anastrophe wrote: then apparently it is for lack of trying.
No, I do try - maybe you could remind me?
Israeli Apartheid
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
Bryn Mawr wrote: No, I do try - maybe you could remind me?
i already have. your recollection is faulty.
look, i've acknowledged that the israelis have done wrong things. you have acknowledged that the palestinians have done wrong things. both of us are partisan, that's as plain as can be. you lean towards support of the palestinians and away from support for israel. i lean towards support of israel and away from support of the palestinians.
we've been around and around and around and around on these matters, with no minds dramatically changed as far as i can tell.
i already have. your recollection is faulty.
look, i've acknowledged that the israelis have done wrong things. you have acknowledged that the palestinians have done wrong things. both of us are partisan, that's as plain as can be. you lean towards support of the palestinians and away from support for israel. i lean towards support of israel and away from support of the palestinians.
we've been around and around and around and around on these matters, with no minds dramatically changed as far as i can tell.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Israeli Apartheid
A highly praised book by Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine, "promised to revolutionize the world's understanding of the conflict. The central thesis of the book, [copiously notated,] was that Palestine had been virtually empty on the eve of Zionist colonization and that, after Jews made the deserted parts of Palestine... bloom, Arabs from neighboring states and other parts of Palestine migrated to the Jewish areas and pretended to be indigenous." Here was the proof Golda Meir had been right: there was no such thing as Palestinians.
"As it happened, From Time Immemorial was a colossal hoax. Cited sources were mangled, key numbers in the demographic study falsified, and large swaths plagiarized from Zionist propaganda tracts."
Though the majority of scholars now agree on the historical record, this wasn't always the case. "[T]he mainstream Israeli account maintained that Palestinians became refugees in 1948 because Arab radio broadcasts had instructed them to flee. Yest already by the early 1960s, Palestinian scholar Walid Khalidi and Irish scholar Erskine Childers, after examining the archive of Arab radio broadcasts from the 1948 war, concluded that no such official Arab exhortations had been given. But revelations such as these had little or no impact on mainstream opinion. Beginning in the late 1980s, however, a steady stream of scholarly studies, mostly by Israelis, dispelled much of the Zionist mythology enveloping the origins of the conflict."
Summary of the first 3 pages of Beyond Chutzpah, Norman Finkelstein, with footnotes to sources Edward Said, "Conspiracy of Praise" in Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens (eds), Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question (New York, 2001) Walid Khalidi, "Why Did the Palestinians Leave?" Middle East Forum (July 1959).
So now that we know anastrophe's information is out of date by almost 20 years...can we move on?
"As it happened, From Time Immemorial was a colossal hoax. Cited sources were mangled, key numbers in the demographic study falsified, and large swaths plagiarized from Zionist propaganda tracts."
Though the majority of scholars now agree on the historical record, this wasn't always the case. "[T]he mainstream Israeli account maintained that Palestinians became refugees in 1948 because Arab radio broadcasts had instructed them to flee. Yest already by the early 1960s, Palestinian scholar Walid Khalidi and Irish scholar Erskine Childers, after examining the archive of Arab radio broadcasts from the 1948 war, concluded that no such official Arab exhortations had been given. But revelations such as these had little or no impact on mainstream opinion. Beginning in the late 1980s, however, a steady stream of scholarly studies, mostly by Israelis, dispelled much of the Zionist mythology enveloping the origins of the conflict."
Summary of the first 3 pages of Beyond Chutzpah, Norman Finkelstein, with footnotes to sources Edward Said, "Conspiracy of Praise" in Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens (eds), Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question (New York, 2001) Walid Khalidi, "Why Did the Palestinians Leave?" Middle East Forum (July 1959).
So now that we know anastrophe's information is out of date by almost 20 years...can we move on?
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: Bronwen, I don't see how you answered any of the points raised by my last post to you. Please try again.Well, I went back and looked and, quite honestly, I don't find any point or even allegation you made to which I did NOT respond. On the contrary, having done so, I then asked several questions to which YOU did not respond, notably, such as, and f'rinstance:
1. Where do you find religious persecution in Israel? As I said before, I have never been there but I have no doubt that both Catholic and Protestant Churches are in adequate supply given the number of international pilgrims, mosques also, both the full-sized mosques and the little mosquitos. That the mosques are watched closely I do not doubt. That is not persecution, that is sensible security. The Israelis have little to fear from the Christian churches.
2. What are Nelson Mandela's credentials as an expert of Middle Eastern history and politics?
3. What 'international law' supports any of the murderous acts committed by Islamic terrorists against Israel?
Hmmm? Why don't YOU try again.
Now that school is in session, my time here will be limited; in fact, this is my first opportunity to post for several days, but I will do so when possible. I promise.
1. Where do you find religious persecution in Israel? As I said before, I have never been there but I have no doubt that both Catholic and Protestant Churches are in adequate supply given the number of international pilgrims, mosques also, both the full-sized mosques and the little mosquitos. That the mosques are watched closely I do not doubt. That is not persecution, that is sensible security. The Israelis have little to fear from the Christian churches.
2. What are Nelson Mandela's credentials as an expert of Middle Eastern history and politics?
3. What 'international law' supports any of the murderous acts committed by Islamic terrorists against Israel?
Hmmm? Why don't YOU try again.
Now that school is in session, my time here will be limited; in fact, this is my first opportunity to post for several days, but I will do so when possible. I promise.
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: 1. I was never more serious and I might remind you there are still a number of countries who do not recognise Israel. Perhaps now you might respond correctly.
2. Used by the uneducated. So it doth appear.
3. I am simply not prepared to accept that a nation that behaved so abominably and who perpetrated so much carnage with such collective relish, can change in the short space of time of sixty years. The ghosts of fifty million dead will haunt Germany for some time yet - and quite rightly. Germany may have forgiven itself but that is not the same as being forgiven by those Germany sinned against.1. You are confusing recognition with reality. Would you care to name any of these? I'll bet they're real paradises!
2. I used doltish language to emphasize the doltishness of your assertions.
3. Well, German history is WAY beyond the scope of this thread. As I said previously in another thread on the subject, both Germany and the recent events in Lebanon are good examples of what happens when a nation (the people, that is) allow thugs and murderers to take control of their government. I have never heard ANY German claim that Germany did not get what it deserved in BOTH World Wars, and there is no form of animal life more despised here than Fascist and/or Nazi sympathizers. These cretins' great heroes were responsible for their entire country having been reduced to smoldering ruins and everyone else realizes that. By contrast, the Lebanese allowed their fascists to start a war with Israel and apparently think the Israelis should not have fought back. Talk about uneducated, not to mention illogical and just plain STUPID.
The Israelis, though, weren't too bright themselves in not finishing the job as the Allies did in Germany and later in Japan.
2. Used by the uneducated. So it doth appear.
3. I am simply not prepared to accept that a nation that behaved so abominably and who perpetrated so much carnage with such collective relish, can change in the short space of time of sixty years. The ghosts of fifty million dead will haunt Germany for some time yet - and quite rightly. Germany may have forgiven itself but that is not the same as being forgiven by those Germany sinned against.1. You are confusing recognition with reality. Would you care to name any of these? I'll bet they're real paradises!
