ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Also, the clear truth is that the "existence of the state of Israel" is necessarily predicated upon the discrimination against, and the oppression of the Palestinian people.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

Also, the clear truth is that the "existence of the state of Israel" is necessarily predicated upon the discrimination against, and the oppression of the Palestinian people.

This is obviously untrue inasmuch Israel's Arabs are generally better off than any other Arabs in the Middle East.

0 Replies

What could possibly explain the disloyalty of these Arab citizens of Israel? Are they merely subhuman "Pals", naturally disloyal to the prevailing culture - as, for example, were the Jews of Germany - as alleged by the National Socialists in the 1930s?

Or could there be another explanation? Perhaps it is their status as second class citizens, not considered sufficiently trustworthy to serve in the Army or other sensitive areas of government and forever excluded from the upper strata of Israeli economic, social, and political life. Perhaps also the 40 year spectacle of exploitation and oppression visited by the Israeli government on the Palestinian citizens of the West Bank has also had some effect on their conception of their status and future in Israel.

It is more than a little interesting to observe this from Advocate who just a few pages back assserted that the condition of Israeli Arabs was superior to what was available to them in any other country of the region. Perhaps they don't agree.

0 Replies

Arab citizens of the USA, the UK, Spain, etc., act similarly to the Israeli citizens. An Israeli physician recently wrote:

"Similar phenomena have been witnessed in Europe and the U.S. Muslims involved in terror attacks on New York on 9/11, London on 7/7 and Madrid on 3/11 were neither poor, nor ignorant, nor refugees leaving in dreadful conditions. Incredibly, they were privileged and educated citizens of Middle Eastern and Western countries who betrayed Western hospitality and acted to destroy them from within. Their fanatic Jihad goal is to defeat Western culture through a terrorist war and to have Islam dominate the world. Their actions are proof that the Israeli Palestinian conflict is not over the location of the border between Israel and Palestine but a total Jihad war: a clash of civilizations. The Arabs refuse to accept the existence of a Jewish state in their midst. They view the Jewish state as a fortress of the West illegitimately occupying lands sanctified for Islam by prior Jihad conquest."

0 Replies

I don't know your unnamed Israeli Physician, and don't give his views any particular credence.

In fact the United States has not seen the kind of disaffection among its Arab citizens that has become so apparent in Europe. This is a matter much reported and commented on in the news, and the reasons for it are well known.

I agree that there is a widespread distemper in the Moslem world today. Its origins involve the stagnation of an Islamic culture that, though once at the leading edge of achievement, never experienced an Enlightenment and stagnated both politically and economically beginning in the 17th century. They also involve European colonialism (sixty years ago most of the Moslems in the world were ruled by Britain, France, Russia, and the Netherlands) and the massive betrayals of WWI.

Your physician suggests that the implantation of a Jewish state in Palestine has nothing to do with this distemper - instead it is all the result of a Jihadist determination to conquer the West. This is an obvious evasion and distortion of the truth. They are distinct problems and issues - and they are often mutually reinforcing.

I am truly struck by the irony of your evidently racist views of the struggle in Palestine.

0 Replies

Olmert undone by the militia he said he could destroy
Robert Fisk: Olmert undone by the militia he said he could destroy
Published: 03 May 2007
Independent UK

So it has come to this. All those bodies, all those photographs of dead children - more than 1,400 cadavers (we are not including the 230 or so Hizbollah fighters and the Israeli soldiers who died) - are to be commemorated with the possible resignation of an Israeli prime minister who knew, and who cared, many Israelis suspect, little about war. Yes, Hizbollah provoked last summer's folly by capturing two Israeli soldiers on the Lebanese-Israel border, but Israel's response - so totally out of proportion to the sin - produced another debacle for the Israeli army and, presumably now, for its Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert.

Looking back at this terrifying, futile war, with its grotesque ambitions to "destroy" the Iranian-supported Hizbollah militia, it is incredible Mr Olmert did not realise within days that his grandiose demands would founder. Insisting the two captured Israeli soldiers should be released and the militarily powerless Lebanese government should be held responsible for their capture was never going to produce political or military results favourable to Israel. One would have to add that Tzipi Livni's demand for the Prime Mnister's resignation sits oddly with her support for this preposterous war.

A close reading of the interim report of Judge Eliahou Winograd's report on the summer war - to which Mr Olmert himself only granted the title the "Second Lebanon War" a month after it had happened - shows clearly that it was the Israeli army which ran the military, strategic and political campaign. Again and again in Winograd's report it is clear that Mr Olmert and his Defence Minister failed to challenge "in a competent way" (in the commission's devastating phrase) the plans of the Israeli army.

