveldges oneself enjoys to whoever might want them. I live in an independent state and vote for representatives from amongst my own, I see no reason that should be arbitrarily denied to others on the whim of a superpower, be it China or America, Tibet or Palestine.

Most communities/nationalities/whatever have little effect outside their immediate neighbors. (.....)of international goodwill.?."...

And it never occurred to you to wonder why, precisely they did what they did?

And mind you, they are asking for more than Kosovo or East Timor. Those two are getting states which are occupied by peacekeeping troops (NATO and UN respectively) to keep some kind of order while things get organized. The Palestinians would never tolerate US troops policing the place instead of Israelis: they'd kill us..?."...

The US would and will not allow UN troops in. Its been proposed a few times. And no, they would not want US troops there, because the US is an ally of Israel. You are aware of the US's role in blocking UN intervention?

I did not know there were pre-Begin settlements. I suspect they were quite insignificant however.

The greater increases have been relatively recently, as can be seen on the Foundation chart.....

Tmutarakhan

07-04-2008, 20:48

It would mean an end to the "settler" roads, the security set up to protect the settlers, and an end to attacks from the settlers against Arabs unfortunate enough to be near them. This would in turn lessen the daily resentment, open the way for a contigous Palestinian state.
The question was: is there any reason to believe that there would be less violence? Or would it just restore the pre-1967 situation, when there were also no settlers, no obstacle except from fellow Arabs to a Palestinian state, etc., and yet more violence than there is now.
Theres a ceasefire from Abbas now, and new settlment expansions are being declared, on a large scale.
"Large" scale? I don't consider a dozen trailers, which the army has declared illegal and says it is "working on" demolishing, to be very large. The data that you cite is from years back: where is your comparison to what is happening NOW?
They'd actually have something to lose, for starters.
So? They had the West Bank and Gaza before 1967. That didn't stop anything.
They do what they do to disrupt Israeli life
Exactly. They don't do anything that would benefit themselves, or prevent harm to themselves. They only want to do harm to the other side.
"If shit happens to me, shit will happen to you" is the morality of a headhunter tribe, or a four-year-old.
You went on a tirade about the Palestinians which is greatly akin to others I've heard aimed at various groups, from the Irish to Black South Africans to Australian Aboriginals.
None of those groups want favors from me.
Its not a question of who owes who what. They have a right to determine their own future as much as their Israeli neighbours. One should seek to extend the priveldges oneself enjoys to whoever might want them. I live in an independent state and vote for representatives from amongst my own, I see no reason that should be arbitrarily denied to others on the whim of a superpower, be it China or America, Tibet or Palestine.
It is not "arbitrarily" denied. One of the primary responsibilities of any state is to prevent its citizens attacking the neighbors. International law does not really care much whether a state abuses its own citizens but cares a great deal whether a state is a danger to neighboring states. A state which cannot fulfil its duties in this regard has no right to continue to exist.
And it never occurred to you to wonder why, precisely they did what they did?
They made a great deal of noise about "why": they would always say it was "to gain attention for the Palestinian cause". Well, they got our attention all right. People who might otherwise have not had any strong opinions one way or another instead came to favor keeping the Palestinians under as tight a restraint as possible. Murdering as an attention-getting device disgusted me then, and disgusts me now. As long as they are the same murderous bastards they were then, then they richly deserve to be locked up and locked up tight.
The US would and will not allow UN troops in. Its been proposed a few times. And no, they would not want US troops there, because the US is an ally of Israel. You are aware of the US's role in blocking UN intervention?
Give me a source for your version of this.
The greater increases have been relatively recently, as can be seen on the Foundation chart.....
More babies are born recently, because there are more people there. However, the number of new people moving in has been steadily on the decline. That is what your own data shows, quite plainly, but you seem to have trouble reading it.

Nodinia

07-04-2008, 22:55

"Large" scale? I don't consider a dozen trailers, which the army has declared illegal and says it is "working on" demolishing, to be very large. The data that you cite is from years back: where is your comparison to what is happening NOW.

I cited more recent events earlier. Anyone interested in the truth could have confirmed the current state of affairs by going through the sites I linked, of their own accord, or - fate forfend - using a search engine. However, heres a few which I will be good enough to spoon feed you....

Virtually not a week goes by without a new revelation, each more sensational and revolting than the previous one, about the building spree in West Bank settlements, in blatant violation of the law and in complete contradiction to official government policy. All this is happening with the knowledge of the defense officials responsible for enforcing the law in the territories, and with cooperation - by commission or omission - from the political echelon.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/807444.html

...which relates to -

Settlers are continuing to place mobile homes and trailers in West Bank outposts and settlements, without legal permits. Civil Administration reports show that since the start of the second Lebanon war in July, some 200 mobile homes have been placed. This is a substantial increase over the few dozen trailers placed in the first half of the year.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/807108.html

Israel has approved the construction of a new settlement in the occupied West Bank, Israeli officials have said.
The defence ministry said 30 houses would be built in the settlement for families moved from the Gaza Strip
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6210721.stm

Aconfidential report written for European Union foreign ministers has criticised Israel's policy on East Jerusalem, newspaper reports say.
The document, written by British officials, accuses Israel of rushing to annex Arab areas to prevent them becoming a future Palestinian capital.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4470118.stm

The Israeli authorities are planning to build three new Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem, an area regarded as occupied land under international law.
The plan, which has yet to receive final approval, would involve building about 20,000 homes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6645777.stm

Israel plans to build 740 new homes in settlements in occupied East Jerusalem, a minister said, despite its commitment to freeze all settlement activity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7158072.stm

And yes, theres more.

