NationStates Jolt Archive

Four young ultra-right nutters in their early twenties bashed a palestinian photographer, stole his camera and disrupted the olive picking before Israeli soldiers drove the thugs away. They were later arrested.

Clearly they were trying to provoke a reaction so they could claim Palestinian "terrorism". Luckily there were peace activists and soldiers around.

Another thing that annoys me about these guys is that so many of the settlers seem to have Brooklyn accents. I wish they's stay in Brooklyn ratrher than coming over and bashing people up in the name of the Almighty!

http://www.theage.com.au/world/bitter-harvest-as-israeli-settlers-run-rampage-20081026-58z6.html?page=-1:mad:

Four young (....) up in the name of the Almighty!

http://www.theage.com.au/world/bitter-harvest-as-israeli-settlers-run-rampage-20081026-58z6.html?page=-1:mad:

Yep, thats the citizens of the 'light of freedom in the middle east' at work.

B'tselem has had a campaign whereby they hand out cameras to Palestinians so they can document the true face of the occupation. It's not unknown for Soldiers to just stand there, I might add.

Coming from a Jewish background myself (but not bar-mitzvahed or a believer) I understand why a lot of Jews maintain an embarassed silence when confronted with the antics of these very dangerous nutters. However, silence is not an option. One of them ended up assasssinating Israeli PM Rabin..... for daring to make peace. The problem is that the Kach and other right wing groups can take advantage of the violence - and of course they accuse their accusers of being friends with terrorists.

But it's th eugly face of fascism and all fascism must be confronted and exposed.

Coming from (....)th eugly face of fascism and all fascism must be confronted and exposed.

Given that the worst venom is reserved for Israelis who speak up, and that Jews in general fare little better, it's not suprising theres a certain amount of reluctance to get involved. I think that they dread the clear separation of Jews, Judaism and Israel, as these things are what a lot of their emotive propaganda is based on.

aww, i was going to make a crack about there not being any olives to pick in paletine anyways, but then i realized that it is actually spelled palatine. why couldn't you have misspelled it slightly more?

aww, i was going to make a crack about there not being any olives to pick in paletine anyways, but then i realized that it is actually spelled palatine. why couldn't you have misspelled it slightly more?



You're from Chicago, aren't you?

Israel is where we send Jews who are too religious for America.

Reishit smichat geulateinu....

You're from Chicago, aren't you?

guilty

Palestinian human rights have been abused throughout 40 years of Israeli occupation, according to the UN General Assembly's special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian Occupied Territories.

In a report to the UN General Assembly in New York, Richard Falk said Israel's occupation - of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and, until 2005, the Gaza Strip - possessed characteristics of colonialism and apartheid.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7689706.stm

40 fucken years.....Them and the Tibetans really pulled the fucking short straw....

The Palestinians CHOSE the short straw.

And behold, the first apologist has arrived.

The Palestinians CHOSE the short straw.

Hahaha. Yeah. They put an Ad in the Jerusalem Post. 'Colonise us - we need to be treated to an Apartheid styled regime'. 'We are worse than Hitler. Beat the shit out of our old people and children for a greater Israel'.

The Palestinians CHOSE the short straw.

Is this another Argumentum ad Mufti?

Is this another Argumentum ad Mufti?
I am simply offended at the comparison to the Tibetans, who did not initiate violence against the Chinese.

I am simply offended at the comparison to the Tibetans, who did not initiate violence against the Chinese.

...which rather presumes that, if they did, it would justify 40 years of semi-Apartheid conditions and colonialism, land theft, mass detention and 'legal' use of torture.

I'm not going to justify anything: I hope the guys in the OP get stiff sentences.
I am just saying that it is exceedingly offensive to the Tibetans to compare them to the Palestinians.

I'm not going to justify anything: I hope the guys in the OP get stiff sentences.
I am just saying that it is exceedingly offensive to the Tibetans to compare them to the Palestinians.

Hmmmmm, theres a word for that kind of thing......starts with an 'R'.....

possibily ends with an "acism." i don't know, i'm just throwing out random r-word endings.

possibily ends with an "acism." i don't know, i'm just throwing out random r-word endings.

It doesn't not fit....

You are aware that Tibetans are not white either? Are you just making random accusations? Or are you really unaware of what the differences between the cases of Tibet and Palestine are?

You are aware that Tibetans are not white either?

*fails to see the point*

Im going to agree with Tmut here and say that comparing Tibet and Palastine just doesnt work here.

*fails to see the point*Nodinia is accusing me of "racism": we have a long history with each other, and he believes (or at least, often asserts) that the only reason I have little sympathy for the Palestinians is because they are darkish of skin. The Tibetans, of course, are also darkish of skin, but they do not have the same repulsive history as the Palestinians, hence my very different feelings about the case of Tibet.

*snip*

The logic, it's overwhelming!

You are aware that Tibetans are not white either? Are you just making random accusations? Or are you really unaware of what the differences between the cases of Tibet and Palestine are?

I'm entirely aware of it. However, as you constantly intervene in these threads, with a position that equivocates between justifying the occupation and excusing it entirely, it's safe to say that you have a major problem with Palestinians. At a pinch, and though its not entirely accurate, the term "racism" comes to mind.

Im going to agree with Tmut here and say that comparing Tibet and Palastine just doesnt work here.

Why not?

Why not?

Because in the Israeli/Palastinian conflict, both sides are to blame for being children and murderers on a regular basis.


Such is not the case in Tibet.

I'm entirely aware of it. However, as you constantly intervene in these threads, with a position that equivocates between justifying the occupation and excusing it entirely, it's safe to say that you have a major problem with Palestinians. At a pinch, and though its not entirely accurate, the term "racism" comes to mind.

I have a problem with the Palestinians too. As well as the Israelies.

Because in the Israeli/Palastinian conflict, both sides are to blame for being children and murderers on a regular basis.


Such is not the case in Tibet.

And that makes the occupations and human rights abuses impossible to compare how exactly? You need to explain further.

And that makes the occupations and human rights abuses impossible to compare how exactly? You need to explain further.

I said the situations. Saying the Tibetians are like the Palastians is essentially saying that the Tibetians are equally to blame for the situation, which is simply not the case.

The Tibetians are essentially innocent in their conflict with the Chinese and DONT kill innocent people. In the Israeli/Palastinian conflict, both sides are equally to blame for the human rights violations.

And that makes the occupations and human rights abuses impossible to compare how exactly?
No-one is denying that there is an occupation in both cases.
My response was to Nodinia's claim that the Palestinians were, like the Tibetans, just unlucky. The Palestinians CHOSE the path of violence, which is so opposite to the Tibetans' case that I find the comparison very offensive.

No-one is denying that there is an occupation in both cases.
My response was to Nodinia's claim that the Palestinians were, like the Tibetans, just unlucky. The Palestinians CHOSE the path of violence, which is so opposite to the Tibetans' case that I find the comparison very offensive.

All of them?

I said the situations. Saying the Tibetians are like the Palastians is essentially saying that the Tibetians are equally to blame for the situation, which is simply not the case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7689706.stm

40 fucken years.....Them and the Tibetans really pulled the fucking short straw....
Look again. This is what you disagree with. No blame is being assigned to any side here, is it?

Nor is anybody saying that the Tibetans are like the Palestinians - the situations, however, are comparable.

The Tibetians are essentially innocent in their conflict with the Chinese and DONT kill innocent people. In the Israeli/Palastinian conflict, both sides are equally to blame for the human rights violations.
And, again, that makes the situations incomparable how? Does it make the occupations more justifiable either way? The civilians killed are somehow more worthy of death if their leaders do bad stuff to? Or?

No-one is denying that there is an occupation in both cases.
Then how does a comparison between the two situations "just [not] work here"?

The Palestinians CHOSE the path of violence,

Each and every one?

Each and every one?

