borderpolice
Well-known member
There are different arguments going on. i was pointing to psychological issues in observer reaction. On a political level i would argue differently. I do think that US politics has been deeply problematic.
Why Israel
- Thread starter vimothy
- Start date
There are different arguments going on. i was pointing to psychological issues in observer reaction. On a political level i would argue differently. I do think that US politics has been deeply problematic.
vimothy
yurp
Are you sure it wasn't DELIBERATE ANTI-SEMITIC BIAS?!?!?!
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I think a lot of Palestinians would say, with some justfication I think, that Israelis who've built settlements on illegally occupied land don't count as civilians.
- Mr. Tea, apologising for terrorism since 2003
crackerjack
Well-known member
Hmm, this is just going turn into a circular argument isn't it - you say why israel, i say cos they do bad stuff, you say the others are worse, i say that doesn't make it alright (repeat to fade).
This is a fair point, but it leads nowhere other than to the circle of violence that has been Israel/Palestine's lot since '48 (and before). Dehumanising the enemy has been an essential component and the leadership of Israel, Palestine and the neighbouring Arab states (remember Sadat?) have all had to watch their right flanks. Both sides have been guilty of deliberately undermining peace prospects.
Now we're kinda back to where we started. A left-wing site peopled largely by Brits and Yanks is bound to be focused more on the crimes of their own governments and allies. Instead of digging in, it would be more constructive to judge people's attitudes by the actions they propose: one state or two, land-for-peace or drive them into the sea? Would you support a return to 67 borders and all settlements dismantled in return for Arab recognition of Israel?
No, Israel is a democracy, just one that finds itself at war with its neighbours, both through its own and their fault. Since you cannot seriously be suggesting Israel annexe the West Bank (in breach of all those UN resolutions that count for so much when we want to have a go at them), why don't you drop the posturing and tell us what you think Israel should do to secure its own borders while giving statehood to the palestinians?
crackerjack
Well-known member
Agh, is my ontological racism showing?
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
Mr Tea: "Palestinian to Israeli casualties ... since the second Intifada - 5:1? 10:1?"
Noting that a majority of the population of Israel-Palestine is in fact Arab/Palestinian, and that by 'Israeli' we usually mean those members of the Jewish population who fully support the preservation and expansion of a Zionist/Apartheid state, we nevertheless compute the following:
At least 4,274 Palestinians and 1,024 Israelis have been killed since September 29, 2000.
Western news reports repeatedly describe Israeli military attacks against the Palestinian population as “retaliation.” However, when one looks into the chronology of death in this conflict, the reality turns out to be quite different.
Source: B'Tselem, The Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. (Visit their statistics page.) Their statistics cover through August 31, 2007.
Alternatively.
Alternating anamorphically the above alternatives, however, in keeping and conforming with Vimothy's hysterical deflections away from the underlying causes and geopolitical analyses of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself onto 'much more serious terrorist atrocities elsewhere' committed by assorted Mad Cookie Monsters, the following is guaranteed to induce mass panic attacks and PTSD on a scale unprecedented in world history [or, at least, since the last Hollywood blockbuster] ...
Noting that a majority of the population of Israel-Palestine is in fact Arab/Palestinian, and that by 'Israeli' we usually mean those members of the Jewish population who fully support the preservation and expansion of a Zionist/Apartheid state, we nevertheless compute the following:
At least 4,274 Palestinians and 1,024 Israelis have been killed since September 29, 2000.
Western news reports repeatedly describe Israeli military attacks against the Palestinian population as “retaliation.” However, when one looks into the chronology of death in this conflict, the reality turns out to be quite different.
Source: B'Tselem, The Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. (Visit their statistics page.) Their statistics cover through August 31, 2007.
Alternatively.
Alternating anamorphically the above alternatives, however, in keeping and conforming with Vimothy's hysterical deflections away from the underlying causes and geopolitical analyses of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself onto 'much more serious terrorist atrocities elsewhere' committed by assorted Mad Cookie Monsters, the following is guaranteed to induce mass panic attacks and PTSD on a scale unprecedented in world history [or, at least, since the last Hollywood blockbuster] ...