Exactly. They don't do anything that would benefit themselves, or prevent harm to themselves. They only want to do harm to the other side.
"If shit happens to me, shit will happen to you" is the morality of a headhunter tribe, or a four-year-old..

No, its the ant, stinging the elephant thats treading on it. Theres always a chance that the sting will be sufficient for the larger animal to tread somewhere else. You seem incapable of attributing a motive to Palestinians that rises above the "savage" or exercising any form of empathy towards them whatsoever.

None of those groups want favors from me...

That excuses not at all your rant, nor does it excise the similarity between it and those aimed at those groups. In fact the idea that you are somehow doing people a favour by treating them as onself would expect to be treated is one I also associate with that kind of thing.

It is not "arbitrarily" denied. One of the primary responsibilities of any state is to prevent its citizens attacking the neighbors. International law does not really care much whether a state abuses its own citizens but cares a great deal whether a state is a danger to neighboring states. A state which cannot fulfil its duties in this regard has no right to continue to exist. ...

Yet its Israel that is currently and aggressively expanding inside the occupied territories, will not curtail eithers its official activities or those of its settler population. Yet I don't call for the dissolution of the state of Israel....

Murdering as an attention-getting device disgusted me then, and disgusts me now. As long as they are the same murderous bastards they were then, then they richly deserve to be locked up and locked up tight....

Boo-hoo-hoo. Richly amusing, considering the number of them that have died because of US policy. Consdering the amount of needless death thats originated from America generally, its a good thing the rest of us don't take the same attitude with Americans, isn't it? Your hatred of these people borders on pathological.

You still never bothered to wonder why they blame you?

Give me a source for your version of this.....

For instance
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1712674.stm

Israel has always rejected UN involvement in the Arab-Israeli conflict. As its main backer, the United States maintains that the dispute has to be settled by the two sides directly, with American help.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3116624.stm

Vetoes 1972 -2002...Includes the good old days of defending Apartheid South Africa and the like as well...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2000.htm

More babies are born recently, because there are more people there. However, the number of new people moving in has been steadily on the decline. That is what your own data shows, quite plainly, but you seem to have trouble reading it.

An awful lot of homes for "natural growth". Not that they should be accommodating that either, mind you. And I have no trouble reading it at all.

Tmutarakhan

08-04-2008, 19:46

I cited more recent events earlier.
Your earlier cites were to discussions of outposts since 2001, such as a list of 100 outposts from the 2001-03 period (which was during quite the opposite of a "cease-fire" from the Palestinians) and a helpful spreadsheet showing when most of them were torn down. Your claim is that there is a massive expansion going on NOW, and that there have "always" been massive expansions during Palestinian "cease-fires", and you have done nothing but substantiate that. If anything your data tends to show a correlation in the opposite direction: it is during upsurges in Palestinian violence that the Israeli right wing has more power and the settlers get away with more.

You don't seem to be any attention to the dates when things happen, for example:
However, heres a few which I will be good enough to spoon feed you....

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/807444.html

...which relates to -

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/807108.html

are discussing the Maskiot construction in Dec. 2006 - Jan. 2007; note that I already linked to an Arab source discussing what is happening there now (the demolition of Maskiot).
You seem incapable of attributing a motive to Palestinians that rises above the "savage" or exercising any form of empathy towards them whatsoever.
We have lots of experience with murderers who act to vent their anger and draw attention to themselves: the Columbine High School and Virginia Tech University shooters, and the "Beltway snipers" (picked off passing motorists; have to give them some points for novelty, I guess) come to mind. That you consider that sort of behavior not only acceptable, but laudable, disgusts me more than I can readily express. There have been many discussions of what policy changes in our gun laws maybe we should make in response to these kinds of shootings, but the notion of giving the Beltway snipers their own independent country has never crossed anybody's mind.

You speak as if the Palestinians "can't help" but express themselves through murder. They are as capable as anybody else of holding marches and rallies or writing letters to the editor (there are a fair number of Palestinians in my area, so I see this for myself). Why is it that you think they are incapable of doing anything except murder?
In fact the idea that you are somehow doing people a favour by treating them as onself would expect to be treated is one I also associate with that kind of thing.
How would I expect to be treated myself, if I expressed my anger by shooting, say, the Palestinian who runs the pizza parlor (not that HE has ever done anything to me, except give good food at a reasonable price, but he belongs to a group which has done me harm, and that's good enough, according to you)? I would expect to be imprisoned for life.
Yet I don't call for the dissolution of the state of Israel....
Persuade Hamas, then.
For instance
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1712674.stm
As I thought. You are talking about proposal to put UN "monitors". To actually keep the peace, if a Palestinian state were established, it would be necessary to put in troops which would ENGAGE and DESTROY any Palestinian forces which were continuing to launch cross-border attacks (I know, I know, you believe that that would never happen; that is seriously unrealistic), which is a far different thing from sitting there and watching, effectively acting as a shield to protect the continuing attacks, as the UN presence in Lebanon has largely done. That would be worse than useless.