Did "each and every" German choose the path of violence? "Each and every" Japanese? I'm sorry that the universe does not work by principles of individualized justice, but collective misfortunes as a result of collective crimes happen all the time. I would have been equally offended if you had compared the occupations of Germany and Japan to the Tibetan situation: they didn't just "draw a short straw" either.

Did "each and every" German choose the path of violence? "Each and every" Japanese? I'm sorry that the universe does not work by principles of individualized justice, but collective misfortunes as a result of collective crimes happen all the time. I would have been equally offended if you had compared the occupations of Germany and Japan to the Tibetan situation: they didn't just "draw a short straw" either.

The Tibetans chose their collective misfortune by being in an area of interest to China. This is how the universe works.

They didn't "choose" to be there; their choice in the matter was their path of non-violence. The Palestinians, however, most definitely chose the path of violence, and when they complain that it turned out badly for them, I have limited sympathy.

Four young ultra-right nutters in their early twenties bashed a palestinian photographer, stole his camera and disrupted the olive picking before Israeli soldiers drove the thugs away. They were later arrested.

Clearly they were trying to provoke a reaction so they could claim Palestinian "terrorism". Luckily there were peace activists and soldiers around.

Another thing that annoys me about these guys is that so many of the settlers seem to have Brooklyn accents. I wish they's stay in Brooklyn ratrher than coming over and bashing people up in the name of the Almighty!

http://www.theage.com.au/world/bitter-harvest-as-israeli-settlers-run-rampage-20081026-58z6.html?page=-1:mad:
The state of Israel has a right to exist.

The state of Israel does NOT have the right to encourage this sort of treatment of Palestinians, nor does it have the right to constantly and consistently flaunt the rules of war, the Geneva Convention, and basic human rights.

Israel is a loose cannon, and it is our responsibility to tie it down. They're causing themselves far more trouble than they will ever save through these actions.

They didn't "choose" to be there; their choice in the matter was their path of non-violence. The Palestinians, however, most definitely chose the path of violence, and when they complain that it turned out badly for them, I have limited sympathy.

Your belief seems somewhat questionable. Because some Palestinians have committed acts of violence against Israeli citizens, you have less sympathy for the entire population, because that's how the universe works?
That because of the "collective crime" of the Palestinians, a collective punishment of every single Palestinian is justified (at least some degree)?
I don't see how the Palestinians have chosen the path of violence.

Look again. This is what you disagree with. No blame is being assigned to any side here, is it?

Nor is anybody saying that the Tibetans are like the Palestinians - the situations, however, are comparable.


And, again, that makes the situations incomparable how? Does it make the occupations more justifiable either way? The civilians killed are somehow more worthy of death if their leaders do bad stuff to? Or?

Yeah, see, its not just the palastinian leaders who bow up Israelis.

Again, the situations are not comparable. I feel sympathy for the Tibetans because they do nothing deserving of violence. No matter how disproportional Israel's/Palastine's retaleations against each other are, in that case no one is innocent. I understand why Palastine acts the way it does. And I understand why Israel does. But eventually one of them needs to man up and say "No more killing".

I dont see whats so hard to understand. The situations arent comparable. There is an occupation in both cases. The similarities end there. One side is fighting the occupation through deliberate acts of violence against civilians. The other side isnt. In Tibet, there is a clear case of aggressor and victim. A clear case of who struck first. In this conflict, there is no innocent side.

Are you just trying to bait me into siding with Israel?

Your belief seems somewhat questionable. Because some Palestinians have committed acts of violence against Israeli citizens, you have less sympathy for the entire population, because that's how the universe works?

Until the Palastinians come out and demand an end to the killing, I lack any sympathy for them. Just like until the Israelis do the same, I lack symopathy for them.

That because of the "collective crime" of the Palestinians, a collective punishment of every single Palestinian is justified (at least some degree)?
I don't see how the Palestinians have chosen the path of violence.

Has every single one of them? No. Have many? Yes. Are they doing anything to stop the violence from there end? No. Thus, I lack sympathy for them.

Inaction does not absolve them.

Until the Palastinians come out and demand an end to the killing, I lack any sympathy for them. Just like until the Israelis do the same, I lack symopathy for them.



Has every single one of them? No. Have many? Yes. Are they doing anything to stop the violence from there end? No. Thus, I lack sympathy for them.

Inaction does not absolve them.

Remind me, which people is being horribly oppressed by whom again?
I hardly think the uncoordinated rocket attacks made by a handful of dirt-poor Palestinian militias is comparable to the acts of the Israeli government against the civilian populace.
I do in no way condone the action of the Palestinian aggressors, but to claim that both sides are equally guilty in this conflict is far from the truth.

Remind me, which people is being horribly oppressed by whom again?
I hardly think the uncoordinated rocket attacks made by a handful of dirt-poor Palestinian militias is comparable to the acts of the Israeli government against the civilian populace.
I do in no way condone the action of the Palestinian aggressors, but to claim that both sides are equally guilty in this conflict is far from the truth.

Agreed. Also, those who so roundly condemn the Palestinians, what is your opinion of the ANC in Apartheid-Era South Africa, or the French Resistance in WW2?

Remind me, which people is being horribly oppressed by whom again?
I hardly think the uncoordinated rocket attacks made by a handful of dirt-poor Palestinian militias is comparable to the acts of the Israeli government against the civilian populace.
I do in no way condone the action of the Palestinian aggressors, but to claim that both sides are equally guilty in this conflict is far from the truth.

No, see it is not far from the truth. At all. The Israel government has a responsibility to defend its people.

The oppression is a direct result of Palastinian terror attacks. And because the Palastinian people give the terrorists a constant source of recruits and safe heavens, the Israelis cannot deal with them through conventional means.

Both sides are killing innocent civillians. One through terror. One through conventional means. Boths sides are equally responsible, no matter what the apologists from either side say.

Four young ultra-right nutters in their early twenties bashed a palestinian photographer, stole his camera and disrupted the olive picking before Israeli soldiers drove the thugs away. They were later arrested.

And I'm surprised the troops drove them off rather than shoot the photographer as a suicide bomber and arrest the olive pickers as accomplices.

Clearly they were trying to provoke a reaction so they could claim Palestinian "terrorism". Luckily there were peace activists and soldiers around.

I'm sure some Hamas asshat will use this as a justification for some stupid shit, thus justifying these Kahanist asshats to begin with.

Another thing that annoys me about these guys is that so many of the settlers seem to have Brooklyn accents. I wish they's stay in Brooklyn ratrher than coming over and bashing people up in the name of the Almighty!

http://www.theage.com.au/world/bitter-harvest-as-israeli-settlers-run-rampage-20081026-58z6.html?page=-1:mad:

Meir Kahane was from Brooklyn. Small note.

No, see it is not far from the truth. At all. The Israel government has a responsibility to defend its people.

Both sides are killing innocent civillians. One through terror. One through conventional means. Boths sides are equally responsible, no matter what the apologists from either side say.

The Israeli government (supposedly) represents the Israeli people, the militias does not represent the Palestinians. Not that it justifies violence against any civilians, but there is a difference.
And the forceful demolition of Palestinian homes, and further actions to force them to live in subhuman conditions is not part of the Israeli government's responsibility to defend it's people.

The Israeli government (supposedly) represents the Israeli people, the militias does not represent the Palestinians. Not that it justifies violence against any civilians, but there is a difference.

The militias may not "represent" the people, but they are supported by (enough of) them. Otherwise they wouldnt have a constant supply of recruits or so many safe heavens, and the government wouldnt have to work very hard to find out were they are.

And the forceful demolition of Palestinian homes, and further actions to force them to live in subhuman conditions is not part of the Israeli government's responsibility to defend it's people.

No, you are correct, its not. It is, however, a direct result of the Palastians suicide bombings and rocket attacks.


Im somehow being baited into defending Israel. How is this happening?

