UN Slams Israel's killings of civillians - Only USA not in favour of vote.

[Agathon]

That's one way to look at it. The other is that Israel was created by the U.N., for better or for worse, and was then attacked, won, and has been fighting on and off with the Arabs ever since.

Most people would agree with that and still hold that Israel should get out of the territories, in order to respect the original partition. The occupation is simply illegal according to international law, and there's a reason that law exists and that the UN exists, to prevent aggressive annexation of territory.

I sympathize with the Arabs over the creation of Israel. In a nutshell the Europeans atoned for the holocaust by passing the cost on to the Arabs without their consent. Then for our own selfish reasons we in the west have shat on them for years in order to keep the oil flowing. No wonder a lot of them are pissed at us and don't trust anything we say.

On the other hand, the forced expulsion of Jews from Israel proper would be a terrible crime. For this reason the vast majority of the world's population support a two state solution with perhaps land swaps and either the right of return or some adequate compensation for it. Everyone knows that a peace settlement will have to look something like this. Anything else will condemn the region to violence for the next 50 years.

I was pro-palestinian in the 80s, when I saw those TV shots of Palestinian kids throwing rocks and being shot at with rubber bullets. My stance changed to neutral when the standard resistence method became blowing up as many civilians as possible.

What else do they have? Nothing happened when they played nice. The "peace process" turned out to be a sham in that it was a way of making the Palestinians give up their legal rights under the UN charter in order to appease the Israelis. The story that Arafat was offered "the deal of the century" is just that, a story.

In any case, the death rate of Palestinians is about three times that of the Israelis and the property damage caused here is even more disproportionate. Suicide bombers are primarily the revenge weapon of the powerless against the powerful.

Would you have been so quick to condemn black South Africans for bombing shopping malls patronized by the white elite, when the South African government was massacring blacks at a disproportionate rate? I'm betting most people would have believed that the whites were getting what they deserved for supporting a morally repugnant and racist institution.

Neither side has much of a claim for the moral highground here. And Sharon may be a bastard, but allegedly the Pals elected Arafat. That's better in some way?

The Palestinians have the moral high ground because they are under occupation. They are being denied their civil rights in a manner similar to Apartheid. Any reasonable account of the issue cannot ignore this fundamental truth. The Israelis are the occupiers, they are in the wrong. Whatever the Palestinians do may be bad, but it is not unprovoked.

The West Bank and Gaza are theirs. The Israelis should get out - they have no business being there.

[Jamski]

Amen.

Agathon moves even further up my list of people with correct world views.

-Jam

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Most people would agree with that and still hold that Israel should get out of the territories, in order to respect the original partition. The occupation is simply illegal according to international law, and there's a reason that law exists and that the UN exists, to prevent aggressive annexation of territory.

I sympathize with the Arabs over the creation of Israel. In a nutshell the Europeans atoned for the holocaust by passing the cost on to the Arabs without their consent. Then for our own selfish reasons we in the west have shat on them for years in order to keep the oil flowing. No wonder a lot of them are pissed at us and don't trust anything we say.

What the hell does Israel have to do with oil?

On the other hand, the forced expulsion of Jews from Israel proper would be a terrible crime. For this reason the vast majority of the world's population support a two state solution with perhaps land swaps and either the right of return or some adequate compensation for it. Everyone knows that a peace settlement will have to look something like this. Anything else will condemn the region to violence for the next 50 years.

Since the right of return = the destruction of Israel, don't you think it's quite reasonable for them to deny it?

What else do they have? Nothing happened when they played nice. The "peace process" turned out to be a sham in that it was a way of making the Palestinians give up their legal rights under the UN charter in order to appease the Israelis. The story that Arafat was offered "the deal of the century" is just that, a story.

To acknowledge the right of return would be for Israel to give up some of its legal rights. So if you want Israel to return to the original UN agreement, that means they don't have to give RoR.

In any case, the death rate of Palestinians is about three times that of the Israelis and the property damage caused here is even more disproportionate. Suicide bombers are primarily the revenge weapon of the powerless against the powerful.

So?

If the Communists were about to conquer the US, would we be justified in nuking the world?