2. I used doltish language to emphasize the doltishness of your assertions.
3. Well, German history is WAY beyond the scope of this thread. As I said previously in another thread on the subject, both Germany and the recent events in Lebanon are good examples of what happens when a nation (the people, that is) allow thugs and murderers to take control of their government. I have never heard ANY German claim that Germany did not get what it deserved in BOTH World Wars, and there is no form of animal life more despised here than Fascist and/or Nazi sympathizers. These cretins' great heroes were responsible for their entire country having been reduced to smoldering ruins and everyone else realizes that. By contrast, the Lebanese allowed their fascists to start a war with Israel and apparently think the Israelis should not have fought back. Talk about uneducated, not to mention illogical and just plain STUPID.
The Israelis, though, weren't too bright themselves in not finishing the job as the Allies did in Germany and later in Japan.
Israeli Apartheid
Bronwen wrote: Well, I went back and looked and, quite honestly, I don't find any point or even allegation you made to which I did NOT respond. On the contrary, having done so, I then asked several questions to which YOU did not respond, notably, such as, and f'rinstance:
1. Where do you find religious persecution in Israel? As I said before, I have never been there but I have no doubt that both Catholic and Protestant Churches are in adequate supply given the number of international pilgrims, mosques also, both the full-sized mosques and the little mosquitos. That the mosques are watched closely I do not doubt. That is not persecution, that is sensible security. The Israelis have little to fear from the Christian churches.
2. What are Nelson Mandela's credentials as an expert of Middle Eastern history and politics?
3. What 'international law' supports any of the murderous acts committed by Islamic terrorists against Israel?
Hmmm? Why don't YOU try again.
Now that school is in session, my time here will be limited; in fact, this is my first opportunity to post for several days, but I will do so when possible. I promise.
1) All you really care about is expression of the Christian religion. You've made that quite clear. Your willingness to dismiss the discrimination against mosques (there is one in the Negev that the gov't refuses to recognise) shows unwillingness to examine all the other ways in which discrimination rears its ugly head. Look at land rights. Most land is only available for Jews to purchase. The examples are numerous.
2) His credentials in this matter vastly exceed your own. First you question that he has an opinion, now that I've proven he has a negative opinion you try to discredit him. Try building your own credentials, it would be far more useful to your arguments.
3) Why waste time with assertions no one has doubted? The issue is that blame is placed on one side and removed from the other. International law does not support the actions of the Israeli government either so we can stop pretending they have the moral high ground.
If you really went back to reread the thread, you will see that I've given much information that stands as fact and supports the case against Israel as an apartheid state, which is the topic of this thread.
1. Where do you find religious persecution in Israel? As I said before, I have never been there but I have no doubt that both Catholic and Protestant Churches are in adequate supply given the number of international pilgrims, mosques also, both the full-sized mosques and the little mosquitos. That the mosques are watched closely I do not doubt. That is not persecution, that is sensible security. The Israelis have little to fear from the Christian churches.
2. What are Nelson Mandela's credentials as an expert of Middle Eastern history and politics?
3. What 'international law' supports any of the murderous acts committed by Islamic terrorists against Israel?
Hmmm? Why don't YOU try again.
Now that school is in session, my time here will be limited; in fact, this is my first opportunity to post for several days, but I will do so when possible. I promise.
1) All you really care about is expression of the Christian religion. You've made that quite clear. Your willingness to dismiss the discrimination against mosques (there is one in the Negev that the gov't refuses to recognise) shows unwillingness to examine all the other ways in which discrimination rears its ugly head. Look at land rights. Most land is only available for Jews to purchase. The examples are numerous.
2) His credentials in this matter vastly exceed your own. First you question that he has an opinion, now that I've proven he has a negative opinion you try to discredit him. Try building your own credentials, it would be far more useful to your arguments.
3) Why waste time with assertions no one has doubted? The issue is that blame is placed on one side and removed from the other. International law does not support the actions of the Israeli government either so we can stop pretending they have the moral high ground.
If you really went back to reread the thread, you will see that I've given much information that stands as fact and supports the case against Israel as an apartheid state, which is the topic of this thread.
Israeli Apartheid
Violation: Equal protection of the law:
A cardinal task of any government is to enforce the law and protect the life, property, and rights of persons under its authority. For Israel, this duty applies not only to Israeli citizens residing within the state or territories under Israeli control, but also to Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories.
When Palestinians attack Israelis, the authorities invoke all means at their disposal – including some that are incompatible with international law and constitute gross violations of human rights – to arrest the suspects and bring them to trial. Defendants convicted by military courts can expect harsh sentences.
In contrast, when Israeli civilians attack Palestinians, the Israeli authorities employ an undeclared policy of leniency and compromise toward the perpetrators. This policy is reflected in the actions of officials in charge of law enforcement – the Israel Defense Force (IDF) and the Israel Police Force (IPF) – which do not do enough to prevent harm to the life and property of Palestinians, and to stop the violent attacks by settlers while they are taking place. All law enforcement agencies and judicial authorities demonstrate little interest in uncovering the substantial violence that Israeli civilians commit against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.
Many failures of law enforcement against Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories, and the discrimination underlying these failures, greatly undermine the rule of law in Israel, not only in the Occupied Territories, but in the State of Israel as well.
B'Tselem, Settler Violence
A cardinal task of any government is to enforce the law and protect the life, property, and rights of persons under its authority. For Israel, this duty applies not only to Israeli citizens residing within the state or territories under Israeli control, but also to Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories.
When Palestinians attack Israelis, the authorities invoke all means at their disposal – including some that are incompatible with international law and constitute gross violations of human rights – to arrest the suspects and bring them to trial. Defendants convicted by military courts can expect harsh sentences.
In contrast, when Israeli civilians attack Palestinians, the Israeli authorities employ an undeclared policy of leniency and compromise toward the perpetrators. This policy is reflected in the actions of officials in charge of law enforcement – the Israel Defense Force (IDF) and the Israel Police Force (IPF) – which do not do enough to prevent harm to the life and property of Palestinians, and to stop the violent attacks by settlers while they are taking place. All law enforcement agencies and judicial authorities demonstrate little interest in uncovering the substantial violence that Israeli civilians commit against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.
Many failures of law enforcement against Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories, and the discrimination underlying these failures, greatly undermine the rule of law in Israel, not only in the Occupied Territories, but in the State of Israel as well.
B'Tselem, Settler Violence
Israeli Apartheid
Discrimination-based separation - An Apartheid Practice
The roads regime, which is based on separation through discrimination, bears clear similarities to the racist apartheid regime that existed in South Africa until 1994. An individual's national origin determines their right to use various roads. This policy is based on a racist premise: that all Palestinians are security risks, and it is therefore justifiable to restrict their movement. Thus the policy indiscriminately harms the entire Palestinian population, in violation of their human rights and of international law.
B'Tselem demands that the government of Israel immediately end the forbidden roads regime and that it respect the right of Palestinians to freedom of movement on all roads inside the West Bank.
B'Tselem, Forbidden Roads: The Discriminatory West Bank Road Regime
The roads regime, which is based on separation through discrimination, bears clear similarities to the racist apartheid regime that existed in South Africa until 1994. An individual's national origin determines their right to use various roads. This policy is based on a racist premise: that all Palestinians are security risks, and it is therefore justifiable to restrict their movement. Thus the policy indiscriminately harms the entire Palestinian population, in violation of their human rights and of international law.