You know there a film just out called "Lemon Tree" - it's a film by Eran Riklis about a friendship that develops between a Palestinian widow and the wife of an Israeli Defence Minister who has moved next to the Palestinian widow's olive grove. The military want to bulldoze the lemon grove because they feel it constitutes a threat to the Defence Minister who has moved there.

There are so many good films coming out of Israel lately that explore the possibility of Palestinians and Jews leaving in peace together........

And I'm surprised the troops drove them off rather than shoot the photographer as a suicide bomber and arrest the olive pickers as accomplices.



I'm sure some Hamas asshat will use this as a justification for some stupid shit, thus justifying these Kahanist asshats to begin with.



Meir Kahane was from Brooklyn. Small note.

King Lear: "Mankind must perforce prey upon itself like monsters of the deep."

Yes the ultra-nationalists love to provoke the ultranationalists from th eother side so that they can use the other side's violence as a justification for all sorts of injustices.
Fear of being called a "self-hater" keeps people quiet. I'm not a self-hater I am a fascism hater.:wink:

Agreed. Also, those who so roundly condemn the Palestinians, what is your opinion of the ANC in Apartheid-Era South Africa, or the French Resistance in WW2?

Did either of them intentional target civilians? You target civilians you put yourself in the same category as Palestinian suicide bombers, Israeli soldiers with conveniently "bad aim", the 9/11 hijackers, and the men who bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The 20th century was a century of total war. It seems that the 21st will be no different. Civillians are targetted in every war. The ANC supporters used "necklacing" (putting burniing tyres around people and killing them horribly).
Earlier in the thread people were getting hot under the collar about Tibetans. Tibetans used violence. It was the street violence by Tibetans (including monks) that gave the Chinese authorities their justification for their quite scary and violent repression of the Tibetan dissidents prior to the Beijing Olympics.

The oppression is a direct result of Palastinian terror attacks.

Not all of it, no. Being a Jew doesn't make you incapable of being a racist retard who wants to act out his fantasies of supremacy by committing crimes and atrocities against "lesser" beings.

they do not have the same repulsive history as the Palestinians.

Ah, of course. Every single Palestinian who has ever been murdered, beaten or thrown off their land by the Israelis was a repulsive violent criminal. I never realised that before.

Did "each and every" German choose the path of violence? "Each and every" Japanese? I'm sorry that the universe does not work by principles of individualized justice, but collective misfortunes as a result of collective crimes happen all the time. I would have been equally offended if you had compared the occupations of Germany and Japan to the Tibetan situation: they didn't just "draw a short straw" either.

Well there isn't a parallel to the occupation of Japan and Western Germany, because they weren't having large sections of their population removed while Americans, British and French moved in. Secondly, they didn't spend 40 years as second class citizens.

As Ariel Sharon acheived elected office more than once in his career, does that mean that the entire Israeli population has chosen the 'path of violence'?

Did "each and every" German choose the path of violence? "Each and every" Japanese? I'm sorry that the universe does not work by principles of individualized justice, but collective misfortunes as a result of collective crimes happen all the time. I would have been equally offended if you had compared the occupations of Germany and Japan to the Tibetan situation: they didn't just "draw a short straw" either.

Oh goody. You just created a line of reasoning implicating all Americans as having committed/chosen to commit collective atrocities and crimes against humanity. When do the mass executions start?

Not all of it, no. Being a Jew doesn't make you incapable of being a racist retard who wants to act out his fantasies of supremacy by committing crimes and atrocities against "lesser" beings.

The oppression sanctioned by the government is.


Are people really pretending like Palastine is innocent? Really? And you dont see yourselves as just as deluded as those who pretend Israel is innocent?

The oppression sanctioned by the government is.


Well that depends now doesn't it? Is it official sanctioned policy for the Israeli police to ignore settler initiated crimes? Is it official sanctioned policy to ignore violations of their own laws when settlers breach border zones to set up illegal housing areas outside of their territory?

The problem of hate filled retards is quite endemic in enough quantities in Israel that it is a powerful political bloc in its own right, so while the official policy may forbid such things, it is either unwilling or unable to enforce it.


Are people really pretending like Palastine is innocent? Really? And you dont see yourselves as just as deluded as those who pretend Israel is innocent?

I take it you don't see yourself wearing shoes similar to those who would denounce anyone criticizing questionable American actions as anti-American/terrorist sympathizers?

I have not seen any here claiming that the extreme acts of the Palestinian militants to be just and fair, and those that do talk about it at least seem to point out that it is not justified. But the topic on point was the criticism of certain factions of Israel, aspects of its government included.

So why then does this infer that anyone criticizing Israel must then view all aspects of Palestine are innocent then?

Your belief seems somewhat questionable. Because some Palestinians have committed acts of violence against Israeli citizens
Because the overwhelming majority and the official leadership of the Palestinians have favored violence against civilians throughout the whole history.

I did see someone say there was a recent poll (no link provided, but it was attributed to Pew Research, which has a good reputation and no axe to grind) that a majority of Palestinians now support a two-state solution, which is a new development; and the "cease-fire" seems to mostly holding. If the Palestinians are serious about stopping the violence, of course the Israelis should respond by reining in their own extremists, and removing settlements.
I don't see how the Palestinians have chosen the path of violence.
The sporadic murders of immigrants in the 19th century and early 1920's, and the escalation to murdering any Jews, even if their ancestors had been in Palestine for centuries, were unforced choices. The country was sparsely settled (under half a million; the land now supports over ten million), because it had only subsidence agriculture without irrigation, and no industry to speak of; the boom in the economy sparked by the Jewish immigration attracted many Arab immigrants as well, but they were not burned out or targeted for murder. By the late 1930's, some Jewish factions were indulging in retaliatory violence of a clearly terroristic kind, but the original violence was entirely one-sided.
Remind me, which people is being horribly oppressed by whom again?
I hardly think the uncoordinated rocket attacks made by a handful of dirt-poor Palestinian militias is comparable...
Sure, NOWADAYS the Palestinians are not very effective at killing large numbers, but that is precisely because they are being held down tightly. I am old enough to remember May 1967, when rockets rained down daily from the Golan and raiders from Gaza were armed by the Egyptian government. I don't want their capacities for murder put back to that level, until they have demonstrated that their willingness to murder has diminished.
to claim that both sides are equally guilty in this conflict is far from the truth.
Exactly.

I have not seen any here claiming that the extreme acts of the Palestinian militants to be just and fair
You have not followed Nodinia, then. He thinks that saying "colonialism" is an automatic excuse for any kind of crime.

Because the overwhelming majority and the official leadership of the Palestinians have favored violence against civilians throughout the whole history.
Source please. The claim that the overwhelming majority of the Palestinians favors violence is a ludicrous blanket statement.


The sporadic murders of immigrants in the 19th century and early 1920's, and the escalation to murdering any Jews, even if their ancestors had been in Palestine for centuries, were unforced choices. The country was sparsely settled (under half a million; the land now supports over ten million), because it had only subsidence agriculture without irrigation, and no industry to speak of; the boom in the economy sparked by the Jewish immigration attracted many Arab immigrants as well, but they were not burned out or targeted for murder. By the late 1930's, some Jewish factions were indulging in retaliatory violence of a clearly terroristic kind, but the original violence was entirely one-sided.
Even if this is true, what does that have to do with anything? Why should today's Palestinians suffer from century-old actions? Because that seems to be what you're saying.

Sure, NOWADAYS the Palestinians are not very effective at killing large numbers, but that is precisely because they are being held down tightly. I am old enough to remember May 1967, when rockets rained down daily from the Golan and raiders from Gaza were armed by the Egyptian government. I don't want their capacities for murder put back to that level, until they have demonstrated that their willingness to murder has diminished.

Because they are so thoroughly violent of nature that they need to be forcibly restrained to avoid their thirst for genocide getting out of hand?
Pray tell, how many participated in these attacks? How does the forceful colonization that continues to this day help with anything? Is the right course of action to force them to live under progressively worse conditions until the resulting anti-Israeli sentiments magically disappear?