Day after day, for 34 days after 12 July, the Israeli air force systematically destroyed the major infrastructure of Lebanon, repeatedly claiming it was trying to avoid civilian casualties while the world's press watched its aircraft blasting men, women and children to pieces in Lebanon. Israelis, too, were savagely killed in this war by Hizbollah's Iranian-provided missiles. But it only proved the Israeli army, famous in legend and song but not in reality, could not protect their own people. Hizbollah fighters were told by their own leadership that if they would just withstand the air attacks, they could bite the Israeli land forces when they invaded.

And bite they did. In the final 24 hours of the war, 30 Israeli soldiers were killed by Hizbollah fighters and their land offensive, so loudly trumpeted by Mr Olmert, came to an end. During the conflict, a Hizbollah missile almost sank an Israeli corvette - it burnt for 24 hours and was towed back to Haifa before it was able to sink - and struck Israel's top secret military air traffic control centre at Miron. The soldiers captured on the border were never returned - pictures of them, still alive, are flaunted across the border at Israeli troops to this day - and Hizbollah, far from being destroyed, remain as powerful as ever;

And so one of Washington's last "pro-American" cabinets in the Middle East is now threatened by the very militia which Mr Olmert claimed he could destroy.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't know your unnamed Israeli Physician, and don't give his views any particular credence.

In fact the United States has not seen the kind of disaffection among its Arab citizens that has become so apparent in Europe. This is a matter much reported and commented on in the news, and the reasons for it are well known.

I agree that there is a widespread distemper in the Moslem world today. Its origins involve the stagnation of an Islamic culture that, though once at the leading edge of achievement, never experienced an Enlightenment and stagnated both politically and economically beginning in the 17th century. They also involve European colonialism (sixty years ago most of the Moslems in the world were ruled by Britain, France, Russia, and the Netherlands) and the massive betrayals of WWI.

Your physician suggests that the implantation of a Jewish state in Palestine has nothing to do with this distemper - instead it is all the result of a Jihadist determination to conquer the West. This is an obvious evasion and distortion of the truth. They are distinct problems and issues - and they are often mutually reinforcing.

I am truly struck by the irony of your evidently racist views of the struggle in Palestine.

While not, perhaps, reaching the level of Pal disloyalty in Spain, the UK, etc., the USA has seen plenty of this. There have been numerous arrests and convictions of Arab Americans who have supported our enemies. For some reason, you are blind to this.

0 Replies

How would you describe Jonathan Pollard ?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

...
Your physician suggests that the implantation of a Jewish state in Palestine has nothing to do with this distemper - instead it is all the result of a Jihadist determination to conquer the West. This is an obvious evasion and distortion of the truth. They are distinct problems and issues - and they are often mutually reinforcing.

I am truly struck by the irony of your evidently racist views of the struggle in Palestine.

Since when have the palestinian arabs become a race of humans distinguishable from the race of palestinian jews ( Confused

whatever race they are?)? I guess I'll have to get my answers from Mein Kampf.

For now I'll simply assume that the conflict between the jews and palestinian arabs is a cultural conflict. Whoops! That makes me a culturalist. In any case, their conflict has little to do with the alleged lack of equality of the rights of Israeli jews and of Israeli arabs. Their conflict has to do with the very existence of a jewish state in Palestine no matter what its character.

What do you expect would happen, say within ten years, if the Israelis declared this year that all the palestinian arabs possessed equal rights with all the palestinian jews and acted accordingly?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Since when have the palestinian arabs become a race of humans distinguishable from the race of palestinian jews ( whatever race they are?)? I guess I'll have to get my answers from Mein Kampf.

The IDF and the Israeli security services appear to have little trouble distinguishing between them.

ican711nm wrote:

For now I'll simply assume that the conflict between the jews and palestinian arabs is a cultural conflict. Whoops! That makes me a culturalist. In any case, their conflict has little to do with the alleged lack of equality of the rights of Israeli jews and of Israeli arabs. Their conflict has to do with the very existence of a jewish state in Palestine no matter what its character.

I believe the Palestinians have a number of issues with Israel; ranging from the seizure of their property & land; the denial of their political rights in their homeland in the West Bank; the denial of basic human rights by the IDF; to the unequal treatment of non Jews in the Israeli state, including rights to the ownership of property and rights of return or immigration. For many the issue, as you say, may well be the existence of Israel itself. However, they also have a very long list of other grievances -- issues which in other troubled parts of the world have been more than sufficient to ignite revolution and conflicts that in some cases have lasted for centuries.

ican711nm wrote:

What do you expect would happen, say within ten years, if the Israelis declared this year that all the palestinian arabs possessed equal rights with all the palestinian jews and acted accordingly?

This is more or less the argument that segregationists in the South put forward prior to 1960 to justify the continuation of their backward and unjust practices. It also has many features in common with the propaganda of the Nazis in Germany during the early years of their rule. Why should it get anything less than contempt coming from the protagonists of Israel?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

How would you describe Jonathan Pollard ?