Would you have been so quick to condemn black South Africans for bombing shopping malls patronized by the white elite, when the South African government was massacring blacks at a disproportionate rate? I'm betting most people would have believed that the whites were getting what they deserved for supporting a morally repugnant and racist institution.

Were the massacred blacks combatants or civilians? Either way killing white civilians wouldn't be justified, but if they were civilians you can't even make the analogy to Israel.

The Palestinians have the moral high ground because they are under occupation. They are being denied their civil rights in a manner similar to Apartheid. Any reasonable account of the issue cannot ignore this fundamental truth. The Israelis are the occupiers, they are in the wrong. Whatever the Palestinians do may be bad, but it is not unprovoked.

If I steal your car, is it OK for you to shoot me?

Any moral high ground the Palestinians had was more than lost when they began attacking civilians.

[Pax]

Kucinich,
People do shoot at trespassers in their homes. Your perspective seems to ignore the fact that the Palestinians are being oppressed. In the same logic that led to the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. should be doing something to get the west bank and Gaza back into the hands of its rightful owners.
I also don't see how anyone could justify a nuclear armed isreal putting limitations on the Palestinians ability to defend themselves. I wish the Isreali's would just leave those people alone.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Jamski


Kamakazis were serving soldiers in the Japanese Air Force != Civillians
Palestinian Suicide Bombers are bakers and farmers etc == Civillians
-Jam

Kamikazies were teens recruited by the Japanese military, who were given a specially-made plane loaded with explosives and basic instructions.

Suicide bombers are teens recruited by Hamas, who are given a specially-made coat loaded with explosives and basic instructions.

[Jamski]

Even if you are correct...

Recruited by millitary = solider
Recruited by paramillitary organisation = civillian.

/me sends Monk a flower *

-Jam

[The Mad Monk]

So Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. are all civilian organizations?

[Jamski]

Yes.

In a binary system, where an organisation is millitary or not, they are not millitary.

Or if you want them to be classified as millitary, you have to treat this as a proper war in Israel, treat Palestine as a real country and stop calling the Palestinians terrorists.

Your call

-Jam

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Originally posted by Agathon
Most people would agree with that and still hold that Israel should get out of the territories, in order to respect the original partition. The occupation is simply illegal according to international law, and there's a reason that law exists and that the UN exists, to prevent aggressive annexation of territory.

You are fast becoming a sort of sad clown on virtually every issue. That is the main reason the UN was created, to avoid the scourge of war and in particular the aggressive annexation of territory. It has been quite successful in that we have so far avoided World War III and that there is a general consensus that violating the sovereignty of states is illegitimate and so is occupation. In the old days most people did not think this way. That's a major paradigm shift in the way people think.

I sympathize with the Arabs over the creation of Israel. In a nutshell the Europeans atoned for the holocaust by passing the cost on to the Arabs without their consent. Then for our own selfish reasons we in the west have shat on them for years in order to keep the oil flowing. No wonder a lot of them are pissed at us and don't trust anything we say.

What the hell does Israel have to do with oil?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Look at where it is. If you wanted to project your power into the region wouldn't you attempt to find a vassal in the area. That is what Israel is, a US vassal.

And you conveniently ignore the fact that this was a general point about Western/Arab relations.


[quote[

On the other hand, the forced expulsion of Jews from Israel proper would be a terrible crime. For this reason the vast majority of the world's population support a two state solution with perhaps land swaps and either the right of return or some adequate compensation for it. Everyone knows that a peace settlement will have to look something like this. Anything else will condemn the region to violence for the next 50 years.

Since the right of return = the destruction of Israel, don't you think it's quite reasonable for them to deny it?[/quote]

It might equal the destruction of Israel if the Arabs were to become a majority in Israel proper. I don't see any problem with this since basing a state on race is not morally justifiable. Notice that I said or adequate compensation for the right of return. That seems like a better option politically, but something must be done because whatever way you look at it, these people were alienated from their own land and property.

What else do they have? Nothing happened when they played nice. The "peace process" turned out to be a sham in that it was a way of making the Palestinians give up their legal rights under the UN charter in order to appease the Israelis. The story that Arafat was offered "the deal of the century" is just that, a story.