B'Tselem demands that the government of Israel immediately end the forbidden roads regime and that it respect the right of Palestinians to freedom of movement on all roads inside the West Bank.
B'Tselem, Forbidden Roads: The Discriminatory West Bank Road Regime
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
I believe a 'roads regime' is badly needed in Britain.
Israeli Apartheid
Found an interesting paper called
The Legal Boundaries of Israel in International Law
Anthony D'Amato
Leighton Professor of Law
Northwestern University School of Law
He analyses the legal issues regarding Israel from purely a legal perspective.
Haven't read the whole thing yet but he only recognises a legal right to the borders drawn by the partition plan. According to him, Israel's status as a sovereign nation is granted properly not by the UN but by acceptance of the Mandate as given by Great Britain as the Trustee. He does not recognise their right to any land acquired beyond those borders. I see no reason to disagree with his assessments so far.
The Legal Boundaries of Israel in International Law
Anthony D'Amato
Leighton Professor of Law
Northwestern University School of Law
He analyses the legal issues regarding Israel from purely a legal perspective.
Haven't read the whole thing yet but he only recognises a legal right to the borders drawn by the partition plan. According to him, Israel's status as a sovereign nation is granted properly not by the UN but by acceptance of the Mandate as given by Great Britain as the Trustee. He does not recognise their right to any land acquired beyond those borders. I see no reason to disagree with his assessments so far.
Israeli Apartheid
Having thought about it for a bit, and after reading that last article as a summary, I don't think the argument against Israel being a legitimate sovereign state is convincing.
What I want to focus on is why the Palestinians haven't been able to do the same. It's not because they're stupid. With the assassination policy that Israel adopted and the conditions they are forced to live in it would be difficult for any society to become independent.
What I want to focus on is why the Palestinians haven't been able to do the same. It's not because they're stupid. With the assassination policy that Israel adopted and the conditions they are forced to live in it would be difficult for any society to become independent.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
Having on the whole agreed that Israel's legitimacy is far from clear and that the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East is presumptive, to say the least, I would very much like to hear the views of those who believe that Israel's recent actions amount to an acceptable response on the somewhat haphazard bombardment of the Lebanon in recent weeks.
Even if it can be accepted that a particular area of a town is know to be a hotbed of Palestinian terrorism, to destroy that building and many of its inhabitants - most of whom probably have no interest in local warfare - is no more than calculated murder.
Should Britain have bombed Dublin thirty years ago because it was known that members of the IRA lived there?
WE
Even if it can be accepted that a particular area of a town is know to be a hotbed of Palestinian terrorism, to destroy that building and many of its inhabitants - most of whom probably have no interest in local warfare - is no more than calculated murder.
Should Britain have bombed Dublin thirty years ago because it was known that members of the IRA lived there?
WE
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: Having thought about it for a bit, and after reading that last article as a summary, I don't think the argument against Israel being a legitimate sovereign state is convincing.
What I want to focus on is why the Palestinians haven't been able to do the same. It's not because they're stupid. With the assassination policy that Israel adopted and the conditions they are forced to live in it would be difficult for any society to become independent.
I think the Palestinians have two major problems:
1. They are divided, the current power stuggle between Hamas and Fatah make it very difficult for them to present anything resembling a negotiating postion with Israel.
2. Their goals are unclear. They could have had a state during the Clinton brokered talks but adopted an all or nothing postition and got nothing. Now, due to their divisiveness no one can be sure what they desire.
What I want to focus on is why the Palestinians haven't been able to do the same. It's not because they're stupid. With the assassination policy that Israel adopted and the conditions they are forced to live in it would be difficult for any society to become independent.
I think the Palestinians have two major problems:
1. They are divided, the current power stuggle between Hamas and Fatah make it very difficult for them to present anything resembling a negotiating postion with Israel.
2. Their goals are unclear. They could have had a state during the Clinton brokered talks but adopted an all or nothing postition and got nothing. Now, due to their divisiveness no one can be sure what they desire.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
zinkyusa wrote: They could have had a state during the Clinton brokered talks but adopted an all or nothing postition and got nothing. Now, due to their divisiveness no one can be sure what they desire.
But why in the name of simple justice, should they compromise? If someone steals an acre of my land, I don't compromise by letting them keep half of what they have stolen. I fight until what is rightfully mine is back in my possession.
WE
But why in the name of simple justice, should they compromise? If someone steals an acre of my land, I don't compromise by letting them keep half of what they have stolen. I fight until what is rightfully mine is back in my possession.
WE
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: Having on the whole agreed that Israel's legitimacy is far from clear and that the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East is presumptive, to say the least, I would very much like to hear the views of those who believe that Israel's recent actions amount to an acceptable response on the somewhat haphazard bombardment of the Lebanon in recent weeks.
Even if it can be accepted that a particular area of a town is know to be a hotbed of Palestinian terrorism, to destroy that building and many of its inhabitants - most of whom probably have no interest in local warfare - is no more than calculated murder.
Should Britain have bombed Dublin thirty years ago because it was known that members of the IRA lived there?
WE
I think whether Israel is legitimate is now moot point. Israel exists and her neigbors will have to accept that fact. I think there is injustice and blame to go around on all sides of the borders but if there will be peace in the ME it will be the Arabs (and other Islamists) who determine it. The Israelis are the most powerful military force in the region and thus there will be no military solution to the problem.
As far as the recent conflict I primarily blame Hamas and Hizbollah for it. Continuing to fire rockets and kidnap soldiers will only bring continue military responses from the IDF. Because the IDF possesess more powerful weapons when they miss their targets and hit civilians the results can be catastrophic. Unlike the Hizbollah and Hamas the IDF does not IMO deliberately target civilians. If they did the numbers would be in the tens of thousands of dead and injured. I think the Israelis were surprised by the kidnappings and somewhat over reacted. Targeting of dual purpose infrastructure facilities was legitimate as was targeting egress and resupply routes (unfortunately the same routes used by refugees and aid workers). Hizbollah broguht some of the civilian casualties on by firing from houses, mosques and hospitals as well as hiding weapons in those places.
Israel did not accomplish it's stated mission of recovering it's soldiers or stoping the rocket launches, Hizbollah will be rearmed by Iran and Syria and the UN as usual will wring it's collective hands and do nothing. I look for round two to begin in a few months.
Even if it can be accepted that a particular area of a town is know to be a hotbed of Palestinian terrorism, to destroy that building and many of its inhabitants - most of whom probably have no interest in local warfare - is no more than calculated murder.
Should Britain have bombed Dublin thirty years ago because it was known that members of the IRA lived there?
WE
I think whether Israel is legitimate is now moot point. Israel exists and her neigbors will have to accept that fact. I think there is injustice and blame to go around on all sides of the borders but if there will be peace in the ME it will be the Arabs (and other Islamists) who determine it. The Israelis are the most powerful military force in the region and thus there will be no military solution to the problem.