Pollard was an American jew who spied on America for Israel. He did this despite the fact that he enjoyed equal rights with other Americans. Likewise, those American arabs who support our enemies do so despite the fact that they too enjoy equal rights with other Americans.

Both some American jews and some American arabs (as well as a certain American Hungarian Jew) are more loyal to their cultures than they are to America. In their case, equal rights is an inadequate incentive to be loyal Americans. Likewise in Palestine, equal rights between palestinian arabs and palestinian jews would not be an adequate incentive for the Palestinian arabs to shed their hatred of the jews for establishing their own nation state in Palestine. The only thing that might possibly placate the palestinian arabs is for the jews to hand over the governance of Israel to the palestinian arabs. I doubt that would actually be sufficient. What the palestinian arabs really want is for the population of palestinian jews to decrease to zero.

On the otherhand, the palestinian jews would be tolerant of a palestinian state in which they had no rights, but left them the hell alone in their own state.

0 Replies

George, you make it quite clear that you would love to see the demise of Israel. This motivates your many one-sided, mostly ridiculous, statements.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Since when have the palestinian arabs become a race of humans distinguishable from the race of palestinian jews ( whatever race they are?)? I guess I'll have to get my answers from Mein Kampf.

The IDF and the Israeli security services appear to have little trouble distinguishing between them.

Groups of people distinguish between each other based on other characteristics than race. For example, language, accent, clothing, facial hair, age, gender, height, weight, et cetera.

ican711nm wrote:

For now I'll simply assume that the conflict between the jews and palestinian arabs is a cultural conflict. Whoops! That makes me a culturalist. In any case, their conflict has little to do with the alleged lack of equality of the rights of Israeli jews and of Israeli arabs. Their conflict has to do with the very existence of a jewish state in Palestine no matter what its character.

I believe the Palestinians have a number of issues with Israel; ranging from the seizure of their property & land; the denial of their political rights in their homeland in the West Bank; the denial of basic human rights by the IDF; to the unequal treatment of non Jews in the Israeli state, including rights to the ownership of property and rights of return or immigration. For many the issue, as you say, may well be the existence of Israel itself. However, they also have a very long list of other grievances -- issues which in other troubled parts of the world have been more than sufficient to ignite revolution and conflicts that in some cases have lasted for centuries.

ican711nm wrote:

What do you expect would happen, say within ten years, if the Israelis declared this year that all the palestinian arabs possessed equal rights with all the palestinian jews and acted accordingly?
This is more or less the argument that segregationists in the South put forward prior to 1960 to justify the continuation of their backward and unjust practices. It also has many features in common with the propaganda of the Nazis in Germany during the early years of their rule. Why should it get anything less than contempt coming from the protagonists of Israel?

I asked a question. I did not make a statement much less make an argument. What is your answer to my question?

What is the "it" you are talking about when you allege "Why should it get anything less than contempt coming from the protagonists of Israel?" Is it really my question that is your "it"? If so, your last question would be such a stupid question that I would choose to match it with an equally stupid question to dramatize just how stupid your question is: Why should your last question get anything less than contempt coming from an antagonist of Israel?

0 Replies

No, I would like to see peace and justice prevail in the Middle east. I would like to see the United States disentangle itself from the sectarian strife there - for many reasons, including the hazards it creates for our own interests, and the generally bad effect it has had on the political evolution of that region for the past 50 years. I am saddened to observe that the Zionists of Israel could find no other solution for the victimization of Jews in Europe than the victimization of Palestinians in the Middle east.

You merely say that my statements are ridiculous, when I believe you know they are apt and true. You have so far offered nothing to contravert them.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
What do you expect would happen, say within ten years, if the Israelis declared this year that all the palestinian arabs possessed equal rights with all the palestinian jews and acted accordingly?

georgeob1 wrote:
This is more or less the argument that segregationists in the South put forward prior to 1960 to justify the continuation of their backward and unjust practices. It also has many features in common with the propaganda of the Nazis in Germany during the early years of their rule. Why should it get anything less than contempt coming from the protagonists of Israel?

I asked a question. I did not make a statement much less make an argument. What is your answer to my question?

What is the "it" you are talking about when you allege "Why should it get anything less than contempt coming from the protagonists of Israel?" Is it really my question that is your "it"? If so, your last question would be such a stupid question that I would choose to match it with an equally stupid question to dramatize just how stupid your question is: Why should your last question get anything less than contempt coming from an antagonist of Israel?

It of course refers to your question above concerning the possibility of equal rights for Palestinians. As I said this is precisely the argument offered by segregationists some decades ago about the hazards of giving equal rights to Blacks in the American South. The argument is indeed contemptable.

