IDF will occupy Gaza and uproot Hamas

[Guardian]

Originally posted by CyberGnu

I think the whole veto idea was an incredibly bad idea from the beginning.

Agreed!

Then again, we did manage to survive the cold war without nuclear exchanges, so maybe there was some point to it, and we are now still paying the interest.

Perhaps...

Originally posted by CyberGnu
If you still don't get it, I'll just reply with 'moron'. Saves me a lot of time.

You'll save even more time after Ming's done with you if that's the attitude...


Anyway, back to the Middle East...

Maybe they have to continue, at least for a period after a gaza invasion, just to prove that violence begets more violence.

Does anybody else see a problem here??

The Israelis are thinking the same thing!

Thus, more bombs against Israel will only bring more incursions. More troops, more tanks, more blockades!

Sure, if that's what the Palestinians want, then yes, they should keep bombing. Israel will keep retaliating, and together they can keep the cycle going for another decade or two...

If - on the other hand - they want out of the circle...

Well, the only way to do that is if both sides give a bit... -which doesn't seem to be the order of the day in either camp at the moment, so war it is and war it shall be...

-It's a long way to the promised land for those who can only move in circles...

[Eli]

Israeli helicopters fired missiles on a group of Palestinians in the Sheikh Raduan "neighborhood". 3-4 were killed.

Rumor says that the main Hamas engineer(the one who replaced Yehi Ayash), Muhamad Def, was killed.
He is/was on the top of the Israeli wanted list.

Edit : Changed wrong location.

[Eli]

Cyber :

The only answer is that oppression should never be allowed to continue. If it takes the complete obliteration of the occupying people to save one single innocent life, it is worth it.

So nation A commites a crime against nation B, in this case occupation, and to save one member of nation B it is ok to kill entire nation A.

Does it apply only to occupation? What about... the million Iraqis killed because of the UN sanctions? The opression of women before the whatever century? The unjustified missiles attack against Sudan? The Soviet invasion to Afghanistan? Or maybe the German football loss to England?

Where does it stop? From what point commiting genocide becomes morally wrong, from your point of view?

[GePap]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Sirotnikov

I don't recall jewish groups targetting civilians, which in my eyes defines terrorism.

Well, its hard when there were no British civilians to speak off- but there were planty of atatcks on Arab civilians prior to the British leaving and Israel declaring independence: And my sources are newsmagazines from the age, since I had wonderful access to one of the worlds largest Reserach libraries, with copies of time and newsweek, and all the major Jewish magazins from tgheir start. Isn't that grad?

Targetting gov. officials and attacks vs. military is objectively partisan resistance. The state will call it terrorism, and the partisans will call it freedom fighting.
But this is completely different from slaughtering civilians. civilian slaughter is absolute terrorism.

I don't disagree. I would ask then if you think killing the tourist minister was a justifiable act? Or the atacks on IDF tanks in Gaza?

erm... source?

Knowing you penchant for this tactic, and your long-running battle with CyberGnu...I won't bite. If you realy want, I can PM a copy of the bibliography for my University theses. Its somewhere in one of those books.

Jabotinsky thought that the arabs will never agree to a compromise, and the only way that compromise can be reached is if Israel at first acts unilaterally and decisively. This will give Israel the status it needs, so that Arabs will agree to compromise.

This does not mean that he didn't style himself after Italian and other European fascists movements: you also fail to mention his split from the main Zionists groups, his hatred of the Socialists leanings of mainline Zionism, his demand for violen struggle against Britain during WW2, or the fact that his body could only go to Israel after Ben Gurion died. Why did Ben gurion hate him so?

He did however believe in being honest about his intentions - a Jewish state in palestine. He did regard the Arabs as a nation.

So I don't see anything fascist about him.

Fascism believes in the primacy of the nation, with the nation being defined as a single and closed cultural group. In this scheme, the main fulfilment of the individual comes from advancing the goals of the cultural group to which he is part of- and denies any other alliegences, such as the communist allegence to social class, which after all, is dependent from nationality. (remembe, i caled him fascist, not Nazi: Nazi's add a psuedo-biological streak that eads to rampant racism, normal Fascism does not, in the Italina, hungarian, Spanish model). His beliefe of the arabs as a natipon would be fine for a fascist:as long as the arabs stayed out of his nation (the jews). His belief that force was key to the nations freedom an strength is a fasicst notion-his utter dislike of socilism would also fit in nicely.