As far as the recent conflict I primarily blame Hamas and Hizbollah for it. Continuing to fire rockets and kidnap soldiers will only bring continue military responses from the IDF. Because the IDF possesess more powerful weapons when they miss their targets and hit civilians the results can be catastrophic. Unlike the Hizbollah and Hamas the IDF does not IMO deliberately target civilians. If they did the numbers would be in the tens of thousands of dead and injured. I think the Israelis were surprised by the kidnappings and somewhat over reacted. Targeting of dual purpose infrastructure facilities was legitimate as was targeting egress and resupply routes (unfortunately the same routes used by refugees and aid workers). Hizbollah broguht some of the civilian casualties on by firing from houses, mosques and hospitals as well as hiding weapons in those places.
Israel did not accomplish it's stated mission of recovering it's soldiers or stoping the rocket launches, Hizbollah will be rearmed by Iran and Syria and the UN as usual will wring it's collective hands and do nothing. I look for round two to begin in a few months.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: But why in the name of simple justice, should they compromise? If someone steals an acre of my land, I don't compromise by letting them keep half of what they have stolen. I fight until what is rightfully mine is back in my possession.
WE
WE, I think in this instance you would fight forever to no effect. History is replete with examples of countries and groups taking land from others and keeping it.(right or wrong). I am not arguing with you that the existence of Israel comes morally at the expense of displaced Palestinians. The facts on the ground are that the Israelis have a stronger country than their neighbors and will fight to continue to exist. Responsible Palestinians will someday have to accept some other solution or war will continue ad nauseum. You can't seriously expect that the Israelis will just pull up stakes and leave.
WE
WE, I think in this instance you would fight forever to no effect. History is replete with examples of countries and groups taking land from others and keeping it.(right or wrong). I am not arguing with you that the existence of Israel comes morally at the expense of displaced Palestinians. The facts on the ground are that the Israelis have a stronger country than their neighbors and will fight to continue to exist. Responsible Palestinians will someday have to accept some other solution or war will continue ad nauseum. You can't seriously expect that the Israelis will just pull up stakes and leave.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
The fact that Israel may have superiority in military terms is not of cardinal importance. If it were, Vietnam (not to mention Iraq) would have been squared up in a month.
What Israel has done this year is to mount the greatest recruitment for Hezbollah that the latter could have wished for.
It may be that the present situation may bring the Arab countries in the region to unite in their hostility to Israel and reallt turn the heat up.
The very idea of Israel has always been a contradiction in terms. To try and plant a country which is essentially Western in character into a region that is fiercely Arab with very few ideals in common with Western values, is simply asking for trouble. We should have nipped the thing in the bud sixty years ago.
WE
What Israel has done this year is to mount the greatest recruitment for Hezbollah that the latter could have wished for.
It may be that the present situation may bring the Arab countries in the region to unite in their hostility to Israel and reallt turn the heat up.
The very idea of Israel has always been a contradiction in terms. To try and plant a country which is essentially Western in character into a region that is fiercely Arab with very few ideals in common with Western values, is simply asking for trouble. We should have nipped the thing in the bud sixty years ago.
WE
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
zinkyusa wrote: The facts on the ground are that the Israelis have a stronger country than their neighbors and will fight to continue to exist. Responsible Palestinians will someday have to accept some other solution or war will continue ad nauseum.
But had we adopted that line of argument in 1943, we would have ceded most of Europe and Scandinavia to Germany and all of the Far East to Japan. Might is not right.
But had we adopted that line of argument in 1943, we would have ceded most of Europe and Scandinavia to Germany and all of the Far East to Japan. Might is not right.
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: The fact that Israel may have superiority in military terms is not of cardinal importance. If it were, Vietnam (not to mention Iraq) would have been squared up in a month.
What Israel has done this year is to mount the greatest recruitment for Hezbollah that the latter could have wished for.
It may be that the present situation may bring the Arab countries in the region to unite in their hostility to Israel and reallt turn the heat up.
The very idea of Israel has always been a contradiction in terms. To try and plant a country which is essentially Western in character into a region that is fiercely Arab with very few ideals in common with Western values, is simply asking for trouble. We should have nipped the thing in the bud sixty years ago.
WE
I don't think the examples of Vietnam or Iraq are applicable. These were both examples of insurgencies with at least some large degree of public support against US supported military and police forces. Not the same situation with Israel. The Israelis like or not have their own country and will fight to end to defend it. It does not matter how many recruits Hizbollah finds it won't change a thing. The violence will continue. The Arab countries in the ME have united three times in the past to fight the IDF and were beaten each and every time. I see nothing that will changed that now. The Arabs probably would have to fight without Egypt since they have a treaty with Israel. This genie is out of the bottle to make statements about nipping it in the bud is living in the past (no offense intended just my opinion).
What Israel has done this year is to mount the greatest recruitment for Hezbollah that the latter could have wished for.
It may be that the present situation may bring the Arab countries in the region to unite in their hostility to Israel and reallt turn the heat up.
The very idea of Israel has always been a contradiction in terms. To try and plant a country which is essentially Western in character into a region that is fiercely Arab with very few ideals in common with Western values, is simply asking for trouble. We should have nipped the thing in the bud sixty years ago.
WE
I don't think the examples of Vietnam or Iraq are applicable. These were both examples of insurgencies with at least some large degree of public support against US supported military and police forces. Not the same situation with Israel. The Israelis like or not have their own country and will fight to end to defend it. It does not matter how many recruits Hizbollah finds it won't change a thing. The violence will continue. The Arab countries in the ME have united three times in the past to fight the IDF and were beaten each and every time. I see nothing that will changed that now. The Arabs probably would have to fight without Egypt since they have a treaty with Israel. This genie is out of the bottle to make statements about nipping it in the bud is living in the past (no offense intended just my opinion).
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: But had we adopted that line of argument in 1943, we would have ceded most of Europe and Scandinavia to Germany and all of the Far East to Japan. Might is not right.
Quite true, but I would argue that Allies were fighting for their own survival by then. Retaking Europe and the Pacific territory were integral to the strategy of defeating the axis powers and insuring that survival. I think we did follow that line of argument with Eastern Europe in 1945 much to our later chagrin.
Quite true, but I would argue that Allies were fighting for their own survival by then. Retaking Europe and the Pacific territory were integral to the strategy of defeating the axis powers and insuring that survival. I think we did follow that line of argument with Eastern Europe in 1945 much to our later chagrin.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
[QUOTE=zinkyusa]I don't think the examples of Vietnam or Iraq are applicable. /QUOTE]
They are applicable to the extend that they demonstrate that might does not guarantee victory.
They are applicable to the extend that they demonstrate that might does not guarantee victory.
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: [QUOTE=zinkyusa]I don't think the examples of Vietnam or Iraq are applicable. /QUOTE]
They are applicable to the extend that they demonstrate that might does not guarantee victory.
OK, I agree with that.
In the case of Israel might will prevent defeat, although it may not guarantee victory.
They are applicable to the extend that they demonstrate that might does not guarantee victory.
OK, I agree with that.
In the case of Israel might will prevent defeat, although it may not guarantee victory.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
zinkyusa wrote: I would argue that Allies were fighting for their own survival by then. Retaking Europe and the Pacific territory were integral to the strategy of defeating the axis powers and insuring that survival. I think we did follow that line of argument with Eastern Europe in 1945 much to our later chagrin.
No, we were not fighting for our survival. We were fighting to regain the status quo in Europe and in the process to defeat Germany. We could at any time have come to an accomodation with the Germans - whether we could have trusted them is another matter - which would have saved a lot of allied lives. We thought it preferable to go on fighting.