Source please. The claim that the overwhelming majority of the Palestinians favors violence is a ludicrous blanket statement.

I will try to dig up some polls, if you are really interested. I have never seen a poll on the subject where support for violence against civilian targets was less than 70 percent. And every election conducted among Palestinians, going back to 1920, has chosen the violent parties: in the more recent election that Hamas won, there were two parties advocating non-violence, which received 1% and 2% of the vote.
Why should today's Palestinians suffer from century-old actions? Because that seems to be what you're saying.

Originally all I was saying was that it was ludicrous to call the Palestinian situation a matter of bad luck, just like the Tibetans, when the origin is quite different. I was not addressing what should be done now, which of course depends on what the intentions of the people there now are.
How does the forceful colonization that continues to this day help with anything?
The planting of settlements does not help in the least.
The occupation itself, however, does reduce Israeli casualties considerably. Of course, this loses them a lot of sympathy, since the Palestinians take twice or three times as many casualties as the Israelis do; but the Israelis prefer to be vilified rather than going back to the old days when the casualty ratio was quite the reverse.
Is the right course of action to force them to live under progressively worse conditions until the resulting anti-Israeli sentiments magically disappear?
Most Israelis do not expect Palestinian sentiments to change, regardless of what anybody does.

Yeah, see, its not just the palastinian leaders who bow up Israelis.

Again, the situations are not comparable. I feel sympathy for the Tibetans because they do nothing deserving of violence. No matter how disproportional Israel's/Palastine's retaleations against each other are, in that case no one is innocent. I understand why Palastine acts the way it does. And I understand why Israel does. But eventually one of them needs to man up and say "No more killing".
Your sympathy or lack thereof has no bearing on the comparability of the situations.

I dont see whats so hard to understand. The situations arent comparable.
So you keep saying.

Under an occupation by a foreign power who, to a great extent, disregards basic human rights and has a merciless and disproportionate reaction to any kind of uprising. The foreign power uses torture on civilians and activists alike, and many people are detained without charge for political reasons. The movement of the occupied people are severely restricted and they cannot leave the territory freely - and if they do, they may not be allowed to return. All the while the foreign power is colonizing the occupied territory with its own civilians.

Am I speaking of Palestine or Tibet?

There is an occupation in both cases. The similarities end there. One side is fighting the occupation through deliberate acts of violence against civilians. The other side isnt. In Tibet, there is a clear case of aggressor and victim. A clear case of who struck first. In this conflict, there is no innocent side.
So the conflicts aren't comparable due to the levels of and ways of resistance? Please. That's just one factor of many. Even if that one - or even several - factors are different, it doesn't make the situations incomparable.

And when the Tibetans riot or attempt an uprising, and Han Chinese are targeted, beaten and in some cases killed, does that suddenly make the situations more comparable to you? If so, know that during the last riots

Protests later turned violent, with some protesters attacking individuals because they were believed to be Han Chinese. Some of these attacks are reported to have resulted in death, injury and damage to property
Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA17/070/2008/en) - People’s Republic of China: The Olympics countdown – crackdown on Tibetan protesters, 1 April 2008

Heck, if you really wanted to argue that the situations can't be compared, you could have said that the situation in Tibet really isn't an occupation due to the Seventeen Point Agreement and the Dalai Lama not demanding independence (that is "out of the question") but rather more autonomy.

Now I don't believe that last part is true, I view it as an occupation, but your argument would make more sense that way.


Are you just trying to bait me into siding with Israel?
I am trying to make you understand what it means to compare situations.

I did see someone say there was a recent poll (no link provided, but it was attributed to Pew Research, which has a good reputation and no axe to grind) that a majority of Palestinians now support a two-state solution, which is a new development;

51.9% support a two-state formula as favored solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict, while others believe that historic Palestine cannot be divided and thus the favored solution is a bi-national state on all of Palestine wherein Palestinians and Israelis enjoy equal representation and rights.
Article from 2003 (http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/2228.htm)


The poll did show support for a two-state solution over the long term with 66 percent favoring normalized relations with Israel if it returned all land won in 1967 and a Palestinian state was established.
March 2008 (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/18/mideast/18mideast.php)

Article from 2003 (http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/2228.htm)
The overwhelming majority (65.3%) support continuing the violence against Israel, 60.5% support "military operations" inside Israel and 59.9% support suicide bombings against Israeli civilians.

69.9% were pessimistic or very pessimistic about the prospects for a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Onlu 13.1% said the peace process is still alive and there is a possibility of resuming negotiations.

75.3% "strongly" or "somewhat" support "the continuation of the al-Aqsa Intifada in the West Bank and Gaza Strip."
Palestinians favor either pursuing only violence ("Intifada") (29.8%) or a combination of "Intifada and negotiations together (48.6%). 87.9% support the Intifada in one form or another.
March 2008 (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/18/mideast/18mideast.php)
84 percent supported the March 6 attack on the Mercaz Harav yeshiva, one of Israel's most prominent centers of religious Zionism and ideological wellspring of the settler movement in the West Bank. Shikaki said that this is the single highest support for an act of violence in his 15 years of polling here.

On negotiations between Ehud Olmert, prime minister of Israel, and Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, 75 percent said they were without benefit and should be terminated. Regarding the thousands of rockets that have been launched at Israeli towns like Sderot and Ashkelon, 64 percent support the attacks.



This is what polls of Palestinians generally find.
Your sympathy or lack thereof has no bearing on the comparability of the situations.
The question was about the ORIGIN of the situations. Nodinia said that both were due to bad luck.

The question was about the ORIGIN of the situations. Nodinia said that both were due to bad luck.
Nope.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7689706.stm

40 fucken years.....Them and the Tibetans really pulled the fucking short straw....
Because in the Israeli/Palastinian conflict, both sides are to blame for being children and murderers on a regular basis.


Such is not the case in Tibet.

Nothing about the origin here.

Nope.




Nothing about the origin here.He said they "pulled the short straw", that is to say, that it was a pure matter of luck. I said in response that the Palestinians CHOSE the short straw; that is what the distinction was.

You have not followed Nodinia, then. He thinks that saying "colonialism" is an automatic excuse for any kind of crime.

Oh really? To me it seems he is saying the acts are reprisals springing from Israeli actions over 40 years. Logical conclusions are hardly proclamations of justness of an act.

I for one, do not for a moment believe that either side in that miserable little conflict has clean hands, or are somehow less culpable in continuing that conflict.

Palestinian militant groups are fractured, don't listen to any central authority, and are near impossible to reign in whether if the central authority wants peace or not. Hate and vengeance are primary motivations.

Israel on the other hand, has demonstrated that it has sufficient numbers of homegrown Jewish retards, likely similar in proportion to the Palestinian militant groups, who under no circumstance, will accept peace, and are willing, in fact eager, to kill their own leaders and brethren to see their agenda of extermination and colonization through.

And yet you think that they are less culpable somehow?

Oh really? To me it seems he is saying the acts are reprisals springing from Israeli actions over 40 years.
You don't have the lengthy history with him that I do. I point out to him that the Palestinian violence is not a response to the occupation, but was in fact even more intense before 1967, and was entirely one-sided before 1938: and he will then point out that the earlier violence was in response to Jews moving in; you see, when "Westerners" immigrate to "non-Western" territory, that is "colonialism", and so of course they deserve to be killed. When it is the reverse situation, he is of course just as appalled as I am by skinheads wanting to burn out or kill dark-skinned people moving in to their neighborhood-- but he cannot see that from my viewpoint, the Palestinians were exactly the same as those skinheads.
Israel on the other hand, has demonstrated that it has sufficient numbers of homegrown Jewish retards, likely similar in proportion to the Palestinian militant groups
Not even remotely in the same proportion: please get real. However, the retards on the Israeli side are certainly "sufficient" in numbers, I agree with you there.
And yet you think that they are less culpable somehow?
Not at all. I want the perpetrators of the events in the OP imprisoned for lengthy terms.