1) they only had black and white cameras then.
2) they dressed in a wierd way.

Churchill hardly looks like a fascist when they photographed him in black and white. Begin looked like an SS man because he was wearing a military style black uniform, with a very similar looking floopy military cap- Thus the resemblence to someone in a black military uniform with the same type of floppy military cap- the picture is in one of the books.

1) no one is seeking immediate victory. victory will come when re-education and reform will come.

Re-education? hmmmm.... how Orwellian. Yeah, teaching kids in shcool that israelis are nice and love them, the same kids who will have seen relatives killed or arrested by the IDF, have to stay home during curfews, and see their parents humiliated by 20 year lds with assault rifles- yeah, a new set of textbookks will erase all of those memories, since if its written in book (unless it contadicts ones prejudices) must be true!

Oh, and on the reform bit: Nothing has slowed palestinian reform more than israeli military action in the last few days- no one reforms under the barel of a gun.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
1) Take a look at your own opinions. You claim might gives right. This is indeed an example of moral corruption.

Explain to me again how I claim that might make right?

Explain to me how it is logical to cancel the existance of an entire nation (Israel) based only on your perception of my moral views?

2) Not Israel, jewish lobbying in the US. One of the largest special interest groups in the US.

You specifically said bribe money. Lobbying can come similarly from idealism or favouritism (due to ethnicity or something).

Prove bribe money.

3) Well, where is that Al-Quida training camp that the JP reported? And where is the supposed source they had? They made up a story with the sole purpose os inflaming the situation. I've explained this about 200 times for you by now, so this is your last chance. If you still don't get it, I'll just reply with 'moron'. Saves me a lot of time.

You merely relied on the fact that you couldn't find a copy of an article on-line, to decide that it never existed.

Have you actually mailed the supposed source (some german paper, right?) and have their written proof that no such article ever existed?

Furthermore, explain to me how does JP reflect on the rest of Israeli media?

On top of that - your claim abut the Israeli media being full of lies pre-dates the said incident. You only mentioned that incident after I got tired of hearing you slam the Israeli media, and continually asked for proof. You then described to me an article and it's supposed source, and said that you couldn't find the source on their website.

This is absolute nonsense.

There are many articles by reuters and by ap and such comapnies that are also quoted and translated. Many of those articles, are inaccecible freely on their websites. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Ned]

Just my two cents, I don't think occupation justifies violence where there is an avenue to the end to the occupation by peaceful means and negotiations. Only when those means are exhausted and there is no further hope can the resort to violence be justified.

In my view, a political settlement of the Palestine issue is and has always been possible so long as the Arabs accept Israel right to exist. Thus, there never has been any justification whatsoever for violence from the Arab side.

[Sirotnikov]

Well, its hard when there were no British civilians to speak off- but there were planty of atatcks on Arab civilians prior to the British leaving and Israel declaring independence: And my sources are newsmagazines from the age, since I had wonderful access to one of the worlds largest Reserach libraries, with copies of time and newsweek, and all the major Jewish magazins from tgheir start. Isn't that grad?

Well I have sources of well known organized attacks as part of massacares on Jews from 1920 and forward.

I am aware of incidents of anti-palestinian terror, but i don't recall it amounting to an actual terror campaign.

At least the violence during the 20s and 30s, was, it appears, a voilence of small revenge gangs - groups of people who decided to take the law in thier hands. Nothing I support.

I know there are claims of attacks on arabs by the Stern gang and Ezel, but I couldn't find exact enough sources.

If you could please photocopy or scan the said articles and send them to me by email or ICQ, I would be most greatful.

I don't disagree. I would ask then if you think killing the tourist minister was a justifiable act? Or the atacks on IDF tanks in Gaza?

Do I like these attacks? No.
Do I think they are justifiable? I don't, but that's because I don't justify the entire intifada.