Apparently neither you nor Advocate can offer anything in rebuttal other than to call the criticism "stupid" or "ridiculous" - not very convincing.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
What do you expect would happen, say within ten years, if the Israelis declared this year that all the palestinian arabs possessed equal rights with all the palestinian jews and acted accordingly?

georgeob1 wrote:
This is more or less the argument that segregationists in the South put forward prior to 1960 to justify the continuation of their backward and unjust practices. It also has many features in common with the propaganda of the Nazis in Germany during the early years of their rule. Why should it get anything less than contempt coming from the protagonists of Israel?

I asked a question. I did not make a statement much less make an argument. What is your answer to my question?

What is the "it" you are talking about when you allege "Why should it get anything less than contempt coming from the protagonists of Israel?" Is it really my question that is your "it"? If so, your last question would be such a stupid question that I would choose to match it with an equally stupid question to dramatize just how stupid your question is: Why should your last question get anything less than contempt coming from an antagonist of Israel?

It of course refers to your question above concerning the possibility of equal rights for Palestinians. As I said this is precisely the argument offered by segregationists some decades ago about the hazards of giving equal rights to Blacks in the American South. The argument is indeed contemptable.

Apparently neither you nor Advocate can offer anything in rebuttal other than to call the criticism "stupid" or "ridiculous" - not very convincing.

My question was and still is:
What do you expect would happen, say within ten years, if the Israelis declared this year that all the palestinian arabs possessed equal rights with all the palestinian jews and [each] acted accordingly?

It is you who are avoiding answering my question by calling my question an argument and vilifying me. I am not making an argument by asking you this question. I simply want to know what you think would happen if the Israelis were to adopt that new policy.

In all my youthful and adult years, I never heard a segrationist from any location use the equivalent of my question as an argument for segragation. They falsely alleged that the blacks were inferior to whites in various ways, and they hysterically, falsely alleged that as a result ending segragation would prove harmful or even dangerous to whites. But I never heard them ask the equivalent of my question.

Answer my question! What do you think will happen, say within ten years, if the Israelis declared this year that all the palestinian arabs possessed equal rights with all the palestinian jews and [each] acted accordingly?

Here, if you prefer it, is an alternate statement of my question. Do you think that the Israelis declaring this year that all the palestinian arabs possessed equal rights with all the palestinian jews and [each] acted accordingly, is a necessary condition for there to be an end to the Palestinian conflict within say ten years.

I asked this question because I think the cause of the Palestinian conflict has little to do with what I perceive is your thinking that the lack of equal rights among arabs and jews is the primary cause of this conflict. I think the primary cause of this conflict is the fact that the arabs are convinced that the jews are illegal immigrants, and the jews are convinced the jews are not illegal immigrants.

If that be the case, neither a two-state Palestine or a one-state Palestine is a final solution to the Palestinian conflict. I think a conclusive war between them, or maintenance of the status quo are the only solutions available, until one or the other changes their mind about the legality of the jews presence in Palestine.

0 Replies

Neither you nor I can accurately predict the future. Basing a moral choice today on such a prediction is at best a rationalization. Precisely the kind rationalization used in the past to argue for the continued segregation of Blacks in this country; the continuation of Apartheidt in the former South Africa; and the Holocaust in Europe.

Clearly the present reality in the Middle East is a serious danger to all the peoples in the region and, as well, a significant added irritant to an already dangerous confrontation between the Islamic world and the West. Moreover there does not appear to have been any significant progress towards mutual accomodation and understanding by the contending parties over the past decades. Indeed the situation has signioficantly worsened, and the conflict shows all the characteristics of one that could last for centuries -- as have others.

Israel can be truly said to have a tiger by the tail -- and it is a situation of their own making, based on unwise, greedy, and unjust choices it made after the 1967 War. Their situation now involves dangers in any available policy option. Merely citing the risks associated with one path does not alone constitute a reason not to take it. This is an issue for them to decide, based on their own long-term interests.

Similarly, whether to continue to guarantee the security of one party in this dispute is an issue for the United States to decide, based on its own interests. The United States has no reason to continue risking its vital interests just to preserve the advantage of one party in this dispute, particularly one that has been acting with such injustice towards the people in the territory it has occupied for forty years. Despite the inclinations of some here to see a connection between the Zionist dream and the founding principles of this country, there is a profound difference between the real tribal/sectarian reality of Israel, and the principles which govern our political life.

0 Replies

George, you are entitled to your own opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

It is hardly worth debating you inasmuch you make up your own facts by the minute. Moreover, your hatred of Israel is palpable, making me wonder whether you are an Islamist.

I could continue to point out your many lies and errors, but what purpose would this serve?

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

George, you are entitled to your own opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

It is hardly worth debating you inasmuch you make up your own facts by the minute. Moreover, your hatred of Israel is palpable, making me wonder whether you are an Islamist.

I could continue to point out your many lies and errors, but what purpose would this serve?

What a farce. George has consistently linked to support his case, whereas you have consistently not done so. Lame.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know