You don't have the lengthy history with him that I do. I point out to him that the Palestinian violence is not a response to the occupation, but was in fact even more intense before 1967, and was entirely one-sided before 1938:

And? Time marches on, reasons change, and so do the players. The ones responsible for the 1929 Hebron Massacre (Palestine), the King David Hotel bombing (proto-Israel), and most of the fighting before 1967 are either long dead or have been made non-factors.

Does that mean things should continue as they are then? An endless cycle of killing and violence that continues to operate only because people are locked in the past, a past where the people directly involved have already become rotting corpses?

Are you saying that the children must pay for the sins of the fathers?


Not even remotely in the same proportion: please get real. However, the retards on the Israeli side are certainly "sufficient" in numbers, I agree with you there.

If we took Jewish gangs and OT settlers (who are there by forceful expulsion of the Palestines anyway), compared in proportion to the actual Palestinian militants against their respective total populace, the percentage is likely to be similar.

And if there are enough of this sort of retards that they have become a powerful influential political bloc in Israel, then the amount of damage they can inflict automatically becomes proportional to the amount the Palestinian people can do. Greater actually, since Israel and Palestine do not have a parity of force, and more Palestinians die in Israeli reprisals than Israeli's in Palestinian attacks.


Not at all. I want the perpetrators of the events in the OP imprisoned for lengthy terms.

Which isn't likely to happen.

*Sees old arguments about Palestine-Israel*

Leaves...

We have to get beyong the old arguments - none of them went anywhere.
It will be the new generation rejecting the old shibboleths and embracinbg internationalism that will do it.

The Protetstants and Catholics did it in Northern Ireland so why can't Jews and Arabs do it in Israel

There wil;l be a new President in both Israel and the US....new beginnings!

Shalom/Salaam

I thought you had prime ministers, not presidents. That being said, how long would this one last anyway? Seems to me that Israel's got a string of scandal related prime ministers of late.

And I may be wrong, but didn't the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland have a common enemy that at least served as a unifying factor?

Actually Israel (as opposed to "you" - my country is "Collectivity") has both a PM and a Pres - the last two were both scandal ridden - the Pres kept groping and the PM was accused of having his his fingers in the cookie jar although Olmert was able to negotiate a truce of sorts before he shuffled off the stage). But Yes, NAS, the PM is the more active one in the relationship.

As for the Prots and Caths in Northern Ireland, I don't think that they necessarily had a common enemy (unless you mean that they both hated Islamists which could be true). I think that what they had in COMMON was the Common Market - the EU made them part of a bigger picture as with Greece, Turkey and Cyprus. Also, there was a lot a skilled negotiating which Blair had a role in.

And I may be wrong, but didn't the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland have a common enemy that at least served as a unifying factor?

What common enemy was that?

What common enemy was that?

I think it was the British, or have I gotten my timelines mixed up?

Nah! The Protestants in Northern Ireland are more British than the Queen. It is the Catholics who want Ulster to join with the Republic of Ireland. However, they made a peace deal that involves a power-sharing arrangement. I'm hazy on the details - but power sharing is a good place to start in any peace deal.

And? Time marches on, reasons change, and so do the players. The ones responsible for the 1929 Hebron Massacre (Palestine), the King David Hotel bombing (proto-Israel), and most of the fighting before 1967 are either long dead or have been made non-factors.
The actual perpetrators are, of course, dead (or very old), but the parties which control Palestine, and the Likud party in Israel, are still institutional successors of the organizations behind all those things, and the present membership oftentimes continues to make excuses for the past (I have seen Likudniks defend King David Hotel, for example: it is not restricted to one side).
Are you saying that the children must pay for the sins of the fathers?
That's up to them. I am somewhat optimistic about the prospects, seeing a general weariness on both sides that has led to the "cease-fire" mostly holding of late. But neither side is going to admit they were wrong in the past, of course; that would do too much damage to their self-esteem; if both sides go back to demanding apologies from each other, everything can still unravel.
If we took Jewish gangs and OT settlers (who are there by forceful expulsion of the Palestines anyway), compared in proportion to the actual Palestinian militants against their respective total populace, the percentage is likely to be similar.
Not even slightly. Practically every Palestinian has family members involved in the militant groups. People from far away always want to assume that the bombers must be as "fringe" in Palestinian society as, say, Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski in American society, because they cannot imagine such things being mainstream and indeed pervasive-- but, IT IS, and that is the primary fact to understand. And the strong-majority support for violence has been an unfortunate fact about the Palestinian society for a century: well before 1967, well before 1948. That is what gives many Israelis their deep pessimism that ending the occupation would accomplish anything more than giving the Palestinians better bases from which to launch attacks.
Which isn't likely to happen.
There, at least, I have to agree with you, unfortunately.

Israel is where we send Jews who are too religious for America.
Heh, it's like America for protestant Europe in the 16th century and beyond!

But aye, :(

Because (....), some Jewish factions were indulging in retaliatory violence of a clearly terroristic kind, but the original violence was entirely one-sided..

So where can we see where successive generations have signed up en-masse?

Also - as I pointed out earlier, Ariel Sharon has achieved elected office numerous times in his career. Does this justify mass and blanket action against all Israelis because they have chosen the 'path of violence'?


Sure, NOWADAYS the Palestinians are not very effective at killing large numbers, but that is precisely because they are being held down tightly.

Isn't that the kind of logic that was used to justify the occassional lynching? Keep the natives down, 'they need a firm hand' etc....

And of course, they happen to be tied down in order to build civillian housing on occupied territory.


He thinks that saying "colonialism" is an automatic excuse for any kind of crime.

Resistance to such a regime is no crime.

He said they "pulled the short straw", that is to say, that it was a pure matter of luck. I said in response that the Palestinians CHOSE the short straw; that is what the distinction was.How nice. And irrelevant. You may have noticed that I wasn't responding to you, but rather KoL who expanded upon your original post by saying:
Because in the Israeli/Palastinian conflict, both sides are to blame for being children and murderers on a regular basis.


Such is not the case in Tibet.
I said the situations. Saying the Tibetians are like the Palastians is essentially saying that the Tibetians are equally to blame for the situation, which is simply not the case.

The Tibetians are essentially innocent in their conflict with the Chinese and DONT kill innocent people. In the Israeli/Palastinian conflict, both sides are equally to blame for the human rights violations.
KoL didn't mention the origins, the root cause or the beginning of the conflict. Rather, it seems that he's emphasizing that it's the current situation in Palestine he believes cannot be compared with the situation in Tibet as it is today. And that's what I'm voicing disagreement with.

I think it was the British, or have I gotten my timelines mixed up?

You're probably thinking of the Presbyterian/Methodist involvement in the United Irishmen and the 1798 rising.

can we see where successive generations have signed up en-masse?
Of course we can. The PLO and Hamas charters explicitly and proudly say they are continuing in the footsteps of their forebears from the 20's and 30's, and you can easily find Likudnik statements praising forebears from the 40's.
Resistance to such a regime is no crime.
And you define "resistance" to include any kind of activity whatsoever. So voila, once white people move into the neighborhood, no action is a crime any more.

Of course we can. The PLO and Hamas charters explicitly and proudly say they are continuing in the footsteps of their forebears from the 20's and 30's, and you can easily find Likudnik statements praising forebears from the 40's..

So then are you saying - by an extension of that logic - that Ariel Sharons election is proof that all Israelis have rejected the 'path of peace' and thus can be treated accordingly?

So then are you saying - by an extension of that logic - that Ariel Sharons election is proof that all Israelis have rejected the 'path of peace' and thus can be treated accordingly?

Hey, if the election of Hamas is 'proof' that the Palestinians unanimously call for the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews, I don't see why it's not good for the gander either.