To acknowledge the right of return would be for Israel to give up some of its legal rights. So if you want Israel to return to the original UN agreement, that means they don't have to give RoR.

Um... no. The refugees were expelled from Israel due to war. IIRC the issue of refugees is completely separate from the original partition.

The Declaration of Human rights states that no one should be subject to arbitrary exile from their own country. In a sense these people should be Israeli citizens. If not, they should be compensated.

In any case, the death rate of Palestinians is about three times that of the Israelis and the property damage caused here is even more disproportionate. Suicide bombers are primarily the revenge weapon of the powerless against the powerful.

So?

So, the attempt to paint the Israelis as the victims is frankly laughable.

If the Communists were about to conquer the US, would we be justified in nuking the world?

That's a pathetic analogy. Israel cannot be defeated militarily by any of the neighbouring states or all of them acting in concert. That's just a fact. It's also a fact that some Palestinians might want to destroy Israel, but it's not going to happen. They simply do not have the power to do so.

Would you have been so quick to condemn black South Africans for bombing shopping malls patronized by the white elite, when the South African government was massacring blacks at a disproportionate rate? I'm betting most people would have believed that the whites were getting what they deserved for supporting a morally repugnant and racist institution.

Were the massacred blacks combatants or civilians? Either way killing white civilians wouldn't be justified, but if they were civilians you can't even make the analogy to Israel.

Many of them were people throwing stones at armoured cars (helpfully supplied by the British) or people who shot at the police who beat and tortured blacks. It's a straight analogy - one would have to be a total cretin not to see the similarity here. Israel is not the victim - Israel is the bad guy here.

The Palestinians have the moral high ground because they are under occupation. They are being denied their civil rights in a manner similar to Apartheid. Any reasonable account of the issue cannot ignore this fundamental truth. The Israelis are the occupiers, they are in the wrong. Whatever the Palestinians do may be bad, but it is not unprovoked.

If I steal your car, is it OK for you to shoot me?

Perhaps not, but if you steal my car, my house, my right to vote, my right to freedom of movement, all my other judicial and political rights, kill members of my family and imprison them in Bantustans from which it is near impossible to travel unless one has a menial and poorly paid job working for the masters; in short if you treat me as a slave, I think I would have good ground to shoot you.

Israel is a democracy, in fact it's one of the worlds best democracies. In a democracy the people take responsibility for the goverment's actions - even those who did not vote for it - because that's how democracy works. If a democracy oppresses others and its own citizens refuse to do anything about it, then they cannot complain if the people they are ****ting on resort to violence.

Any moral high ground the Palestinians had was more than lost when they began attacking civilians.

Really? Are you talking about the settlers who are taking their land before their very eyes, who can beat and shoot at Palestinians with little or no constraint? The Israelis were already attacking civilians long before the current intifada started - and yet the Israeli public does nothing and votes in a war criminal to "deal" with the Arabs.

I don't think that people should bomb civilian cafes, but then again I didn't have my brother/sister/father killed for throwing stones at an illegal army of occupation.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Jamski
Yes.

In a binary system, where an organisation is millitary or not, they are not millitary.

Or if you want them to be classified as millitary, you have to treat this as a proper war in Israel, treat Palestine as a real country and stop calling the Palestinians terrorists.

Your call

-Jam

...or they are illegal combatants, and Israel may do with them as they please.

[Agathon]

I watch the US networks and I watch the Beeb and the Canadian networks. Violence against Palestinians receives a lot less coverage in the US than it does in these other two.

I was horrified when I first started watching US networks because they are so one sided on the issue.

[Jamski]

You should watch the German coverage then. It makes the BBC look positively Kosher.

-Jam

[Agathon]

Some people here seem to have a pathological inability to sympathize with the Palestinian situation. How would you feel if it were you in that situation.

A Story

You live in Texas, your family have lived in Texas for as long as anyone can remember, and your father owns a farm which has been in the family for generations. Texas is a part of the United States, a global superpower. Texan society is conservative, strongly religious and has a keen sense of Texan cultural identity. Part of this feeds the Texans' sense of separation from the rest of the United States.