Are they legitimate (as in, is it objectively ok to use such things in freedom fighting) - Yes.

I think it is much more legitimate to kill a minister or a soldier, than a non combatant civilian.

Knowing you penchant for this tactic, and your long-running battle with CyberGnu...I won't bite. If you realy want, I can PM a copy of the bibliography for my University theses. Its somewhere in one of those books.

No seriously, I don't know about it.

Sending me a copy of the bibliography would be nice if it would accompany a copy of those books, or at least the relevant quotes.

Could you mail me your thesis? I promise not to copy it

This does not mean that he didn't style himself after Italian and other European fascists movements:

Nothing you quoted so far proves that he did...

you also fail to mention his split from the main Zionists groups,

agreed, but still irrelevant. that doesn't mean he favoured fascism.

his hatred of the Socialists leanings of mainline Zionism,

Because he was a hard line liberal - duh.

[q]his demand for violen struggle against Britain during WW2,[/q
If that's fascist then the Palesinian groups are all fascist too.

or the fact that his body could only go to Israel after Ben Gurion died. Why did Ben gurion hate him so?

Probably because they were serious enemies?

It is suspected Jabotisky wanted either to putsch or to make a "state with-in a state" in Israel. Jabotinsky despised Ben Gurion and the latter despised him back.

Habotinsky resisted the socialist idology (was a liberal) and thought that the Ben Gurion approach was wrong. He disagreed with his approach to the arabs, his approach to britain and his approach to statehood.

Fascism believes in the primacy of the nation, with the nation being defined as a single and closed cultural group.

Then he couldn't have been fascist since he for a long time thought that Israel should be a Jewish autonomous state, part of the Brittish Empire (like, say Australia or something).

In this scheme, the main fulfilment of the individual comes from advancing the goals of the cultural group to which he is part of- and denies any other alliegences, such as the communist allegence to social class, which after all, is dependent from nationality.

This defines patriotism as well. Not all patriotism is fascistic.

Almost all national liberation movements are vehemently patriotic and believe in advancing the national goals.

His beliefe of the arabs as a natipon would be fine for a fascist:as long as the arabs stayed out of his nation (the jews)

His belief that force was key to the nations freedom an strength is a fasicst notion-his utter dislike of socilism would also fit in nicely.

His belief was first and foremost in political work. He disliked ben gurion, because he thought ben gurion was wasting efforts on field work (terra forming the land in Israel, and purchasing it) , when it was completely un certain that Israel would come into existance, and on what lands.

He believed in force against the arabs, because he reached the conclusion, fueled especially by the massacares of 1920, 1921 and 1929, that they will not willfully come to discuss.

The quote I brought , IMO, shows that his idea of force was not to force a unilateral solution on the arabs, but rather using force, until the Arabs decide to waiver their idea of unilateral solution (ie - no Israel).

The quote clearly shows he believed force was the only way leading to serious negociations, once the automatical unilateral will of the arab nations will break down.


* I agree though that he was nationalist and other than being a stubborn liberal, thought that socialism and universalism were also mistakes, and the national interest shoul be served first.

Churchill hardly looks like a fascist when they photographed him in black and white. Begin looked like an SS man because he was wearing a military style black uniform, with a very similar looking floopy military cap- Thus the resemblence to someone in a black military uniform with the same type of floppy military cap- the picture is in one of the books.

Churchill was brittish. He looked brittish.
Jabotinsky was eastern european, and looked like one.

In any case, it's hardly the same as say, Arafat who constantly wears PLO Fatah green uniform.

Re-education? hmmmm.... how Orwellian. Yeah,

Again, I ask you not to knee jerk.

The fact is , that kids are currently taught in schools that:

1) suicide bombing martyrdom is the holiest and most respectable honour
2) violent struggle is the only way to freedom
3) jews are evil racists and are not to be trusted
4) jews rule the world media and foreign countries' governments using money and bribery (something like CyberGnu seems to think)
5) all kinds of myths about zionist conspiracies and crimes

This is factually what they are being taught.

I merely wish to counter that effect by removing that substance from their education system.