Similarly the Americans did not have to defeat the Japanese. The pragmatists might have argued for a few token victories to square the account for Pearl Harbour and afterwards leave the Japanese and the Far East to look after each other.
No, we were not fighting for our survival. We were fighting to regain the status quo in Europe and in the process to defeat Germany. We could at any time have come to an accomodation with the Germans - whether we could have trusted them is another matter - which would have saved a lot of allied lives. We thought it preferable to go on fighting.
Similarly the Americans did not have to defeat the Japanese. The pragmatists might have argued for a few token victories to square the account for Pearl Harbour and afterwards leave the Japanese and the Far East to look after each other.
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: No, we were not fighting for our survival. We were fighting to regain the status quo in Europe and in the process to defeat Germany. We could at any time have come to an accomodation with the Germans - whether we could have trusted them is another matter - which would have saved a lot of allied lives. We thought it preferable to go on fighting.
Similarly the Americans did not have to defeat the Japanese. The pragmatists might have argued for a few token victories to square the account for Pearl Harbour and afterwards leave the Japanese and the Far East to look after each other.
I think it not to dramatic to say survival. The Nazis were working towards an atomic bomb and long range delivery systems. There could have been no accomodation made with such ruthless trecherous governments as the Nazis and the Japanese. It was a struggle between facism and free countries to the final defeat of one or the other.
Similarly the Americans did not have to defeat the Japanese. The pragmatists might have argued for a few token victories to square the account for Pearl Harbour and afterwards leave the Japanese and the Far East to look after each other.
I think it not to dramatic to say survival. The Nazis were working towards an atomic bomb and long range delivery systems. There could have been no accomodation made with such ruthless trecherous governments as the Nazis and the Japanese. It was a struggle between facism and free countries to the final defeat of one or the other.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Israeli Apartheid
zinkyusa wrote:
As far as the recent conflict I primarily blame Hamas and Hizbollah for it. Continuing to fire rockets and kidnap soldiers will only bring continue military responses from the IDF.
No one blamed Nelson Mandela at the end of it all. He was a wanted terrorist for a while. If South Africa "liquidated" their targets like Israel does then Mandela would have died before he even made this speech in his defense. He was given a trial so that he was able to explain this:
In my youth in the Transkei I listened to the elders of my tribe telling stories of the old days. Amongst the tales they related to me were those of wars fought by our ancestors in defence of the fatherland. The names of Dingane and Bambata, Hintsa and Makana, Squngthi and Dalasile, Moshoeshoe and Sekhukhuni, were praised as the glory of the entire African nation. I hoped then that life might offer me the opportunity to serve my people and make my own humble contribution to their freedom struggle. This is what has motivated me in all that I have done in relation to the charges made against me in this case.
Having said this, I must deal immediately and at some length with the question of violence. Some of the things so far told to the Court are true and some are untrue. I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites.
...
I have already mentioned that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto. I, and the others who started the organization, did so for two reasons. Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalize and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the Government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence.
It's a great speech. Ending of course with:
It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.
As far as the recent conflict I primarily blame Hamas and Hizbollah for it. Continuing to fire rockets and kidnap soldiers will only bring continue military responses from the IDF.
No one blamed Nelson Mandela at the end of it all. He was a wanted terrorist for a while. If South Africa "liquidated" their targets like Israel does then Mandela would have died before he even made this speech in his defense. He was given a trial so that he was able to explain this:
In my youth in the Transkei I listened to the elders of my tribe telling stories of the old days. Amongst the tales they related to me were those of wars fought by our ancestors in defence of the fatherland. The names of Dingane and Bambata, Hintsa and Makana, Squngthi and Dalasile, Moshoeshoe and Sekhukhuni, were praised as the glory of the entire African nation. I hoped then that life might offer me the opportunity to serve my people and make my own humble contribution to their freedom struggle. This is what has motivated me in all that I have done in relation to the charges made against me in this case.
Having said this, I must deal immediately and at some length with the question of violence. Some of the things so far told to the Court are true and some are untrue. I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites.
...
I have already mentioned that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto. I, and the others who started the organization, did so for two reasons. Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalize and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the Government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence.
It's a great speech. Ending of course with:
It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: But had we adopted that line of argument in 1943, we would have ceded most of Europe and Scandinavia to Germany and all of the Far East to Japan. Might is not right.
there's a rather significant gulf between hitler's and tojo's vicious imperialist expansionism, and israel's fight just to hold onto the few square kilometers it already has.
why don't we deal with reality? israel is here, it exists, and unless Ahmadinejad lobs a nuclear bomb upon it, israel will be around for a very long time.
there's a rather significant gulf between hitler's and tojo's vicious imperialist expansionism, and israel's fight just to hold onto the few square kilometers it already has.
why don't we deal with reality? israel is here, it exists, and unless Ahmadinejad lobs a nuclear bomb upon it, israel will be around for a very long time.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Israeli Apartheid
an interesting, if simplistic, flash animation of some of the history here.
http://www.somebodyhelpme.info/mideast/ ... ll_Too.swf
the topic really ought to be called arab apartheid. IMNSFHO.
http://www.somebodyhelpme.info/mideast/ ... ll_Too.swf
the topic really ought to be called arab apartheid. IMNSFHO.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Israeli Apartheid
anastrophe wrote: an interesting, if simplistic, flash animation of some of the history here.
http://www.somebodyhelpme.info/mideast/ ... ll_Too.swf
the topic really ought to be called arab apartheid. IMNSFHO.
So much for helpful contribution.
http://www.somebodyhelpme.info/
They do title their homepage with one of your favourite expressions though
"EXPOSING ISLAMO-FASCISM"
It is only interesting that you chose that as a source.
http://www.somebodyhelpme.info/mideast/ ... ll_Too.swf
the topic really ought to be called arab apartheid. IMNSFHO.
So much for helpful contribution.
http://www.somebodyhelpme.info/
They do title their homepage with one of your favourite expressions though
"EXPOSING ISLAMO-FASCISM"
It is only interesting that you chose that as a source.
Israeli Apartheid
Interview with General Gur, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army:
Q-Is it true [during the March 1978 Israeli invasion of Lebanon] that you bombarded agglomerations [of people] without distinction.
A-I am not one of those people who have a selective memory. Do you think that I pretend not to know what we have done all these years? What did we do the entire length of the Suez Canal? A million and a half refugees! Really: where do you live? ¦we bombarded Ismailia, Suez, Port Said, and Port Faud. A million and a half refugees¦Since when has the population of South Lebanon become so sacred? They knew perfectly well what the terrorists were doing. After the massacre at Avivim, I had four villages in South Lebanon bombed without authorization.
Q-Without making distinctions between civilians and noncivilians?
A-What distinction? What had the inhabitants of Irbid [a large town in northern Jordan, principally Palestinian in population] done to deserve bombing by us?
Q-But military communiqués always spoke of returning fire and counterstrikes against terrorist objectives.
A-Please be serious. Did you not know that the entire valley of the Jordan had been emptied of its inhabitants as the result of the war of attrition?
Q-Then you claim that the population ought to be punished?