If you want to get serious about putting troops in to keep the peace, under UN flag or any other, then you have to answer the question of what nation would be willing to take the inevitable casualties. Certainly not the US; not Egypt or Jordan either. You think Canada or Nepal is going to be willing?
An awful lot of homes for "natural growth".
The ultra-religious have a high birth rate: I don't really approve of people having lots of babies these days, but that is not something the Palestinians can exactly throw stones about. But I am not sure if you are faulting the settlers for having so many children, or if you are expressing disbelief that the figures from the site you yourself linked to are genuine.

Nodinia

08-04-2008, 20:33

We have lots of experience with(....)the Beltway snipers their own independent country has never crossed anybody's mind..

And again automatically dismissing motivation, while trying to muddy the waters with emotionally resonant but false analogies......

You speak as if the Palestinians "can't help" but express themselves through murder. They are as capable as anybody else of holding marches and rallies or writing letters to the editor (there are a fair number of Palestinians in my area, so I see this for myself). Why is it that you think they are incapable of doing anything except murder?..

Firstly a march or peaceful protest in America isn't greeted in the same way as one in Gaza or the West Bank...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3728681.stm
http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2007/04/21/april-20-bilin-protest/

Secondly, as the US vetoes any resolution that would bring sanctions against Israel for its occupation, diplomatic means are rather lacking in credibility.

How would I expect to be treated myself, if I expressed my anger by shooting, say, the Palestinian who runs the pizza parlor (not that HE has ever done anything to me, except give good food at a reasonable price, but he belongs to a group which has done me harm, and that's good enough, according to you)? I would expect to be imprisoned for life.?..

More false and emotional analogies.......

Persuade Hamas, then..?..

There must have been a certain number of Israeli politicians wondering what they'd do for an excuse after Arafat died...Then, in a 'Birthdays come at once' moment....

and watching, effectively acting as a shield to protect the continuing attacks, as the UN presence in Lebanon has largely done.

Occassionally I get the impression I'm talking to a Likud party spokesman.....or at least an IDF press release with AI.

If you want to get serious about putting troops in to keep the peace, under UN flag or any other, then you have to answer the question of what nation would be willing to take the inevitable casualties. Certainly not the US; not Egypt or Jordan either. You think Canada or Nepal is going to be willing?

I have no idea precisely. However until its been tried, you won't either. And as I said, the US would not be a contender as its not a neutral party.

The ultra-religious have a high birth rate: I don't really approve of people having lots of babies these days, but that is not something the Palestinians can exactly throw stones about. But I am not sure if you are faulting the settlers for having so many children, or if you are expressing disbelief that the figures from the site you yourself linked to are genuine.

Not all settlers are "ultra religous". Presumably I imagined all the other various announcements that you failed to address, as well as the advertising of settlement houses outside Israel as well as government incentives for moving there, the EU report on Arab East Jerusalem....

Tmutarakhan

08-04-2008, 22:06

And again automatically dismissing motivation, while trying to muddy the waters with emotionally resonant but false analogies......
We don't even disagree about what their motivations are: they have grievances, so they think they should express their anger and attract attention by killing people, just like any other murderers (all murderers have their grievances). The only disagreement is that I consider this sheer evil, and you don't even get what the problem is. All I can say is, I hope I am nowhere near when you start to feel you have a grievance.
Firstly a march or peaceful protest in America isn't greeted in the same way as one in Gaza or the West Bank...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3728681.stm
[emphasis added]
They were carrying machine guns. Yes indeed such a march would be forcibly dispersed in America or anywhere else. They were marching to stop soldiers dismantling a weapons-smuggling tunnel.
Secondly, as the US vetoes any resolution that would bring sanctions against Israel for its occupation, diplomatic means are rather lacking in credibility.
As long as they keep murdering, of course they get nowhere.
If they stopped murdering, the attitude would be different (I mean my attitude, and the attitudes of those like me, which is what the US politicians are responding to).
More false and emotional analogies.......
In what way? You said I don't want the Palestinians treated as I myself would expect to be treated: yes I do. I would most certainly expect to be locked up, which is precisely why I favor keeping the Palestinians locked up. They can be paroled when they stop their behavior.
There must have been a certain number of Israeli politicians wondering what they'd do for an excuse after Arafat died...
Arafat was not beamed down from a passing UFO, he was a natural product of the Palestinian culture. He was no more irreplaceable than the Mufti was. There were a number of Israelis who were hoping he wouldn't be replaced by a new but still murderous leadership, but most were not surprised at all.
Occassionally I get the impression I'm talking to a Likud party spokesman.....
I hate Likud. I acted to overthrow the first Likud government. You have no idea who you are talking to.
[Tmut]You think Canada or Nepal is going to be willing?
I have no idea precisely. However until its been tried, you won't either. And as I said, the US would not be a contender as its not a neutral party.
Well, nobody has volunteered. If some nation does express willingness to guarantee no cross-border attacks from a Palestinian state, by which I mean willingness to engage and destroy forces which breach the peace (in either direction, of course), the world would owe them a debt. But who? I agree that the US is out of the question: we could not possibly be trusted by the Palestinian side. The UN is not trusted by the Israeli side. Strike out those who are distrusted by one side or the other, and there aren't many candidates left, and none who have stepped forward.
Not all settlers are "ultra religous".
I didn't say they all were; I said that the ultra-religious do account for the very high "natural growth" (excess of births over deaths) in the settler population. I would have thought that was well-known, but apparently this is news to you.
Presumably I imagined all the other various announcements that you failed to address
You are throwing out this random jumble of stories from different years, completely unsorted, and you think I am going to go through and discuss each one? What I ASKED you for was some substantiation of your claim that there are massive expansions NOW, and that there have ALWAYS been more massive expansions during "cease-fires" than at other times. This just isn't so: the most massive expansions were under Begin and Sharon; there have been other expansions at other times, not particularly correlated as far as I can see with the violence levels; there is little going on at the present.