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
Originally Posted by vimothy: Israel left the Gaza Strip in 2005
Ouh, a mobile foot-loose ever-retreating state! Maybe it'll re-occupy Manchester as 'compensation', until you request it to re-settle again elsewhere. Tom Paulin might even agree.
No, its - obviously, clearly, of course, clear as an unmuddied Dissensus thread - the hauntological structure disinterred by the manifest metaphysics of absence consequent on the 'removed' Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip (itself the part of no part of the excluded Other in the homines sacri metaphysics of presense of the dischronic universal field of the Palestinian signifier).
Maybe it could just be your zoological racism instead, though. It's very becoming in certain parts (of no part) these days, the Height of Fascis ... Fashion ... and the Gaza Strip is now the most liberated, empowered, emancipated space on the entire planet all thanks to the gracious, selfless, altruistic benevolence of the ontological Vimothys of this world ...
Ouh, a mobile foot-loose ever-retreating state! Maybe it'll re-occupy Manchester as 'compensation', until you request it to re-settle again elsewhere. Tom Paulin might even agree.
No, its - obviously, clearly, of course, clear as an unmuddied Dissensus thread - the hauntological structure disinterred by the manifest metaphysics of absence consequent on the 'removed' Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip (itself the part of no part of the excluded Other in the homines sacri metaphysics of presense of the dischronic universal field of the Palestinian signifier).
Maybe it could just be your zoological racism instead, though. It's very becoming in certain parts (of no part) these days, the Height of Fascis ... Fashion ... and the Gaza Strip is now the most liberated, empowered, emancipated space on the entire planet all thanks to the gracious, selfless, altruistic benevolence of the ontological Vimothys of this world ...
crackerjack
Well-known member
Oh dear, HMLT, an absolute maniac seems to have got hold of your log-in details.
vimothy
yurp
I think a lot of Palestinians would say, with some justfication I think, that Israelis who've built settlements on illegally occupied land don't count as civilians.
- Mr. Tea, apologising for terrorism since 2003
Mr Tea - that's a totally disraceful thing to say.
From An Engineered Tragedy:
The usual fatality count quoted in news articles presents an inaccurate and distorted picture of the al-Aqsa conflict, exaggerating Israel’s responsibility for the death of noncombatant civilians. For example, our database shows a total of 603 Israelis killed, compared to 1596 Palestinians, up to 29 August 2002 – numbers in general agreement with media reports (see Graph 1.1).
But such numbers hide as much as they reveal: They lump combatants in with noncombatants, suicide bombers with innocent civilians, and report Palestinian “collaborators” murdered by their own compatriots as if they had been killed by Israel. Correcting for such distortions, we can arrive at a figure of 617 Palestinian noncombatants killed by Israel, compared to 471 Israeli noncombatants killed by Palestinians (see Graph 1.2). While Israelis account for 27 percent of the total fatalities as generally reported, they represent 43 percent of these noncombatant victims. There are a number of valid ways of arriving at such corrected figures to compare the extent to which each side has been responsible for the killing of noncombatants; they all show a much more balanced picture of the conflict than the raw totals do.
But such numbers hide as much as they reveal: They lump combatants in with noncombatants, suicide bombers with innocent civilians, and report Palestinian “collaborators” murdered by their own compatriots as if they had been killed by Israel. Correcting for such distortions, we can arrive at a figure of 617 Palestinian noncombatants killed by Israel, compared to 471 Israeli noncombatants killed by Palestinians (see Graph 1.2). While Israelis account for 27 percent of the total fatalities as generally reported, they represent 43 percent of these noncombatant victims. There are a number of valid ways of arriving at such corrected figures to compare the extent to which each side has been responsible for the killing of noncombatants; they all show a much more balanced picture of the conflict than the raw totals do.
Here you go - this probably made Tom Paulin happy - I guess you will enjoy it as well. 27 April 2002, days after Paulin stated that settlers should be shot because they are Nazis, brave Palestinian freedom fighters, dressed in the uniforms of the IDF (only the truly brave need disguises to kill children) murdered a 5 year old girl and shot her 4 year old brother:
"I heard gunshots but never dreamed it was an attack. Then I heard bursts of gunfire and became concerned. I raced toward my house and saw two people near the dining room door - they wore army uniforms and flak jackets, and I asked them what had happened. They didn't answer and began shooting at me," he said.