A-Of course, and I have never had any doubt about that. When I authorised Yanouch [diminutive name for the commander of the northern front, responsible for the Lebanese operation] to use aviation, artillery and tanks [in the invasion] I knew exactly what I was doing. It has now been thirty years, from the time of our Independence War, until now, that we have been fighting the civilian [Arab] population which inhabited the villages and towns, and everytime that we do it, the same question gets asked: should we or should we not strike at civilians?[Al-Hamishmar, May 10, 1978]
The Question of Palestine, Edward Said, (New York, 1992), p. xxxvii
Q-Is it true [during the March 1978 Israeli invasion of Lebanon] that you bombarded agglomerations [of people] without distinction.
A-I am not one of those people who have a selective memory. Do you think that I pretend not to know what we have done all these years? What did we do the entire length of the Suez Canal? A million and a half refugees! Really: where do you live? ¦we bombarded Ismailia, Suez, Port Said, and Port Faud. A million and a half refugees¦Since when has the population of South Lebanon become so sacred? They knew perfectly well what the terrorists were doing. After the massacre at Avivim, I had four villages in South Lebanon bombed without authorization.
Q-Without making distinctions between civilians and noncivilians?
A-What distinction? What had the inhabitants of Irbid [a large town in northern Jordan, principally Palestinian in population] done to deserve bombing by us?
Q-But military communiqués always spoke of returning fire and counterstrikes against terrorist objectives.
A-Please be serious. Did you not know that the entire valley of the Jordan had been emptied of its inhabitants as the result of the war of attrition?
Q-Then you claim that the population ought to be punished?
A-Of course, and I have never had any doubt about that. When I authorised Yanouch [diminutive name for the commander of the northern front, responsible for the Lebanese operation] to use aviation, artillery and tanks [in the invasion] I knew exactly what I was doing. It has now been thirty years, from the time of our Independence War, until now, that we have been fighting the civilian [Arab] population which inhabited the villages and towns, and everytime that we do it, the same question gets asked: should we or should we not strike at civilians?[Al-Hamishmar, May 10, 1978]
The Question of Palestine, Edward Said, (New York, 1992), p. xxxvii
Israeli Apartheid
Had a moment of curiosity.
Christians compose 33% of the world population. They have the Vatican City as a country devoted to their religion. The Christian country is 0.44 SQ KM.
Judaism is worshipped by 0.22% of the population. They have Israel as a country devoted to their religion. The Jewish country is 20, 770 SQ KM.
There are 2.1 billion Christians who were satisfied with 0.44 SQ KM
But apparently 14 million Jews need more than 20, 770 SQ KM
Christians compose 33% of the world population. They have the Vatican City as a country devoted to their religion. The Christian country is 0.44 SQ KM.
Judaism is worshipped by 0.22% of the population. They have Israel as a country devoted to their religion. The Jewish country is 20, 770 SQ KM.
There are 2.1 billion Christians who were satisfied with 0.44 SQ KM
But apparently 14 million Jews need more than 20, 770 SQ KM
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: Christians compose 33% of the world population. They have the Vatican City as a country devoted to their religion.
Vatican? Canterbury, surely.
Vatican? Canterbury, surely.
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: Had a moment of curiosity.
Christians compose 33% of the world population. They have the Vatican City as a country devoted to their religion. The Christian country is 0.44 SQ KM.
Judaism is worshipped by 0.22% of the population. They have Israel as a country devoted to their religion. The Jewish country is 20, 770 SQ KM.
There are 2.1 billion Christians who were satisfied with 0.44 SQ KM
But apparently 14 million Jews need more than 20, 770 SQ KMI have seen some really moronic things posted here but that has to win some sort of prize!
Christians compose 33% of the world population. They have the Vatican City as a country devoted to their religion. The Christian country is 0.44 SQ KM.
Judaism is worshipped by 0.22% of the population. They have Israel as a country devoted to their religion. The Jewish country is 20, 770 SQ KM.
There are 2.1 billion Christians who were satisfied with 0.44 SQ KM
But apparently 14 million Jews need more than 20, 770 SQ KMI have seen some really moronic things posted here but that has to win some sort of prize!
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
Bronwen wrote: I have seen some really moronic things posted here but that has to win some sort of prize!
I think Koan was giving a demonstration of that characteristic so lacking in the German psyche : A sense of humour.
My reply likewise.
Here is an example of humour.
Schoolmaster: "What was Hitler's Christian name?"
Schoolboy: "Heil"
I think Koan was giving a demonstration of that characteristic so lacking in the German psyche : A sense of humour.
My reply likewise.
Here is an example of humour.
Schoolmaster: "What was Hitler's Christian name?"
Schoolboy: "Heil"
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: I think Koan was giving a demonstration of that characteristic so lacking in the German psche : A sense of humour.
My reply likewise.
Here is an example of humour.
Schoolmaster: "What was Hitler's Christian name?"
Schoolboy: "Heil"
:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl
My reply likewise.
Here is an example of humour.
Schoolmaster: "What was Hitler's Christian name?"
Schoolboy: "Heil"
:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: No one blamed Nelson Mandela at the end of it all. He was a wanted terrorist for a while. If South Africa "liquidated" their targets like Israel does then Mandela would have died before he even made this speech in his defense. He was given a trial so that he was able to explain this:
In my youth in the Transkei I listened to the elders of my tribe telling stories of the old days. Amongst the tales they related to me were those of wars fought by our ancestors in defence of the fatherland. The names of Dingane and Bambata, Hintsa and Makana, Squngthi and Dalasile, Moshoeshoe and Sekhukhuni, were praised as the glory of the entire African nation. I hoped then that life might offer me the opportunity to serve my people and make my own humble contribution to their freedom struggle. This is what has motivated me in all that I have done in relation to the charges made against me in this case.
Having said this, I must deal immediately and at some length with the question of violence. Some of the things so far told to the Court are true and some are untrue. I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites.
...
I have already mentioned that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto. I, and the others who started the organization, did so for two reasons. Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalize and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the Government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence.
It's a great speech. Ending of course with:
It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.
Well I guess there are terrorists and then there are terrorists. I'll admit to not knowing much about Mandela's activities prior to being released from jail, but if he deliberatley targeted civilian non-combatants as Hamas and Hizbollah do then the term would suit him. More likely he was branded a terrorists simply because he opposed the South African government in it's exploitation of blacks. If he partcipated in warfare against South African military, police then the term would not apply IMO. To me the this entire analogy of comparing Israel to South Africa is ridiculous. I don't think I understand the point to this post.
In my youth in the Transkei I listened to the elders of my tribe telling stories of the old days. Amongst the tales they related to me were those of wars fought by our ancestors in defence of the fatherland. The names of Dingane and Bambata, Hintsa and Makana, Squngthi and Dalasile, Moshoeshoe and Sekhukhuni, were praised as the glory of the entire African nation. I hoped then that life might offer me the opportunity to serve my people and make my own humble contribution to their freedom struggle. This is what has motivated me in all that I have done in relation to the charges made against me in this case.
Having said this, I must deal immediately and at some length with the question of violence. Some of the things so far told to the Court are true and some are untrue. I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites.
...
I have already mentioned that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto. I, and the others who started the organization, did so for two reasons. Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalize and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the Government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence.
It's a great speech. Ending of course with:
It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.