I don't think the settlements are a good idea, never have, never will. I am not interested in debating the merits: you think they're bad; so do I; what else? You think they are worse than murder; I think it is nowhere near as evil as murder; apparently there is no reconciling our very different moral senses. The only thing I was discussing with you was this: You made a factual claim about the circumstances under which the settlements accelerate, and that particular claim was false as far as I can see; and I told you that there is no practical hope of getting the settlements removed unless and until the Palestinians stop murdering, and you don't agree.

Nodinia

09-04-2008, 09:39

We don't even disagree about what their motivations are: they have grievances, so they think they should express their anger and attract attention by killing people, just like any other murderers (all murderers have their grievances). The only disagreement is that I consider this sheer evil, and you don't even get what the problem is. All I can say is, I hope I am nowhere near when you start to feel you have a grievance..

Having been denied the peaceful route, and in the face of continued oppression, its not only not "evil" in origin, its not even suprising.

They were carrying machine guns. ..

According to the IDF.......who showed the usual restraint......... with Tank and Helicopter Gunfire.

Yes indeed such a march would be forcibly dispersed in America or anywhere else. They were marching to stop soldiers dismantling a weapons-smuggling tunnel...

Cherry picking again. They were protesting at the operation which had led to 34 deaths and included this kind of thing.....

Twenty-four Palestinians have already died in Tel Sultan during an operation dubbed "Operation Rainbow" by the Israeli army.

Soldiers had called on loudspeakers for all males aged 16 or over to come out carrying white flags or risk the demolition of their family homes

..You dodged mentioning the other example, for some reason....

I hate Likud. I acted to overthrow the first Likud government. You have no idea who you are talking to....

..making unverifiable claims to who you are or indeed are not IRL is rather pointless. I could say that I know this and that because of x and the same applies (or perhaps I can't, and just said that to imply that I could).

Well, nobody has volunteered. If some nation does express willingness to guarantee no cross-border attacks from a Palestinian state, by which I mean willingness to engage and destroy forces which breach the peace (in either direction, of course), the world would owe them a debt. But who? I agree that the US is out of the question: we could not possibly be trusted by the Palestinian side. The UN is not trusted by the Israeli side. Strike out those who are distrusted by one side or the other, and there aren't many candidates left, and none who have stepped forward.....

...thus granting a legitamacy to the blanket rejection of the UN by Israel which is not nessecarily deserved in advance....

You are throwing out this random jumble of stories from different years, .....

From the withdrawal from Gaza on......

What I ASKED you for was some substantiation of your claim that there are massive expansions NOW,.....

You mean a summary like this?
http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=61&docid=3186

and that there have ALWAYS been more massive expansions during "cease-fires" than at other times. This just isn't so: ,.....

After Oslo, on the charts I already provided in an earlier post, you can see the influx is often double the amount of natural growth for the early 90's.....not that allowing their expansion for that is anymore valid.

Tmutarakhan

09-04-2008, 21:32

Having been denied the peaceful route, and in the face of continued oppression, its not only not "evil" in origin, its not even suprising.
First, it is not possible to be "denied" the peaceful route. You can always be peaceful, regardless of what anyone else is doing. You are responsible for your own actions, not anyone else's.

Secondly, you are returning to the lie that the "origin" of the murderousness is the occupation. It long predates the occupation. I would not think we would have to go over that again. The occupation was caused by the terrorism, not the reverse.
According to the IDF.....
Yes indeed. You only listen to one side of the story, and automatically discount the other? I note that the Palestinian side does not attempt to deny that they were protecting weapons-smuggling tunnels. As such, I find it completely credible that there were armed men among the marchers.
..You dodged mentioning the other example, for some reason....
It does seem to be a better example of what you want to show; you should have led with it. Instead I just gathered from your first link that, yet again, you were linking to sources which did not really support, indeed rather undercut, the claims you were making.

I would want to hear both sides. What we get from the one-sided account is that the army reacted with rubber bullets when the protesters moved beyond to an attempt to demolish the security camera. Were they doing anything more?
..making unverifiable claims to who you are or indeed are not IRL is rather pointless.
If it is pointless for ME to tell YOU who I am, what can be said about YOU trying to tell ME who I am?