Danielle's mother, Shiri, said she had just finished preparing chocolate milk for her daughter when the terrorist attack began. "When I saw them, I took Danielle and her brothers Eliad, 4, and Uriel, 2, and we hid in the bedroom. I told them to be quiet and to get under the bed, but the terrorist came into the room and began shooting in all directions. I tried to push him out, and after a few seconds he escaped," Shiri recalled.
Uriel was injured in the attack, and Shiri thought he had been killed as well. "They murdered my two children," Shiri said over and over, as she was being treated for her injuries at Barzilai Hospital in Ashkelon. Only later, when Uriel was brought in to his mother's room, did Shiri Shefi realize that only her eldest daughter had been murdered.
Danielle's mother, Shiri, said she had just finished preparing chocolate milk for her daughter when the terrorist attack began. "When I saw them, I took Danielle and her brothers Eliad, 4, and Uriel, 2, and we hid in the bedroom. I told them to be quiet and to get under the bed, but the terrorist came into the room and began shooting in all directions. I tried to push him out, and after a few seconds he escaped," Shiri recalled.
Uriel was injured in the attack, and Shiri thought he had been killed as well. "They murdered my two children," Shiri said over and over, as she was being treated for her injuries at Barzilai Hospital in Ashkelon. Only later, when Uriel was brought in to his mother's room, did Shiri Shefi realize that only her eldest daughter had been murdered.
Mr Tea - apologising for murder since who fucking cares? Come on mate. And I thought you were one of the most rational people on this board.
And while we're here, perhaps we should all familiarise ourselves with what "civilian" means:
A civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces. The term is also often used colloquially to refer to people who are not members of a particular profession or occupation, especially by law enforcement agencies, which often use rank structures similar to those of military units.
vimothy
yurp
According to this logic either there is no Palestine and the Palestinians should be allowed to join Israel and the Knesset, or (I suspect you’ll like this one more) America is not a democracy because it never allowed Japan to vote in its elections. Or France. Or Germany. Or South Korea, etc…
Really, why should the Palestinians get a vote in Israeli elections? They are at war with Israel, and the occupied territories are just that: occupied territories. Israel is a democracy, and it has nothing to do with whether or not the Palestinians can vote in Israeli elections. You’re just making idealistic pronouncements.
The Palestinians should set up their own democracy – then I’d be very supportive.
Israel is state, not a “form of government”, oppressive or otherwise.
Quite – it has little to with anything apart from the fact that it’s on TV a lot. It’s not because Israel is an “apartheid state” or a “fascist state”. It’s not because they have mistreated the Palestinians. Regardless of the truth of either of those statements, it’s because we get spoon fed ideas and lap them up until they’re coming out of our ears and mouths. Just like Princess bloody Di – absolutely.
How marvellous – we don’t mind being fools, just as long as nobody considers us fools. (I’m still assuming this is satirical – am I right)? We don’t care about mass murder and oppression, we don’t care about human rights or self-determination, just as long as we’re not being lied to about them. We know that the Palestinians have no reasonable or achievable goals (if I’m wrong, tell me what they are), but since they are admirably and consistently open about their hatred of Israelis and desire for revenge and destruction, we don’t mind that either. We don’t mind that the Palestinian terrorists target Israeli women and children without a moments thought, because they have never pretended to do otherwise.
If Israel were not a democracy, there would be no pro-Palestinian groups in Israel. There are. If Israel were not a democracy, there would be no press freedom in Israel. There quite clearly is, and that’s one of the things you’re complaining about. (Or are you? I can’t tell).
I agree with this. Van Creveld says it best: “The strong who fight the weak become weak.” But what does this mean when our perception of asymmetry is conditioned, as you suggest, by the media’s presentation of it?
crackerjack
Well-known member
Most observers believe the majority Palestinian view is a land-for-peace arrangement, that the Hamas victory had more to do with disgust at Fatah corruption than faith in all-out Islamist war.