The United States gets involved in a terrible war in which many people are killed. At the end of the war it can no longer hold on to its empire and Texas in particular. Many Texans are overjoyed at the prospect of independence, and of finally being able to run their own lives as they see fit instead of having to bow to the Federal government. Many Texans died in the war and feel that the United States owes them their freedom.

However, there is another group of people who are interested in Texas, the Armenians. These poor people have been oppressed for hundreds of years culminating in a terrible genocide committed against them by the enemy during the war. It so happens that, for religious reasons, many Armenians view Texas as their promised land and even before the war there was a steady influx of Armenian immigrants into Texas which the Texans didn't much like, but which was forced on them by the Federal government.

After the war the victors have to decide what to do with the Armenians. Millions of them were killed and the calls for them to have their own homeland are loud. It is decided that they shall be given half of Texas, the half that includes your father's farm. Texans are outraged that the side which their sons died for in the war should repay them by taking half their country, especially when they were so looking forward to independence. They vow to destroy the partitioning scheme. Neighbouring states who have been given their independence from the US (now a much smaller political entity) sympathize with the Texans.

So the partition goes ahead and hundreds of thousands of Armenians pour into Texas. The Texans and the neighbouring states declare war on the new state of Armenia, but are beaten back. You and your family are forced to flee the violence and move to West Texas, a poor part of the country that you don't particularly like. The West Texans are pretty kind though even if you do have to live in a refugee camp. Over the next two decades the neighbouring states attack Armenia three times, but get beaten. On the last occasion the Armenians overrun West Texas and put you and your family under occupation. You no longer have effective civil rights and are forced to live on handouts from countries like Denmark. There are a few Texans who live in Armenia proper, but they are treated like second class citizens. In short your life sucks. You hope that the world community will see the injustice of what happens here, but it so happens that the Armenians have made a deal with the British, who have agreed to support them in almost everything they do. Every time your plight is brought up at the UN, only Britain and Armenia vote against doing something about it, and that is enough to make sure that nothing happens. By this time you aren't too fond of the Armenians. Something about being IDed at gunpoint every time you have to travel really gets to you. And the fact that you can't get a job and that you live in a camp and that some Armenian has taken over your father's farm and finally that your father was killed by Armenian soldiers during a demonstration against the occupation. Your life expectancy is lower because you live in poverty and you have little access to education. You don't much like the British either – they refuse to listen to anyone else and give the Armenians carte blanche to do what they want. And what they want seems to be to keep you and your family in poverty for ever.

Things go on like this for years and then the Armenians start building towns in the occupied part of West Texas. Now you get really pissed off as it looks like you won't even get to stay in this part of Texas. There is international outrage at the conduct of the Armenians, but the British veto at the UN prevents anything being done about it. Eventually you crack and start resisting, You and your friends throw stones at armoured cars, but nothing really happens. Religious fundamentalists argue that ordinary politics isn't good enough and that Texans must take up arms in God's name. This seems a bit desperate, but no one else is really doing anything about it. Some Texans resort to shooting at Armenians, but the casualty rates are so disproportionate due to superior Armenian weapons that it doesn't work. Every month there are new names to add to the list of Texans killed by the security forces. The Armenian settlers are well armed too, and they have been known to take pot shots at Texans – but little is ever done about it.

But there is a ray of hope. International events mean that the British decide that something must be done. The religious fanatics in Texas don't like this because they want all of Texas back. The Armenian fanatics are similarly unenthusiastic and during the process kill their own prime minister. After that it is all downhill. The Armenians promise much but deliver little and things don't get much better. The Armenians elect a right wing prime minister who starts to try to wreck the peace process. Things smoulder. The British try to mediate but their proposals are so ridiculously pro-Armenian that it would leave West Texas as a collection of isolated hamlets watched over by Armenian tanks.

Now if this story were true, are you telling me that Slowwhand wouldn't be roving the land with his shotgun taking pot shots at Armenians? And would you blame him?

[Ming]

Yes... a story

[Verto]

I object to Agathon soiling my great state by associating it with his whacko ideas and stories.