This is how it was, and I don't care whether you believe it or not. It is a rather strange story: I was a crazed kid, and this was during my religious-megalomania phase. I had many reasons for disdaining Menachem Begin, his Irgun past and the "settler" movement chief among them. And there were many reasons why the Sabra-Chatila incident (Israelis let the Phalange, a right-wing Christian militia, into two Palestinian refugee camps, where the Phalangists massacred the inhabitants) pushed me over the edge. There was the date: Rosh Hashanah, a high holy day to the Jews, adding a tinge of blasphemy to the murder. There were the contradictory statements: before Rosh Hashanah, the Begin regime said it was moving into West Beirut (against all advice, from the US or anyone else) "to prevent any outbreak of violence"; but afterwards, claimed that the thought of possible violence had never entered their minds. And then Begin exonerated himself on grounds that the Israelis had not done the killings themselves: "Some Christians kill some Muslims, and everybody wants to hang the Jews!" It reminded me of the hypocritical practice among some ultra-Orthodox of hiring a "Shabbos goy" to do the work on Saturdays that they will not do themselves; other Jewish interpreters hold everyone responsible for their agents, and I held Begin responsible for the "Rosh Hashanah goyim".

I wrote to Begin, in very archaic Hebrew, on strips of red cloth, in dark red paint, in a severe square-hand script, channeling the prophet Elijah (the only other person I ever wrote to in that persona was Ayatollah Khomeini). I told him that since he had allowed Messianic claims to be advanced for him (crowds hailing him as Begin, melekh Yhudiym!) he was under my jurisdiction (Elijah has the role of passing on a would-be Messiah's credentials and deciding whether to anoint him). I cited seven provisions of the Law which he was in violation of: I don't remember the full list now, but some were obscure, as "the lands of one tribe cannot be claimed by another" (he was claiming the lands of all Twelve Tribes, but if the Jews really wanted their Old Testament borders, they can only have Judah-Benjamin-Levi) and the specific law against cutting down olive trees as an act of war (as some settlers do, to impede the livelihoods of their Arab neighbors), others more directly to the point, as "you shall not punish the sons for the sins of the fathers nor the fathers for the sons" (specifically referencing the demolition of houses of terrorists' family members, a practice Sharon later revived although nowadays apparently in abeyance) and of course the concluding "Thou shalt not murder". I ended with Elijah's curse on king Ahab after the murder of Naboth:
CHAYYHWEH IM NAPOL MATTAR, PEN K-DIVRIY!
"By God, not a raindrop will fall, save by my word"

Having gotten this out of my system, I actually forgot all about it until late next summer, I read that it had not rained, even once, anywhere in Israel all year, which was causing some concern. I wrote Begin again, in black ink on plain paper in cursive, giving him until Yom Kippur to repent. On the eve of Yom Kippur, Begin abruptly resigned, although his majority in the Knesset was secure. I wrote him for the last time, in a blue artist's pencil on cardstock in calligraphy, l-shanah ttovah tiktav "may you be written down for a good year". For the rest of his life, whenever reporters asked him why he had resigned, he refused to answer.
...thus granting a legitamacy to the blanket rejection of the UN by Israel which is not nessecarily deserved in advance....
Whether UN troops "deserve" to be rejected depends on what they intend to do. If their mandate is just to sit and watch while the fighting continues, that is worthless.
From the withdrawal from Gaza on......
You led off with a discussion of outposts erected 2001-03 and what has since become of them.
You mean a summary like this?
http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=61&docid=3186

Much better, thank you.
There is a great deal of data there that can be helpful. In the Powerpoint presentation, if you flip through to the end (it loads rather slowly on my machine), you will see the Geneva Initiative, proposing a readjustment of the "Green Line" borders (the pre-1967 situation was inherently unstable, and I do not think it practical to restore) in which side annexes comparable areas from the other (zero Palestinian inhabitants, and the majority of the settlers, within the area to be transferred to Israel) and the West Bank is left viably contiguous. This is the kind of proposal that I would consider workable. The stumbling block, of course, is that the Palestinians would have to stop murdering. You take it for granted that they would automatically do so; I do not.
After Oslo, on the charts I already provided in an earlier post, you can see the influx is often double the amount of natural growth for the early 90's.....
Your charts show that before, during, and after the Oslo period the influx has been on a steady decline, with only one notable spike, during the Al-Aqsa Intifida (the very opposite of a "cease-fire"). Your claim was that the influx keeps going up and down and up and down, up every time there is a cease-fire, down when there is more violence (therefore "justifying" the violence as accomplishing the purpose of decreasing settler activity). Your data does not substantiate this.

Nodinia

10-04-2008, 10:13

First, it is not possible to be "denied" the peaceful route. You can always be peaceful, regardless of what anyone else is doing. You are responsible for your own actions, not anyone else's..

Yet the alternative to violence here is 'peaceful' submission to the violence of others.

Secondly, you are returning to the lie that the "origin" of the murderousness is the occupation. It long predates the occupation. I would not think we would have to go over that again. The occupation was caused by the terrorism, not the reverse...

The "terrorism" has certainly grown in intensity however and whatever you might think its origin. Therefore you must at least acknowledge that it exacerbates and increases extremism.

Yes indeed. You only listen to one side of the story, and automatically discount the other? I note that the Palestinian side does not attempt to deny that they were protecting weapons-smuggling tunnels. As such, I find it completely credible that there were armed men among the marchers....