You might just as well say that Israel is admirably consistent in their view that palestinians should be forced off what remains of their land (or at least those bits Israel covets) since they continue building settlements.
crackerjack
Well-known member
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/padraig_reidy/2007/10/when_liberals_attack.html
did anyone go to this or know where i can hear/see it?
did anyone go to this or know where i can hear/see it?
vimothy
yurp
Damn - that sounds good. If I can find it, I'll post a link.
vimothy
yurp
Since we've all agreed that this is no way to win an argument, I expect you to do better. Or am I the only person not able to dismiss evidence on the basis of who said it?
vimothy
yurp
Once again, no. I am only asking for a fair treatment of Israel's conduct. What kind of world is it where days before a 5 year old Israeli settler is shot for being an Israeli settler, Tom Paulin is actively calling for the deaths of settlers because they are Nazis? They are Nazis in no rational sense, there is no way that a 5 child deserves to be murdered. Was Paulin sacked from his post at Oxford? Was he sacked from the BBC? Was he loudly denounced by his fellows? No, he wasn't. Nothing happened. In fact, I think he directly followed his interview with a trip to Harvard. I can find plenty of ridiculous statements like this, both on this board and all over the internet.
I want criticism of Israel to be consistent, honest and realistic, as I said. I don't think it is any of those things at present. Why not? Well, that's what I'm trying to discover.
Agreed. What will end the conflict? I don't think there is anything that Israel can do, other than wait for the Palestinians to change. They tried bilateral agreement, which failed, they tried unilateral withdrawal, which failed, or is failing. While the "refusal organisations" exist, I don't think that Israsel can make peace, because there is a significant portion of Palestine that doesn't want peace, it wants revenge and the destruction of Israel.
Perhaps - maybe I'm being too cynical.
In answer to your question, yes: I think that the post '67 occupation is probably the worst strategic mistake Israel has made. Anything for peace, if it can be achieved. Certainly its worth sacrificing the settlements for.
Hear-hear - rather than denouncing the Israelis for being "Nazis", let's discuss what we think they should be doing to acheive peace.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
My point is, they don't seem to be arguing that the raw figures are wrong, they're arguing over the interpretation of the figures, and that's where their inevitable pro-Israeli bias is going to come in, isn't it?
I certainly wouldn't expect to get unbiased information from a pro-Hizbullah website, but I'm certain that if anyone posted information from such a website on here you'd be the first to decry it as blatant propaganda. But then, "Hizbullah are terrorists whereas Israel is a modern liberal democracy", and so around we go again...
(I made the original point about the Israeli settlers because, however you look at it, they are on illegally occupied land and there is simply no way you can expect the impoverished, dispossessed people who were turfed off it at gunpoint not to feel at least mildly peaved about this, is there?)
Edit:
But no-one here - with perhaps one exception - is saying that! Forget about Tom Paulin, as far as I know he doesn't post here so how about restricting the discussion to those of us who do? (OK, so you started the post with a question about criticism of Israel in general, but only the people who post here can take part in a two-way discussion.)
Last edited:
borderpolice
Well-known member
A democracy is people governing themselves. That's very easy. By this standard, and that's the only one that that's democracy seriously, one measures the degree of democracy (DOD) a form of governance offers as the ratio of those who govern (directly or indirectly) versus those who are governed. Hence by invading a country and denying the occupied population a right to vote, as the US does in Irak at the moment, the degree of democracy is reduced. I don't think 100% DOD is achievable or desirable (think children and mentaly retarded), the US and Israel are seriously deficient regarding the DOD. Of course they are hardly the only ones with that problem.
It is really simple: because without this participation, Israel cannot be a democracy. Moreover, if they were allowed to vote, there would not be a war and an occupation as we see it now.
Israel is not a democracy, and I take the meaning of that term seriously: People who govern themselves. You have not really understood the concept and confuse the selfdescription of being a democracy with actual democracy.
states are forms of government!
if you or i really cared about this, we wouldn't post here, we would help the poor and oppressed. the fact that we post here shows how little we care.
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
Ok, for starters - is the combatant - non-combatant distinction relevant or important to you?
That only works if we accept equivalence between the Hezb and the Israeli government. Can you think of no differences between the two groups that might make one more honest than the other?
But they still don't deserve to be killed for it, which is what you suggested.
Paulin merely exemplifies a trend. You partook upthread - though hopefully you weren't being serious. It is real and it is present both in the West and in the Middle East.