Hey, if the election of Hamas is 'proof' that the Palestinians unanimously call for the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews, I don't see why it's not good for the gander either.

Not only that, but the existence of the settlements and the virtual blind eye to settlement expansion and to settler violence, the refusal to apply the Geneva convention, the legal use of torture, mass detention, extrajudicial execution, discrimination....All would amount to a De Facto rejection of peace, and declaration of a hostile and expansionist agenda on behalf of all Israelis, as far as I follow his logic.

I've asked twice now, taking the example of Sharon. We shall have to see.

Most certainly, the election of Sharon meant that the Israelis at that time considered the path of "peace" to be impossible.

Most certainly, the election of Sharon meant that the Israelis at that time considered the path of "peace" to be impossible.

O I think thats dissembling. Ariel wasn't some passive chap. The "father of the settler movement". The "bulldozer". The man who led some notorious raids back in the 1950's. The man responsible in part for the massacres in Lebanon. The man who pushed and aided the settlers any way he could in the 1980's and 90's.

He was elected in the 70's, the 80's, the 90's, the 00's......

And of course theres the militant aspect of his Likud party, and its offspring. And again, they've been elected by Israelis on numerous occassions. You don't elect them because "peace is impossible" because the last thing they're interested in is peace or peaceful means, as they've shown on numerous occassions.

So precisely why shouldn't we view a vote for him, and indeed his ilk, like Netanyahu and others on the right, as a vote for expansion, repression and war?

So precisely why shouldn't we view a vote for him, and indeed his ilk, like Netanyahu and others on the right, as a vote for expansion, repression and war?
Didn't I just say, explicitly, that it WAS?

Didn't I just say, explicitly, that it WAS?

So therefore, by your logic, any and all consequences that fall on the Israeli population are self-inflicted by their choosing the 'path of war'. By your logic, they are collectively guilty.

Israelis are not unaware that actions have consequences. If things are working out badly for them under one party's policies, then they vote for a different party. How else do you think things work?

Israelis are not unaware that actions have consequences. If things are working out badly for them under one party's policies, then they vote for a different party. How else do you think things work?

In which case all that befalls them is the result of their decisions, and any complaints you might make re lack of Palestinian discrimination in targeting and methodology are countermanded by the argument you make in saying that the collective action against the Palestinians is self inflicted.

You're a harsh man.

I am not sure if you are failing to comprehend where I am coming from, or are deliberately misunderstanding, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Nothing whatsoever that the Palestinians do can justify behavior like that shown in the OP.

Nothing whatsoever that the Israelis do can justify the Palestinian campaigns of pointless murder.

I have always been opposed to the Likud party, particularly its habit of granting impunity to military personnel who kill civilians either negligently or intentionally, and I likewise oppose the planting of settlements in the West Bank, all of which will have to be removed; and although I do not regard the Jerusalem Zone as being the same thing as the West Bank (you often conflate them), I do not think there can be any peace without giving the Palestinians some piece of Jerusalem to call their own, and I applaud Livni's refusal to give into the Shas party's "never negotiate about Jerusalem!" demand.

That said, I cannot support the creation of an independent Palestinian state until they show some capacity for living in peace with their naighbors. The cease-fire has mostly kept of late (despite a rocky start: Hamas responded to early violations by saying "It wasn't us, and we have no control", but now seems to understand that saying that means, precisely, denying that they are ready to be treated as a real government), and that is a good sign.

And what I absolutely refuse to tolerate from the Palestinian side is the refusal to recognize that they failed to obtain an independent state in 1948 because they deliberately chose to behave in a way that made that impossible, that they fell under occupation in 1967 because of their own stupidity in continuing to fight after they had quite deservedly lost the war, and that they remain under occupation because they have remained stupidly murderous.

That said, I cannot support the creation of an independent Palestinian state until they show some capacity for living in peace with their naighbors. .

....yet steadfastly refuse to apply that logic to the Israeli side. Much as you refuse to apply your own justification for indiscriminatory action against the Palestinian side against the Israeli side.


and that they remain under occupation because they have remained stupidly murderous.

...and nothing whatsoever to do with a land grab by certain elements of Israeli society. The blood thirsty Arab needs no motive, presumably. Nor, by your logic, need he bother to differentiate.

....yet steadfastly refuse to apply that logic to the Israeli side.
Israel has plenty of peaceful commerce with the world. It contributes nifty technology, agricultural exports, art and literature. I certainly wouldn't wish their state to disappear. Palestinians have a couple of half-decent writers, but their principal contribution to the world has been novel ways of killing people, forcing noxious inconveniences on people all over the world. Of course, under occupation they have less opportunity to make positive contributions, but: Jews made positive contributions out of proportion to their numbers while still under oppression; presently, the Tibetans contribute religious literature and art which I and many others find valuable; East Germans and Lithuanians while under occupation contributed to the world much more than the relentless negative contribution the Palestinians insist on making their name for.
Why would I want to see a Palestinian state added to the world, if they are just going to use it as a missile-launching base? Is that all that they would do, if they were given a state? The Gaza experience suggests that the answer is Yes. If the Palestinians regret that, fine, better late than never, but they ought to realize that the burden of proof is on them. If they say instead, we won't stop being noxious until the Israelis do, then: the situation will stay as it is; the Israelis don't like it much, but find it better than the pre-1967; it is the Palestinian side which should want a change.
Much as you refuse to apply your own justification for indiscriminatory action against the Palestinian side against the Israeli side.
I do NOT justify indiscriminate action against the Palestinian side. I just got through telling you that, AGAIN. Why do I even bother talking to you?
...and nothing whatsoever to do with a land grab by certain elements of Israeli society.
Not much, no. The violence was the same, before there was any such grab.
The blood thirsty Arab needs no motive, presumably. Nor, by your logic, need he bother to differentiate.
The only motive is hatred of the Other.

Israel has (.....) their name for..

If all people could dig holes like you, mining never would have become mechanised.


but they ought to realize that the burden of proof is on them. ..

Much like the Portugese (at least I think it was Portugese) imposed a 6 tier system, where by one of their reluctant subjects could "prove" they were suitable to be accepted as equal to a European.

Considering that Gaza is essentially an open air prison entirely at the mercy of the Israelis, and that the West Bank differs merely in the efficiency of its occupiers in brutalising the population, it really is amusing to see who has the burden of proof put on them by you....



I do NOT justify indiscriminate action against the Palestinian side. ..

Yet everytime you do. PLO & Hamas = ThE eBBill!!!!!. Yet when we get to Likud and the like on the other side, over 4 and 5 decades, the brakes are hit. I'm suprised we haven't had an appearance from the Mufti again. Certainly you dragged out some shite that smelt of Susan Peters nonsense......


The only motive is hatred of the Other.

Some may be so. Certainly some Israelis seem thusly motivated. Given your diatribes, I'd say you're somewhat of an expert on the subject.

I think the problem can be fixed if we just sent them all our marmite...

I think the problem can be fixed if we just sent them all our marmite...

What the hell good would that do?

It would just result in wars between those who love marmite and those who hate it.

What the hell good would that do?

It would just result in wars between those who love marmite and those who hate it.