Tell me - was de-nazification Orwellian? was the de-militarization of Japan Orwellian?

Oh, and on the reform bit: Nothing has slowed palestinian reform more than israeli military action in the last few days- no one reforms under the barel of a gun.

I agree with that.

However, I'm not sure how serious were the reform attempts, and whether the military actions' effect of stopping reform is not only short term.

[GeneralTacticus]

General, has China come up in the discussion? If you wanted my view on China's veto you could just have asked.

I've never seen you complain ANYWHERE about the whole China business. On the same subject, do you think Tibetans have a right to go around blowing themselves up on the streets of Beijing or Shanghai until the Chinese withdraw?

[CyberGnu]

General,

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47059&perpage=20&pagenumber=5

You actually posted in this very thread.

[CyberGnu]

Guardian, well, if you consider the executioner in a death sentnece a murderer, I think that pretty much closes the debate between us. We have fundamentally different views on morality, and I don't know how or even if I could get you to believe law is the most important ideal.


However, for the second part: members of a society are complicit in their goverments action. If they pay taxes, they contribute. If they oppose their goverments actions, they shoul withhold their taxes. This might get them jailed, but that is the prize humanity should ideally be willing to pay for justice.

You'll save even more time after Ming's done with you if that's the attitude...

*sigh* True. It is jusut so frustrating. Trying to explain critical thinking to Siro is like trying to explain nuclear physics to a dachshund. It is a waste of time and the dog gets irritated.

Sadly, he does have a talent for getting me worked up, which is why I come back and try again and again. I should learn to just ignore him until he learns what a source is, but it is hard.

Does anybody else see a problem here??

The Israelis are thinking the same thing!

Thus, more bombs against Israel will only bring more incursions. More troops, more tanks, more blockades!

Sure, if that's what the Palestinians want, then yes, they should keep bombing. Israel will keep retaliating, and together they can keep the cycle going for another decade or two...

If - on the other hand - they want out of the circle...

Well, the only way to do that is if both sides give a bit... -which doesn't seem to be the order of the day in either camp at the moment, so war it is and war it shall be...

-It's a long way to the promised land for those who can only move in circles...

Of course I see the problem. But the additional problem is that the status quo is not acceptable from the palestinian side. This is why the second intifada started in the first place. If Hamas breaks off now, Israel would go right back to occupying palestine for perpetuity. And the palestinians have repeatedly proven that many of the prefer death to a life in occupation... What was it George Washington wrote? 'The tree of liberty must periodically be watered by the blood of patriots'. If americans were willing to give their lives to avoid taxation, do you really expect the palestinians to just accept actual occupation?

[CyberGnu]

Eli,

If that is the only way to stop the occupation, yes. In reality, we know that it never goes this far, does it? If the occupation can stopped with lesser means, they should be emplyed first.

Look, just study some regular law. If a hostage taker has a gun to someones head, the police can shoot him. But if there is an easier way to get him to give up, they are mandated by law to try that first. And if he gives up by himself, he can not be shot. He then should be tried in a court of law, and sentenced to a punishment fitting his crime.

Jesus, did I really have to spell that out for you? That is so sad.

[GeneralTacticus]

General,

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...20&pagenumber=5

You actually posted in this very thread.

I concede that point then; I'd forgotten about that thread (and I don't know if I ever really noticed your statement that you think China should be nuked over Tibet). So, you think that all citizens of a nation which has done wrong are responsible? Does this mean that the US has the right to nuke Iraq for what they've done to the Kurds?

[CyberGnu]

Good question. I don't know enough kurdish history to state whether they have claim on Iraqi land or not. I suspect they do, and a portion of Iraq could/should be partioned off for a kurdish state. If a kurdish state is declared and recognized, the citizens of that state would have the moral right to nuke Iraq if Iraq invades. (Or ask the US to do it on their behalf).

[CyberGnu]

Clarification though: I don't think nuking as a form of revenge is justified. As a form of coercion to stop aggression, however, it is.

[GeneralTacticus]

What I was largely referring to was the Iraqis gassing the Kurds, rather than issues of nationalism.