That was not the purpose of the march specifically.

Secondly, do you have independent witnesses that say there were armed men there?

It does seem to be a better example of what you want to show; you should have led with it. Instead I just gathered from your first link that, yet again, you were linking to sources which did not really support, indeed rather undercut, the claims you were making.....

Peaceful protests happen all the time. They are often attacked. Yet you seem to almost rail against the notion.

I would want to hear both sides. What we get from the one-sided account is that the army reacted with rubber bullets when the protesters moved beyond to an attempt to demolish the security camera. Were they doing anything more?

Considering they have somebody with them who won a nobel peace prize for their advocation of non-violence, what do you think?

If it is pointless for ME to tell YOU who I am, what can be said about YOU trying to tell ME who I am??

I pointed out what you sounded like to me, not what you were. Your or my anecdotal evidence about events is unverifiable, for all intents and purposes.

This is how it was, and I don't (.......) refused to answer.

I should point out that I'm an atheist.

Whether UN troops "deserve" to be rejected depends on what they intend to do. If their mandate is just to sit and watch while the fighting continues, that is worthless..

Yet Israel will not accept the possibility of its forces being subject to the same scrutiny. I see no reason why sauce for the goose should not apply to the gander.

There is a great deal of data there that can be helpful. In the Powerpoint presentation, if you flip through to the end (it loads rather slowly on my machine), you will see the Geneva Initiative, proposing a readjustment of the "Green Line" borders (the pre-1967 situation was inherently unstable, and I do not think it practical to restore) in which side annexes comparable areas from the other (zero Palestinian inhabitants, and the majority of the settlers, within the area to be transferred to Israel) and the West Bank is left viably contiguous. This is the kind of proposal that I would consider workable. The stumbling block, of course, is that the Palestinians would have to stop murdering. You take it for granted that they would automatically do so; I do not...

Whether they do or not is immaterial. Israel is free to attack and destroy them as it will. What it can't do is make greater gains at the expense of a lesser evil. The Palestinian "threat" to Israel is nothing compared to the Israeli effect on the Palestinians. It cannot therefore be used as an excuse for colonialism.

Your charts show that before, during, and after the Oslo period the influx has been on a steady decline, with only one notable spike, during the Al-Aqsa Intifida (the very opposite of a "cease-fire"). ...

I think not......
Annual settler population growth is more than three times the annual population growth in Israel proper (1998: 3.1 times; 1996: 3.5; 1994: 3.6; 1993: 4.1; 1991: 3.0).
http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/stats_data/settler_population_growth/sources_population_growth_1991-2003.html

[

Tmutarakhan

10-04-2008, 18:10

Yet the alternative to violence here is 'peaceful' submission to the violence of others.
The alternative is an independent state. Given the choice between stopping the violence and having their state internationally recognized, or continuing the violence, the Palestinians preferred the violence. They continue to do so. They hope they will be allowed to have an independent state and continue the violence. This they cannot be allowed.
The "terrorism" has certainly grown in intensity however and whatever you might think its origin. Therefore you must at least acknowledge that it exacerbates and increases extremism.
How many times do I have to tell you that this is the opposite of the truth? Although you will not confirm this, this is why I keep assuming that you just must be too young to know what it used to be like.

The occupation has drastically reduced the ability of the Palestinians to carry out acts of violence, compared to what it was forty-some years ago. That is why Israelis find it in their interests to keep it so. As you often point out, Israelis now take fewer casualties than the Palestinian side, contrary to how it was for most of the history. You think therefore that they should go back to the pre-1967 situation, of near-continuous rocket barrages. Why should they want to do that? Israelis may be crazy, but they are not stupid! And why should America, or anyone, compel them to go back to that? Especially in the late 60's and early 70's, the Palestinians showed their willingness to murder people all over the world, if given the freedom of action to do so. Why would we give them such freedom of action again? We will not, unless and until they show a change of behavior.
Secondly, do you have independent witnesses that say there were armed men there?
We don't have any "independent" witnesses that the events took place at all :D
We only have the (naturally, biased) accounts of people from one side and the other. This much is clear: the Israelis were demolishing all the buildings in the area of the smuggling tunnels; the militants defending the tunnels would not surrender and were shot; the Palestinians were very angry about all this. In this context, yes of course I believe that there were armed men.
Peaceful protests happen all the time.
"All the time", really?

So far, you have shown examples of protests in defense of the "right" to smuggle weapons and in defense of the "right" to slip into Israel unobserved. It reminds me of earlier, when you showed examples of attacks against soldiers instead of civilians, in defense of the "right" to launch rockets.

There are many situations in which I will agree with you that Israelis are in the wrong. The settlements are wrong, most especially when they are not in empty areas but involve theft of private lands. There are many checkpoints where the soldiers have gone around the bend and act abusively for little or no reason except spite. But what spurs protests are infringements on the Palestinians' "right" to carry out acts of murder. Do you see the problem I am having with this? The violence, for its own sake, seems to be more important to the Palestinians than anything which actually impinges their interests.
Considering they have somebody with them who won a nobel peace prize for their advocation of non-violence, what do you think?
As I said: I don't know. Nobel Prizes have been given to lots of people, some of them quite unsavory; I do not know much of anything about this person in particular. You know a lot more about Ireland than I do (every time we have veered off onto that subject I have been caught out on holes in my knowledge), but that is because I have never had any particular interest in it.
I should point out that I'm an atheist.
So am I. And while I experimented with lots of religious viewpoints in my youth, you should not confuse postures I took for purposes of political theater with my actual beliefs at that time. The posturing reflected what I thought would impact him most effectively, based on my understanding of his beliefs.