Well the theory goes that those living in the middle east suffer from a lack of zinc in their diet which causes them to be a little bit aggressive. Marmite is full of zinc and it would calm them down a bit. So yes, thinking about it it would just result in a war between those who love it and those who hate it..

it really is amusing to see who has the burden of proof put on them by you....
The Palestinians are the side who want, or ought to want, something to be changed. If they do not make it reasonable to create the change that they wish, then: things stay the same. This is bad for the Palestinians, as you point out.
Yet everytime you do. PLO & Hamas = ThE eBBill!!!!!. Yet when we get to Likud and the like on the other side, over 4 and 5 decades, the brakes are hit.
Likud also equals "the evil". I have always said so. If anybody asks me, "Should Likud be put into power?" I will tell them "No" (however, my endorsements do not alas have great weight in Israeli elections). If anybody asks "Should the PLO and Hamas be given power?" I will say "No"-- unless we see some change in their behavior.
The main difference, of course, is that the Israeli state already exists, and so the Likud has opportunities, whether we like it or not, to take power within that state; and I am not going to assist in the destruction of the state that exists. Fatah and Hamas can only come to power within the limited "Palestinian Authority"; they can only take power within a state if a new state is created. I am not prepared to support the creation of that state.
I'm suprised we haven't had an appearance from the Mufti again.
The basic situation has not changed since his day. Why did Israel get recognized as a state, and Palestine didn't? Cutting off arms to the Irgun was one prerequisite for international acceptance of Israel (yes, you and I would both prefer that the Irgunites have been permanently banished from public life, rather than allowed to morph into a major political party), but the bottom line was acceptance of the UN cease-fire. The Palestinian state would not cease fire, and so no-one recognized but Egypt, and then even Egypt de-recognized it, and they've been stateless since. What is the condition under which they can have a state? The same condition as always.
Certainly you dragged out some shite that smelt of Susan Peters nonsense......
I have no idea who "Susan Peters" might be.

Tmutarakhan, I've been reading this debate and I must say, keep up the good work. You certainly have the patience I lack. And just because Nodinia is deliberately misreading some of your points and totally ingoring others, don't falter. Maintain your position.

If they enjoy the debate well mazeltov! But eventually the debate has to shift from the past (histories injusticies and boundaries) to the future.

I would love to see a world without borders - but it ain't gonna happen soon. Did you know that prior to WWI, a person could cross Europe without a passport? (I heard that somewhere and it sounded great, so I'm trotting it out as if it's absolute fact).
But wouldn't it be great if you were a bedouin Arab or a Jewish tourist or an Egyptian salesman and you could cross from Alexandria to Babylon without having to carry a passport? "Never!" You say.
One day it may! Baruch hashem! Insh'allah! G-d willing!
Our ancestors did it. Abraham went from Akkad (modern Iraq) to the promised land.
One day Nation States will be dissolved and other forms of government will have replaced them. I hope that it will include self-government.
It's starting to happen in the EU - it can happen in th eMiddle East. It is not a given that Jews and Arabs have to hate each other. They co-existed for centuries. They will eventually work out a formula for peace....especially if the rest of the world actively encourages the process.
My own take on this is that Mosiach (the Messiah) is not a person but a thing - a manifestation. A coming together of all the peoples of the world leading to a higher stage of consciousness. I think that the Holocaust had a role in this. The Holocaust may have directly contributed to the formation of the UN and the UN created the new nation of Israel. But that's not all it created. It created a world where citizens would increasingly reject "ethnic cleansing" as any solution at all. It created the concept of internationalism where human society could use technology and science to liberate mankind from bondage - the bondage of hate and ignorance.
True, there has been a running battle known as the Arab-Israeli conflict from that date as well but ALL CONFLICTS MUST END. Europe had one known as "The Hundred Years War".
Before all this happens though, we have a few little problems to address like global warming, over-population, illiteracy etc etc.
Well - "Next Year in Jerusalem" as th eoptimists say. One thing at a time. First the Palestinians need a nation just as the Jews got. And from there.........

The Palestinians are the side who want, or ought to want, something to be changed. .

Yet its in the interest of a faction on the Israeli side to keep things just as they are. Therefore the idea that Israel is somehow competent or capable to stand in judgement over the Palestinians is rather laughable. It's a colonial idea, in that the colonist thinks that the "native" is obliged not only to jump through hoops, but hoops of his own specific design, for his own interests.

It's a further example of your double standard.


The basic situation has not changed since his day. Why did Israel get recognized as a state, and Palestine didn't? .

A large number of complex and inter-twining reasons, including what you've mentioned, guilt over the Holocaust, political opportunism and fuck knows what else. It really doesn't justifty the continuing colonisation of border areas for Eretz Yisrael Hashlemah.



I have no idea who "Susan Peters" might be.

More usually known as Joan Peters. My error there.


Tmutarakhan, I've (....)position. .

While the vanquished traditionally sit on the sidelines to watch the fray, I'm not sure that usually takes the form of inane 'You go Girl!!!' styled remarks and pom-pom waving.....

It's a colonial idea, in that the colonist thinks that the "native" is obliged not only to jump through hoops, but hoops of his own specific design, for his own interests.

It is not the Israelis who created the insistence that Palestinians live in peace with their neighbors before they can have a state. It was the UN. It is the same condition as always.
It really doesn't justifty the continuing colonisation of border areas for Eretz Yisrael Hashlemah.

I have never said the settlements are justified. I do get tired of having to say that to you over and over. If you actually want the settlements ended, though, you should be in favor of the Palestinians acting in a way which would make it possible for them to be granted independence.
More usually known as Joan Peters. My error there.

I have no idea who the hell "Joan Peters" is.

It is not the Israelis who created the insistence that Palestinians live in peace with their neighbors before they can have a state. It was the UN. It is the same condition as always..

I don't think anyone is going to be stretched to imagine the difficulties in attempting to "live in peace" while being colonised.


, you should be in favor of the Palestinians acting in a way which would make it possible for them to be granted independence..

But the settlements should be removed if the Palestinians turned cannibalistic and abandoned Islam for a religon that involved a giant gorrilla. They've no business being there. Expecting the population to act in a "peaceful manner" while something decidedly offensive, certainly illegal, aggressive and provacative is going on, on a daily basis, is ridiculous.


I have no idea who the hell "Joan Peters" is.

.....or 'Google', 'Yahoo', and 'Excite' either, it would seem.

I don't think anyone is going to be stretched to imagine the difficulties in attempting to "live in peace" while being colonised.
Right, just like the Lithuanians cannot possibly imagine enduring decades of Russian occupation without blowing up schoolbuses.
But the settlements should be removed if the Palestinians turned cannibalistic and abandoned Islam for a religon that involved a giant gorrilla.
Yes. But a Palestinian state would still be out of the question. The issues are not related.
.....or 'Google', 'Yahoo', and 'Excite' either, it would seem.
I've heard of them, but have no motivation to waste a second using them. Is there reason I should give a fuck who whatshername is?

Tmutarakhan, I've been reading this debate and I must say, keep up the good work. You certainly have the patience I lack. And just because Nodinia is deliberately misreading some of your points and totally ingoring others, don't falter. Maintain your position.

Well now I know who's position is retarded.

Fatah and Hamas can only come to power within the limited "Palestinian Authority"; they can only take power within a state if a new state is created. I am not prepared to support the creation of that state.

Can I ask you this: Given that random acts of violence/resistance/terror keep being perpetrated by elements and/or individuals on the Palestinian side, how would you imagine the future to be if no Palestinian state is established?

Right, just like the Lithuanians cannot possibly imagine enduring decades of Russian occupation without blowing up schoolbuses.

Actually they fought till the late 1950's, and were none too soft on colloborators.....

The IDF aren't too adverse to targeting schoolchildren themselves.

Is there some reason you brought up the old emotive school bus example? Do you want this to devolve into an Atrocity match?


Yes. But a Palestinian state would still be out of the question. ?

My, such dismissive arrogance. Normally I'd onlyt expect that from the religous or a member of the Bush administration.


The issues are not related.?

So being colonised doesn't provoke violence amongst the victims?


I've heard of them, but have no motivation to waste a second using them. Is there reason I should give a fuck who whatshername is?

Well you repeat her long discredited tune. However it is fairly clear you avoid anything that questions your preferred reading of matters. Most people would at least have some natural curiosity..........