Well I guess there are terrorists and then there are terrorists. I'll admit to not knowing much about Mandela's activities prior to being released from jail, but if he deliberatley targeted civilian non-combatants as Hamas and Hizbollah do then the term would suit him. More likely he was branded a terrorists simply because he opposed the South African government in it's exploitation of blacks. If he partcipated in warfare against South African military, police then the term would not apply IMO. To me the this entire analogy of comparing Israel to South Africa is ridiculous. I don't think I understand the point to this post.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Israeli Apartheid
Bronwen wrote: I have seen some really moronic things posted here but that has to win some sort of prize!
I think you get that prize but I save the pain of going back and digging out the many bits of evidence.
It was actually a response to your insistence that Israel is a J-E-W-I-S-H S-T-A-T-E.
They should take their little ka-ness-it and park it in the country of Zion. Jerusalem is 440 SQ KM that ought to be more than enough. I think they've shown that they can't run a country without racism and they are only fit to govern themselves.
:yh_tong2
I think you get that prize but I save the pain of going back and digging out the many bits of evidence.
It was actually a response to your insistence that Israel is a J-E-W-I-S-H S-T-A-T-E.
They should take their little ka-ness-it and park it in the country of Zion. Jerusalem is 440 SQ KM that ought to be more than enough. I think they've shown that they can't run a country without racism and they are only fit to govern themselves.
:yh_tong2
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: I think you get that prize but I save the pain of going back and digging out the many bits of evidence.
It was actually a response to your insistence that Israel is a J-E-W-I-S-H S-T-A-T-E.
They should take their little ka-ness-it and park it in the country of Zion. Jerusalem is 440 SQ KM that ought to be more than enough. I think they've shown that they can't run a country without racism and they are only fit to govern themselves.
:yh_tong2
Israel is not going anywhere. I think you and William Ess are denying reality if you think it will. Whatever rights or wrongs were done on both sides, Israel is here to stay. The Arabs, you and William may as well accept it and deal with it. Till then there will be no peace in the ME.
It was actually a response to your insistence that Israel is a J-E-W-I-S-H S-T-A-T-E.
They should take their little ka-ness-it and park it in the country of Zion. Jerusalem is 440 SQ KM that ought to be more than enough. I think they've shown that they can't run a country without racism and they are only fit to govern themselves.
:yh_tong2
Israel is not going anywhere. I think you and William Ess are denying reality if you think it will. Whatever rights or wrongs were done on both sides, Israel is here to stay. The Arabs, you and William may as well accept it and deal with it. Till then there will be no peace in the ME.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Israeli Apartheid
zinkyusa wrote: Well I guess there are terrorists and then there are terrorists. I'll admit to not knowing much about Mandela's activities prior to being released from jail, but if he deliberatley targeted civilian non-combatants as Hamas and Hizbollah do then the term would suit him.
Then, according to the info in post 129, the IDF is a terrorist organization as well.
The Semantics of Terror
Ian Williams
What do Nelson Mandela, Michael Collins, Archbishop Makarios, Menachim Begin, Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Shamir, Eamon DeValera and Jomo Kenyatta have in common?
As everybody knows, but few remember, they were all vilified as "terrorists," by the British or American authorities.
Ronald Reagan branded Mandela's African National Congress as a terrorist organization
There is the possibility of a one state solution, whatever that one state might be called in the end is rather irrelevant as long as all inhabitants are treated equally under the law.
Then, according to the info in post 129, the IDF is a terrorist organization as well.
The Semantics of Terror
Ian Williams
What do Nelson Mandela, Michael Collins, Archbishop Makarios, Menachim Begin, Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Shamir, Eamon DeValera and Jomo Kenyatta have in common?
As everybody knows, but few remember, they were all vilified as "terrorists," by the British or American authorities.
Ronald Reagan branded Mandela's African National Congress as a terrorist organization
There is the possibility of a one state solution, whatever that one state might be called in the end is rather irrelevant as long as all inhabitants are treated equally under the law.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
zinkyusa wrote: Israel is not going anywhere. I think you and William Ess are denying reality if you think it will. Whatever rights or wrongs were done on both sides, Israel is here to stay. The Arabs, you and William may as well accept it and deal with it. Till then there will be no peace in the ME.
I am not sure. I cannot see the Arab states reconciling themselves for an indefinite period to Israel's presence whilst Israels security is largely dependent on America's support - as was South Vietnam's. A change in political ideology in Washington would be a spur to Palestinian and Arab ambitions and the position of Israel would be difficult.
My argument is not what is going to happen but on the fact that Israel was illegally founded.
I am not sure. I cannot see the Arab states reconciling themselves for an indefinite period to Israel's presence whilst Israels security is largely dependent on America's support - as was South Vietnam's. A change in political ideology in Washington would be a spur to Palestinian and Arab ambitions and the position of Israel would be difficult.
My argument is not what is going to happen but on the fact that Israel was illegally founded.
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: Then, according to the info in post 129, the IDF is a terrorist organization as well.
The Semantics of Terror
Ian Williams
What do Nelson Mandela, Michael Collins, Archbishop Makarios, Menachim Begin, Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Shamir, Eamon DeValera and Jomo Kenyatta have in common?
As everybody knows, but few remember, they were all vilified as "terrorists," by the British or American authorities.
Ronald Reagan branded Mandela's African National Congress as a terrorist organization
There is the possibility of a one state solution, whatever that one state might be called in the end is rather irrelevant as long as all inhabitants are treated equally under the law.
No the IDF as an institution does not target non-combatants. If they did they have capability to inflict mass casualties on the Palestinians or other Arabs. They have been guilty of acts by individuals or organizations that can be classified as terrorist or criminal in nature just as there will always be some bad apples in any barrels.
I don't dispute that some people get labeled as terrorists who are not. As I said I don't know much about Mandela's early activity. So I ask again what is the point to the comparison?
The Semantics of Terror
Ian Williams
What do Nelson Mandela, Michael Collins, Archbishop Makarios, Menachim Begin, Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Shamir, Eamon DeValera and Jomo Kenyatta have in common?
As everybody knows, but few remember, they were all vilified as "terrorists," by the British or American authorities.
Ronald Reagan branded Mandela's African National Congress as a terrorist organization
There is the possibility of a one state solution, whatever that one state might be called in the end is rather irrelevant as long as all inhabitants are treated equally under the law.
No the IDF as an institution does not target non-combatants. If they did they have capability to inflict mass casualties on the Palestinians or other Arabs. They have been guilty of acts by individuals or organizations that can be classified as terrorist or criminal in nature just as there will always be some bad apples in any barrels.
I don't dispute that some people get labeled as terrorists who are not. As I said I don't know much about Mandela's early activity. So I ask again what is the point to the comparison?
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
I cannot say that Mandela is my cup of tea, especially after extolling the virtues of the IRA, but it is a fact that the White South Africans were very largely a collection of pigs whose downfall was absolutely deserved. To impose the measures they did was simply to screw the safety valve down on an enormous boiler.
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: I am not sure. I cannot see the Arab states reconciling themselves for an indefinite period to Israel's presence whilst Israels security is largely dependent on America's support - as was South Vietnam's. A change in political ideology in Washington would be a spur to Palestinian and Arab ambitions and the position of Israel would be difficult.
My argument is not what is going to happen but on the fact that Israel was illegally founded.