Overthrowing Begin did not have as much impact as I had hoped. It was certainly distressing when Sharon, even more culpable in the Sabra-Chatila incident than Begin was, ended up Prime Minister and did worse things than Begin ever did. However, I do not think he could have been shamed, as Begin was, even if I still retained the off-center mindset necessary to concoct such theater.
Yet Israel will not accept the possibility of its forces being subject to the same scrutiny. I see no reason why sauce for the goose should not apply to the gander.
As I said, keeping the peace in a two-state solution requires a willingness to engage and destroy forces from either direction which perpetrate cross-border attacks. If the Palestinians launched no rockets and slipped no bombers across, the Israelis would not raid across the line in my opinion but of course, you may not share that opinion, just like I do not share your opinion that the Palestinians would "become like Finns" (as Weissglas put it) as soon as they were not occupied any more. It cannot be expected to be a matter of trust on either side ("trust" is a commodity in severe shortage!); there would have to be force to compel both sides. Unfortunately, that requires a readiness to take casualties, which is a lot to ask of any neutral outsider nation-- which is why there are no nations volunteering for the job.
[Tmut]The stumbling block, of course, is that the Palestinians would have to stop murdering...
Whether they do or not is immaterial.
Sigh. It is the ONLY thing which is material.
I think not......
"Annual settler population growth is more than three times the annual population growth in Israel proper"[
The settlements contain a disproportionate number of ultra-religious, who have a disproportionate number of 12-children families. The rapid growth of their population is just one of the reasons the settlements are intolerable.

That is a separate question from the size of the continued influx from outside. That has been on a steady down-slope, in good times and bad (only one spike is notable, during the Al-Aqsa Intifada), presumably because most Israelis, whether or not they have any strong feelings that the settlements are immoral, know that the settlements are going to have to be demolished some day. You took, for example, the advertisements trying to recruit new settlers overseas as a sign that the settler movement is accelerating; I would read it rather as a sign of desperation.

Nodinia

11-04-2008, 20:25

The alternative is an independent state. Given the choice between stopping the violence and having their state internationally recognized, or continuing the violence, the Palestinians preferred the violence. They continue to do so. They hope they will be allowed to have an independent state and continue the violence. This they cannot be allowed..

...much as violence can't be allowed to be used as an excuse for colonisation, or the establishment of a semi-apartheid province..

The occupation (....) behavior...

Who is this "We"....?

We don't have any "independent" witnesses that the events took place at all :D
We only have the (naturally, biased) accounts of people from one side and the other. This much is clear: the Israelis were demolishing all the buildings in the area of the smuggling tunnels; the militants defending the tunnels would not surrender and were shot; the Palestinians were very angry about all this. In this context, yes of course I believe that there were armed men.
..

That is yet another distortion of the events. The facts are that Israel fired with Tanks and Helicopters into a protest march.
Israeli troops have opened fire during a protest by Palestinian demonstrators in the town of Rafah in southern Gaza.

So far, you have shown examples of protests in defense of the "right" to smuggle weapons and in defense of the "right" to slip into Israel unobserved.
.

They were protesting about the amount of destruction and civillian deaths. Do you think repeating an untruth will somehow make it true?

The violence, for its own sake, seems to be more important to the Palestinians than anything which actually impinges their interests..

So you allege.

As I said: I (.....)out on holes in my knowledge), but that is because I have never had any particular interest in it.
..

A convenient stance which allows you to dismiss someone without making the effort to provide any facts for the dismissal.

Overthrowing Begin did not have as much impact as I had hoped.
.

You'll pardon me pointing out that until your obviously central role in middle Eastern events is better known amongst commentators and historians, its really of no relevance to this discussion.

Tmutarakhan

11-04-2008, 21:04

...much as violence can't be allowed to be used as an excuse for colonisation, or the establishment of a semi-apartheid province..
Depends on who is doing the "allowing", doesn't it? Your phrasing suggests that you, rather than I, claim an "obviously central role in middle Eastern events". Your opinion that unlawful immigration is a worse crime than murder is of no importance, because you have no power to compel. My opinion that the settlements are wrong, but murder is a far worse crime, is important, not because it is mine, but because it is shared by most Americans (and among those Americans who would not agree with me on those positions, most are on the crazed-religious "The Jews should take the whole Promised Land because God said so!" side), and America is the only power which can compel Israel in this regard.

