vimothy
yurp
padraig, this is surely true, but as well as the failure of modern armed forces to live up to their stated ideals, there is also a fairly clear attempt to do so.
Since it's been a while since we had an Israel/Palestine thread...
- Thread starter Mr. Tea
- Start date
-
- Tags
- barf emoji basking perchance childlike tripe craner's been mossad from day one dissensus gets fatwa'd fatwa sex hmt govt hat keinen schwand jamaican voodoo gang from predator 2 knob v cretin linebaugh's balls ground into dust mixed biscuits is a virgin but he has clamydia nastiness new tab for trotsky proxy wars pussyclaat voodoo gang from predator 2 strictly for the consequentialist tea and biscuits the cancellation of stan the fundamentalist core of mr tea the hegel reference the lust to execute oliver craner the mythifus of sisyphus third cares for his okra third neglects his okra third puts okra up his bum underschooled undergrads
padraig, this is surely true, but as well as the failure of modern armed forces to live up to their stated ideals, there is also a fairly clear attempt to do so.
Incidentally, it seems to me that everyone here agrees on the central point - namely that:
My only small point is that little is gained by not understanding Israel's motives (and the complex of forces producing these motives) which are driving this aim. It strikes me that the racism and brutality of segments of the IDF (and to a still greater extent, the Settler movement) are not the main causes here - these are rather symptoms.
Edit: I further note that this exact same point holds with respect to the other side as well. The claim of the Zionist right - that the main problem is that the Palestinians hate Jews, wish to drive them into the sea, and so on - is the mirror image of the above.
My only small point is that little is gained by not understanding Israel's motives (and the complex of forces producing these motives) which are driving this aim. It strikes me that the racism and brutality of segments of the IDF (and to a still greater extent, the Settler movement) are not the main causes here - these are rather symptoms.
Edit: I further note that this exact same point holds with respect to the other side as well. The claim of the Zionist right - that the main problem is that the Palestinians hate Jews, wish to drive them into the sea, and so on - is the mirror image of the above.
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
There are shifting currents both within the IDF and within Israeli society that are important here. Although the ultra-orthodox do not serve in the IDF, many of the settlers, called national-religious (Dati Leumi), do and are overrepresented in elite units in the same way that leftist Kibbutzniks were in the past. The IDF as a whole, and I don't know if this is representative of Israeli society more generally, is becoming more religious-nationalist and less secular Kibbutznik.
Both of these points are true. A further one also - the fact of the holocaust, which many anti-Zionists simply do not understand. "Israel is nothing to do with the holocaust," they say, with straight faces. Factually speaking, perhaps so. But the ideological importance of the holocaust within Israel is absolutely incalculable.
D
droid
Guest
If you read the human rights reports from international, Israeli and Palestinian sources you would find that Israel repeatedly, and as a matter of policy, target civilians. The evidence is overwhleming. Israel has proved (most notably in the bombardment of Beirut, (where they did indeed batter the city to the ground) that they have no respect for civilian life. The recent stories of women, children and medical personnel being shot and bombed in Gaza are only the latest in a long line of such tales.
The reason Israel does not simply wipe out the Palestinians is that they require the support of the US in order to survive. Even the formidable Israeli PR machine would have trouble glossing over genocide.
The myth of Israeli purity of arms is a longstanding and pernicious one. You claim that no-one believes it when you yourself have made repeated references to it. It is reinforced by western media coverage which almost without exception paints Israeli actions as retaliatory or defensive.
And you only asked one question: "Is this a statement you're willing to stand by? Are you really so fucked in the head and ignorant that you actually believe this?"
Weasel, weasel, weasel, I can't help it. But you are uncharitable, a teenager, as evinced by your inability to disagree with someone without insulting them, even to the extent that you spout self-righteous invective at those who broadly do agree with you. To wit, you are waffles without the wit. In fact you are the,
[
You still havent answered the question. The other question are all issues raised in this thread that you avoided. You did not address them at the time and have not answered them now. Thats why I use the term 'weasel'. You argue at length about an issue and when confronted with facts that you cannot spin you simply lay low until the dust blows over, change the subject or indulge in some gnomic quoting - and aptly enough, youve tried to weasel out of this one using precisely the same kind of tactics. Why should I respond to your questions when you are so happy to ignore mine?
I don't resort to abuse at the drop of a hat as you claim, Ive had plenty of disagreements on this forum without a drop of abuse, but I find the assertion that Ireland supported the Nazis in WW2 to be deeply offensive as well as being demonstratably false. No serious scholarship supports the claim, in fact the consensus is that Ireland was 'neutral on the side of the allies'
Do you stand by the statement? If not, why did you say it? If so, prove it.
I'll ignore the irony of you accusing me of abuse when you've done exactly the same thing in response.
vimothy
yurp
Ireland was neutral in WWII. Now answer me this -- why must someone be fucked in the head to be wrong? Why this is even relevant is beyond me. EDIT: Nor am I sure why you would find the assertion that Ireland supported the Nazis offensive. Some countries did. It is no reflection on their descendants.
As for abuse, come off it. Your temper is legendary, droid. You must realise this.
If Israel didn't try to minimise civilian casualties, they wouldn't use precision weapons, but they do, and therefore Israel do try to minimise civilian casualties. This is a self-evident fact. You do not think that they minimise civilian casualties enough and you are entitled to your opinion.
If Israel wanted to bombard Gaza then they would do exactly that. They do not bombard Gaza because too many civilians would die. Yes, yes, America would be unhappy, so would lots of other people. But, regardless of motive, they do not.