Can I ask you this: Given that random acts of violence/resistance/terror keep being perpetrated by elements and/or individuals on the Palestinian side, how would you imagine the future to be if no Palestinian state is established?
Similar to the present, I would imagine. The Israelis won't like it, but will keep their own casualties minimized as best they are able. The Palestinians ought to dislike it more: maybe enough to change, at some point.
Actually they fought till the late 1950's
Did they blow up schoolchildren? You keep speaking as if "everyone" would act the way Palestinians do: it is not, actually, the way most people respond, even to very dire situations.
My, such dismissive arrogance. Normally I'd onlyt expect that from the religous or a member of the Bush administration.
I am simply reporting facts to you. It is not that I, individually, have the power to decide whether a Palestinian state will get created; but the fact is, a Palestinian state will not be created until it is clear it will be something other than a missile-launching base, because there are many many people who would oppose such a thing, and the Palestinians have no power to bring about their own state without outside support.
So being colonised doesn't provoke violence amongst the victims?
Random murderousness like what we see among the Palestinians? That is quite rare among others who have been in such situations.
And was it "being colonized" which "provoked" the Palestinian violence? Not at all: the violence had been going on for decades before "colonization", unless you think that immigration, in and of itself, is "colonization" and justifies murder of the incomers; you've never clarified that point.
Well you repeat her long discredited tune.
No, I'm not "repeating" anything from whoever this person is, never having heard of her. And you have anything to say which "discredits" anything I have said, you haven't bothered to do so.

Hey Tmut and Nodinia - when are you two gonna get married. You already bicker like an old married couple!

Hey Tmut and Nodinia - when are you two gonna get married. You already bicker like an old married couple!

That could be an idea to end the conflict. Force the Israelis and Palestinians to intermarry.

The Palestinians ought to dislike it more: maybe enough to change, at some point..

Once again putting the onus on the victim, not the aggressor. And yes, putting civillians on that territory is an act of aggression.


You keep speaking as if "everyone" would act the way Palestinians do: it is not, actually, the way most people respond, even to very dire situations...

Yet many do. And it is indeed a dire situation, as they are denied recourse to legal sanction.


I am simply reporting facts to you. It is not (........) support....

...and were it not for the settlements, I'd believe that was the reasoning. Maybe it is, amongst some. However the facts are there in concrete, open to viewings and on sale. It's a land grab.


Random murderousness like what we see among the Palestinians? That is quite rare among others who have been in such situations.....

"necklacing" in South Africa by the ANC, the Mau Mau in Kenya..The Vietnamese were particularily harsh, if I recall, and the FLN were ferocious. But of course, regardless of who or what I mention, nothing - by your lights - seems to match to the "Random murderousness" of the Palestinians. Funny that.


And was it "being colonized" which "provoked" the Palestinian violence? Not at all: the violence had been going on for decades before "colonization", unless you think that immigration, in and of itself, is "colonization" and justifies murder of the incomers; you've never clarified that point......

There was considerably more to it than resentment of immigrants in the sense that it exists in the West in modern times, thought that doen't justify the mob violence.

You seem hell bent on oversimplifying down to that though, in order to make it appear as if opposition to your position implies support of crude Arab Anti-semitism. Hence your "you've never clarified that point".

Also the existence of violence in pre-settlement days in different times and circumstances doesn't somehow mean that the existence of settlements aren't are a provocation now. You seem to have a concept of the 'eternal Palestinian', whose malignance is constant and unchanging, regardless of era or surrounds.


No, I'm not "repeating" anything from whoever this person is, never having heard of her. And you have anything to say which "discredits" anything I have said, you haven't bothered to do so.

I've been through it before on other threads. However, we can go through it again, if you so wish.

The country was sparsely settled (under half a million; the land now supports over ten million), because it had only subsidence agriculture without irrigation, and no industry to speak of; the boom in the economy sparked by the Jewish immigration attracted many Arab immigrants as well

Essentially thats the old idea of "there was nothing there before we arrived" so beloved of Imperialists. Ms Peters makes it a central contention in her book, published in the 1980's. The fact that no (to my knowledge) scholars of the subject support it, doesn't stop it being trotted out in one form or another.

There are many available and detailed critiques of it, of which this is not untypical
Both the Arab and the Jewish myths I have described have circulated widely for years. Nothing in either of them is new or revolutionary. The more extreme you were in your Zionist beliefs the more thoroughly you propagated the Jewish mythology. What is surprising is that Joan Peters still writes as if the Zionist myths were wholly true and relevant, notwithstanding all the historical work that modifies or discredits them. The surprise is even greater when one considers her claim to have done original research in the historical archives and even to have discovered "overlooked 'secret' (British) correspondence files" in the Public Record Office in London, among other sources of "neglected" information. Indeed, by looking for the "right" evidence and by reading documents selectively one can "prove" virtually anything. But substituting Jewish-Zionist myths for Arab ones will not do.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5249 (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5249)

That could be an idea to end the conflict. Force the Israelis and Palestinians to intermarry.

:eek:Oy Gevalt! Marry out??? You are no longer my son/daughter! You are dead to your family now. I have no son/daughter!

Forcing them to marry out is a great idea Gauthier. However, the problem is that both groups tend to be forced to marry IN.

Religion just gives us one more reason to HATE our neighbours. :hail:

:eek:Oy Gevalt! Marry out??? You are no longer my son/daughter! You are dead to your family now. I have no son/daughter!

Forcing them to marry out is a great idea Gauthier. However, the problem is that both groups tend to be forced to marry IN.

Religion just gives us one more reason to HATE our neighbours. :hail:

I had an idea which involved a massive forced child swap before. Israeli children to Palestinian parents and vice versa. Biggest human hostage situation in all of history. Might have worked too.

But intermarriage works, as long as you deny them divorce. You might see sharp rises in spousal abuse cases though =p

I just read this joke in the London Review of Books (it has been attributed to Gregory Peck):
Three men - one Jew, two Arabs - were seated three abreast on an Air France flight to the US. The Jew mentioned to the Arabs that he was going to the washroom and offered to get them something while he was up. The Arabs thanked him for his kindness and said yes, they would like an orange juice. Moments after the Jew had left, one of the Arabs noticed that the Jew had removed his shoes during the flight and that they were still on the floor. He nudged his friend and suggested that they spit in the shoes. They did. When the Jew returned with the juice, the Arabs thanked him profusely and then suggested he put his shoes on, since the plane was landing. The Jew slipped them on, sat quietly for a moment, then turned to his Arab neighbours, who couldn't restrain their laughter. In a soft, sorrowful voice, he said: "When is it going to end - the hatred, the vengeance, the killing, the spitting in shoes, the pissing in orange juice?"

Settlers have being fighting Israeli security forces who are evicting their settlements. Settlers retaliated by hurling riocks etc. One Palestinian photographer was struck by a missile. Yet this was a pretty quiet news day.
http://media.theage.com.au/?category=Breaking%20News&rid=43351

Settlers have being fighting Israeli security forces who are evicting their settlements. Settlers retaliated by hurling riocks etc. One Palestinian photographer was struck by a missile. Yet this was a pretty quiet news day.
http://media.theage.com.au/?category=Breaking%20News&rid=43351

If it had been Palestinian settlers, the police would have shot them dead on the spot.

You could be right Gauthier - but isn't it refreshing to see the settlers fighting the IDF rather than the IDF going into Gaza or Lebanon?
Did you see how worked up the little settler kids were on the footage? They were itching for a bit of biffo!
I despair at how utterly fanatical their parents are to bring them up that way....... it's mother's milk brainwashing (like in Bosnia, Kossova, Northern Ireland in the 70s etc)

You could be right Gauthier - but isn't it refreshing to see the settlers fighting the IDF rather than the IDF going into Gaza or Lebanon?
Did you see how worked up the little settler kids were on the footage? They were itching for a bit of biffo!
I despair at how utterly fanatical their parents are to bring them up that way....... it's mother's milk brainwashing (like in Bosnia, Kossova, Northern Ireland in the 70s etc)

It is rather depressing.