The United States has often expressed the policy that the settlements should be stopped, and that the existing settlements will (if not 100%, then largely) have to be demolished to allow for an independent Palestinian state-- BUT, that the Palestinians will have to stop murdering, first, before this is compelled. This policy position is very resistant to change, because it reflects the moral position of most of the voters. It is a consensus which reaches across both parties and almost every faction within each party.
Who is this "We"....?
You + Me.
Neither of us were present, thus "we" can only guess at the truth from the statements by witnesses, all of whom were emotionally involved with one side or the other, none of them "independent" witnesses.
They were protesting about the amount of destruction and civillian deaths.
The deaths were of militants defending the tunnels by force after refusing a surrender demand: I do not count those as "civilian" deaths.

As to the amount of destruction, again we have no "independent" witnesses, but based on the Israeli track record I find it completely credible to assume that the demolitions were in excess of what was really necessary to be sure the tunnels were out of operation; just as it is based on the Palestinian track record that I find it completely credible to assume that there armed men among the marchers.

So you allege.
So the information YOU provided shows.

A convenient stance which allows you to dismiss someone without making the effort to provide any facts for the dismissal.
I neither "dismiss" her nor give her the automatic deference you seem to think she is due. I am telling you I don't know anything about her motives here (but the action of trying to demolish the camera tends to indicate that she thinks Palestinians have a "right" to slip into Israel unobserved, which I very much disagree with). If you think I should have more facts about her, then it is up to you to provide them.
You'll pardon me pointing out that until your obviously central role in middle Eastern events is better known amongst commentators and historians, its really of no relevance to this discussion.
You'll pardon me for pointing out that what I said was, precisely, that it turned out I did not have a central role, despite the youthful megalomania that had let me to overestimate my powers.

Nodinia

11-04-2008, 23:23

Your opinion that unlawful immigration
.

Its not "unlawful immigration". Its colonisation, actively backed by a modern state. Thats an entirely different thing, with different consequences.

The United States has often expressed the policy that the settlements should be stopped, and that the existing settlements will (if not 100%, then largely) have to be demolished to allow for an independent Palestinian state-- BUT, that the Palestinians will have to stop murdering, first, before this is compelled. .

...as oppossed to a continued military presence, but a removal of the colonists. A tad convenient again.

You + Me.
Neither of us were present, thus "we" can only guess at the truth from the statements by witnesses, all of whom were emotionally involved with one side or the other, none of them "independent" witnesses..

I wasn't asking in regard to that, but in regard to the following

Why would we give them such freedom of action again? We will not, unless and until they show a change of behavior.

So the information YOU provided shows..

No, it does not.

I neither "dismiss" her nor give her the automatic deference you seem to think she is due. I am telling to provide them...

Nobody tried to demolish any camera. One individual climbed the tower and stayed up there for some time. Had he wished to destroy it, I presume he could have - had he been Arab, I doubt he would have set foot on it alive. You again seem to wish to divert the attention away from the Israeli reaction to a peaceful protest.

Tmutarakhan

12-04-2008, 06:00

Its not "unlawful immigration". Its colonisation, actively backed by a modern state. Thats an entirely different thing, with different consequences.
I am not sure I understand what your definition of "colonialism" is: it seems to be one of those cant-leftist terms like "apartheid" that is thrown around rather carelessly. Does it make a crucial difference, in your moral universe, whether it is the victim or the perpetrator who is more "Western"? Muslim immigrants move into European territory, some of the natives don't like it, some youngsters "express themselves" by killing some of them-- bad. Europeanized people move into Muslim territory, some of the natives don't like it, some youngsters "express themselves" by killing some of them-- good. Is that how it works for you?

In my moral universe, people who kill to "express" their grievances and draw attention to themselves are just murderers, particularly when the victims they choose are only tangentially related to their grievances, and I don't really care to make distinctions about whether they had a "good" grievance or a "bad" grievance. I cited other cases of murders motivated by grievance and attention-seeking, and you just said they were "emotionally resonant" (damned straight!) but not, according to you, really analogous, although you didn't explain what possible you would draw, and didn't seem to understand that to me, and to most people, the murders that Palestinians commit are just as "emotionally resonant", in the same way and for the same reason.
...as oppossed to a continued military presence, but a removal of the colonists.
I am not sure what you are saying here. You would accept continued Israeli military occupation, if they just took the settlers out?
I wasn't asking in regard to that, but in regard to the following
Quote:
Why would we give them such freedom of action again? ...

Ah. In those sentence, "we" was referring to the United States.
Originally Posted by Tmutarakhan
So the information YOU provided shows..

No, it does not.

As I said, there many protest-worthy things the Israelis do, things that even you and I (who agree on so little) could agree were wrong: and yet, what is it that draws out the protesters? Israeli efforts to *stop weapons smuggling* or *to keep an eye on who is crossing into Israel*. Nobody tried to demolish any camera. One individual climbed the tower and stayed up there for some time.
For what purpose, then? Much about this story is unclear, first and foremost the motivations of the protesters. It would be helpful to hear from both sides: you could then call the Israeli Army's side of the story a pack of lies, if you wished, or accept their version but still call what they did a gross over-reaction (who knows, I might even agree with you); but at least we would know what they claim to have been the particular act that caused them to open fire (as you note, the protest had been going on for quite some time; it is not as if the Army instantly acts against anyone who is protesting). From what we have, climbing the camera-tower appears to be the precipitating incident; if destruction of the camera was not the aim of that, then what was?

NationStates Jolt Archive

Clearly, life is better without Saddam - Page 2