Israel posseses nuclear weapons they are going nowhere irregardless of Washington's policy.
As to your argument about the legality of Israels existence the same can be said of hundreds of cases in history, America, England, Australia are a few examples. No one is going to return anything.
You can argue legality as long as you wish but it will not change a thing. Some situations just have to be accepted.
My argument is not what is going to happen but on the fact that Israel was illegally founded.
Israel posseses nuclear weapons they are going nowhere irregardless of Washington's policy.
As to your argument about the legality of Israels existence the same can be said of hundreds of cases in history, America, England, Australia are a few examples. No one is going to return anything.
You can argue legality as long as you wish but it will not change a thing. Some situations just have to be accepted.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Israeli Apartheid
The point of the comparison, made by many others more qualified than myself, is that the main difference between the two is only perception. The Arab plight is gaining more and more sympathy from outside countries. Mandela was once labeled a terrorist until he won outside perceptions to his side of the fight. Why practice selective sympathy? Definitions and moral judgement should be universally applied.
zinky wrote:
No the IDF as an institution does not target non-combatants. repeat end of Post 129:
Q-Then you claim that the population ought to be punished?
A-Of course, and I have never had any doubt about that. When I authorised Yanouch [diminutive name for the commander of the northern front, responsible for the Lebanese operation] to use aviation, artillery and tanks [in the invasion] I knew exactly what I was doing. It has now been thirty years, from the time of our Independence War, until now, that we have been fighting the civilian [Arab] population which inhabited the villages and towns, and everytime that we do it, the same question gets asked: should we or should we not strike at civilians?
zinky wrote:
No the IDF as an institution does not target non-combatants. repeat end of Post 129:
Q-Then you claim that the population ought to be punished?
A-Of course, and I have never had any doubt about that. When I authorised Yanouch [diminutive name for the commander of the northern front, responsible for the Lebanese operation] to use aviation, artillery and tanks [in the invasion] I knew exactly what I was doing. It has now been thirty years, from the time of our Independence War, until now, that we have been fighting the civilian [Arab] population which inhabited the villages and towns, and everytime that we do it, the same question gets asked: should we or should we not strike at civilians?
Israeli Apartheid
koan wrote: The point of the comparison, made by many others more qualified than myself, is that the main difference between the two is only perception. The Arab plight is gaining more and more sympathy from outside countries. Mandela was once labeled a terrorist until he won outside perceptions to his side of the fight. Why practice selective sympathy? Definitions and moral judgement should be universally applied.
repeat end of Post 129:
Q-Then you claim that the population ought to be punished?
A-Of course, and I have never had any doubt about that. When I authorised Yanouch [diminutive name for the commander of the northern front, responsible for the Lebanese operation] to use aviation, artillery and tanks [in the invasion] I knew exactly what I was doing. It has now been thirty years, from the time of our Independence War, until now, that we have been fighting the civilian [Arab] population which inhabited the villages and towns, and everytime that we do it, the same question gets asked: should we or should we not strike at civilians?
So someone found one jackass ex-IDF general. I believe this was back in 70's wasn't it.
I think in the real world one needs to keep a sense of scale. People like to pick on Isarael because it is a civilized country that generally plays by the rules. They think their criticsm matters and they can change something there (samething with the US). They ignore the real violators of human rights which are mostly third world countries and China becuase they know their opinions don't mean a hill of beans. It's Darwin's law there and it's very uncomfortable to be reminded of it from the our cozy living rooms. Having served in the US military and been around the world bit I believe Israel is a pretty decent country with mostly good people living there. If I was in charge of cleaning up the world it would take me quite a while before I got to Israel.
repeat end of Post 129:
Q-Then you claim that the population ought to be punished?
A-Of course, and I have never had any doubt about that. When I authorised Yanouch [diminutive name for the commander of the northern front, responsible for the Lebanese operation] to use aviation, artillery and tanks [in the invasion] I knew exactly what I was doing. It has now been thirty years, from the time of our Independence War, until now, that we have been fighting the civilian [Arab] population which inhabited the villages and towns, and everytime that we do it, the same question gets asked: should we or should we not strike at civilians?
So someone found one jackass ex-IDF general. I believe this was back in 70's wasn't it.
I think in the real world one needs to keep a sense of scale. People like to pick on Isarael because it is a civilized country that generally plays by the rules. They think their criticsm matters and they can change something there (samething with the US). They ignore the real violators of human rights which are mostly third world countries and China becuase they know their opinions don't mean a hill of beans. It's Darwin's law there and it's very uncomfortable to be reminded of it from the our cozy living rooms. Having served in the US military and been around the world bit I believe Israel is a pretty decent country with mostly good people living there. If I was in charge of cleaning up the world it would take me quite a while before I got to Israel.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: I am not sure. I cannot see the Arab states reconciling themselves for an indefinite period to Israel's presence whilst Israels security is largely dependent on America's support - as was South Vietnam's. A change in political ideology in Washington would be a spur to Palestinian and Arab ambitions and the position of Israel would be difficult.
My argument is not what is going to happen but on the fact that Israel was illegally founded.
Was'nt the U.S. illegally founded according to English law.
My argument is not what is going to happen but on the fact that Israel was illegally founded.
Was'nt the U.S. illegally founded according to English law.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
zinkyusa wrote: You can argue legality as long as you wish but it will not change a thing. Some situations just have to be accepted.
Without legality there is anarchy. In a civilised world you don't accept the rule of the thug. You stand and fight for what is right. That principle is one of the handful of things (such as table manners and grammar) that distinguish us from animals.
Without legality there is anarchy. In a civilised world you don't accept the rule of the thug. You stand and fight for what is right. That principle is one of the handful of things (such as table manners and grammar) that distinguish us from animals.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
YZGI wrote: Was'nt the U.S. illegally founded according to English law.
Which law would that be?
Which law would that be?
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: Which law would that be?
Oh lets see. How bout treason, Failure to pay taxes, Killing the Kings soldiers etc. etc. .
Are you saying revolution is legal in the Uk.
Oh lets see. How bout treason, Failure to pay taxes, Killing the Kings soldiers etc. etc. .
Are you saying revolution is legal in the Uk.
Israeli Apartheid
William Ess wrote: Without legality there is anarchy. In a civilised world you don't accept the rule of the thug. You stand and fight for what is right. That principle is one of the handful of things (such as table manners and grammar) that distinguish us from animals.
So where do you draw the line? Should the native americans fight the US government? All non-aboriginals leave Australia? How about anyone with Norman blood has to leave jolly old England?
I suppose if it were recent we might agree but Israel is a fact now.
So where do you draw the line? Should the native americans fight the US government? All non-aboriginals leave Australia? How about anyone with Norman blood has to leave jolly old England?
I suppose if it were recent we might agree but Israel is a fact now.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Israeli Apartheid
YZGI wrote: Oh lets see. How bout treason, Failure to pay taxes, Killing the Kings soldiers etc. etc. .
Are you saying revolution is legal in the Uk.
I have no objection at all to debating the origins of the United States but I think you should read a little serious history on the subject first especially where tax and the state legislatures are concerned.
Are you saying revolution is legal in the Uk.
I have no objection at all to debating the origins of the United States but I think you should read a little serious history on the subject first especially where tax and the state legislatures are concerned.