So, now that we've got that out of the way, what do you think about the issue of ethnic German forced migration after WWII? Why isn't their any ethnic German terrorism?
As for abuse, come off it. Your temper is legendary, droid. You must realise this.
If Israel didn't try to minimise civilian casualties, they wouldn't use precision weapons, but they do, and therefore Israel do try to minimise civilian casualties. This is a self-evident fact. You do not think that they minimise civilian casualties enough and you are entitled to your opinion.
If Israel wanted to bombard Gaza then they would do exactly that. They do not bombard Gaza because too many civilians would die. Yes, yes, America would be unhappy, so would lots of other people. But, regardless of motive, they do not.
So, now that we've got that out of the way, what do you think about the issue of ethnic German forced migration after WWII? Why isn't their any ethnic German terrorism?
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
This is the correct question.
D
droid
Guest
Sure. What is the relevance though?
When Russia attacked Chechyna I wrote to the Irish foreign minister and the Russian ambassador. I took part in a small protest outside the Russian embassy and a continued campaign of letter writing, but there was little else we could do as we had no leverage and Russia was simply too big. As mentioned before on this forum, a basic principle of activism is to focus on areas in which you can have some positive effect, and in which your government is somehow complicit.
The flip side to the 'Why Israel' question is the 'Why defend Israel' question. There isnt a 'useful idiot' on this forum making qrotesque apologetics on behalf of Russia or Sudan as Vimothy has done for Israel... everyone accepts the brutality of their policies without question.
In the 70's and 80's there were many conflicts around the world which caused much more misery than the political situation in South Africa, and yet SA became the focus of worldwide condemnation from the left. Israel is not SA, but there are similarities:
- SA depended on and recieved Western military aid and political acceptance in order to continue its existence, and was thusly sensistive to western public opinion.
- SA was aggressive and beligerent towards its neighbours and exported arms and military training to repressive regimes elsewhere.
- SA practised racial discrimination and set up Bantustans in order to create the illusion of self determination for those it oppressed.
- SA's policies represented the worst excess of Western colonialism and it's treatment of native peoples.
- The situation in SA was relatively simple to resolve - stop Apartheid. The situation in Israel is similar - abide by UN resolutions and the international consensus, enagage in genuine peace talks and withdraw from the occupied territories. Neither conflict was a Yugoslavia.
So - I guess the question I would ask is 'Why South Africa'?
Last edited by a moderator:
D
droid
Guest
I believe that there are aspects of Israeli policy and treatment of the Palestinians which are historically unique, just as Apartheid was. The legalisation of torture for example.
Do you know of another nation which has repeatedly attacked UN forces and institutions over a 40 year period?
I agree that the situation is historically unique... The question is: How does recognizing this uniqueness translate into appropriate strategies? Without wanting to defend Israel, I think the strategy of moral condemnation doesn't work.
For example, let's say you met someone on the Israeli left, who wished to instrument changes in their country's policies. They say to you: "You are my friend, we agree there is a problem, what is the next step?"
I think that trying to instrument an international boycott is not the next step. I think you need to try and figure out to how to create coalitions within Israel - and Palestine - who are committed to changing the political situation on the ground, rather then intensifying the binary divide. And I think that demonizing Israel is not productive towards that, because you alienate more people then you convince.
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
My goal is not to defend Israel, but to question the wholly one dimensional picture of them that droid is pushing. For example, the claim that they do not try to minimise civilian casualties is clearly wrong, and if Israel really wasn't interested in minimising casualties, they would indiscriminately shell the Palestinians, and the rockets would likely stop.
Guilhèm de Peitieus
Wild Horses
are you serious??
whatever you think about Israel it's impossible to present them as skilled media manipulators. even those who are 'on their side' in the western media are not being given much help. i've found it interesting how even newspapers like, for instance, The Daily Telegraph, have moved towards a much more anti-Israeli stance in their coverage over the last decade or so. This article from Ha'aretz makes the point well:
"...6. Israelis, as a people and individually, are execrable at public relations because they abhor and distrust the very concept.
There is a reason why Israelis are so breathtakingly inept at furthering their own cause.
It is not only becuse this war was a frank and literally misguided attempt to redress years of misguidance. Or because the war between the Jews and the Arabs, this war which has raged for more than a hundred years, has robbed both sides of its ability to see the humanity of the other.
It is also because Israelis hate the very idea of public relations. They live in a country which has been under effective world quarantine for nearly all if its history.They live in a society whose trait of unbridled openness has become something of a learning disability. They speak a language which is light years and thousands of literal years away from television English. They are bathed in a culture which insulates itself and armors itself and has had little reason to believe the world will give it a fair shake.They have a shared, largely unspoken truth which is based, in part, on the world's inability to fathom their behavior. And they believe that no matter what they do, much of the world is likely to condemn them. And in this,at least, they have seldom been proven wrong."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1073231.html
crackerjack
Well-known member
You've overlooked at least one crucial difference - that non-recogntion of Israel has been the policy of either some or all surrounding states ever since its birth, including the principal Palestinian leadership for all but 12 of its 61-year history. That leadership is now in the hands of an organisation whose charter pledges to wipe out all Jews.
And to say that Israel (uniquely?) has never engaged in genuine peace talks is subjective. Its supporters would say the exact same about the Palestinians.
vimothy
yurp
Yaacov Lozowick -- good article: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgxshts6_50dn5vfxfh