old europe wrote:
...
ican711nm wrote:Blame the real culprits.
Oh, I do.
ican711nm wrote:Blame those who initiated mass murder and not those who try to protect themselves against mass murderers by attempting to kill those mass murderers.
Empty, hollow phrase. Sorry, ican. You've said that a thousand times, but it has almost nothing to do with the situation on 12 July 2006.
I blame those who think that certain goals are more important than the lives of innocent civilians.
How innocent are civilians who tolerate the existence of mass murderers in their midst that choose to mass murder civilians not in their midst? I say they aren't really innocent.
The Israelis wanted to try and rescue their captured soldiers. So they entered Lebanon where their soldiers' captors were located in a search for their captors. The kidnappers start firing rockets at Israeli civilians. The Israelies hysterically started dropping cluster bombs on whatever sites they thought contained those firing rockets at Israeli civilians. The net results of the whole senseless conflict were the deaths of hundreds of Israeli civilians and the deaths of many more Lebanese civilians.
There were two apparent solutions for the Israelies. Do their best to rescue their captured soldiers or negotiate a return of their captured soldiers. Choosing the first alternative led them to killing Lebanese civilians because they were not competent enough to avoid killing Lebanese civilians, and stopping the captors' rockets from killing Israeli civilians. Choosing the second alternative would have led them to be more likely victims of future captors
Alas, no civilians would have been killed had the Lebanese not tolerated soldier captors and rocket shooting murderers of civilian in their midst. I expect the Lebanese will not make that mistake again. They now know the Israelis are not competent enough to wage war against murderers without killing civilians in whose midst the murderers are located.
As a general self-interest rule, I would suggest that we should always do our best to prevent murderers of both others and ourselves from being in our midst. Its close to being equally risky to our lives and limbs if we don't.
ican711nm wrote:How innocent are civilians who tolerate the existence of mass murderers in their midst that choose to mass murder civilians not in their midst? I say they aren't really innocent.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but weren't the 9/11 terrorists living in the United States for quite a while before the attacks?
If that's the case, does that mean that they were tolerated by Americans? And if that's the case, does that mean that those American civilians are not really innocent in regard to the 9/11 attacks?
Enlighten me, please.
ican711nm wrote:The Israelis wanted to try and rescue their captured soldiers. So they entered Lebanon where their soldiers' captors were located in a search for their captors. The kidnappers start firing rockets at Israeli civilians. The Israelies hysterically started dropping cluster bombs on whatever sites they thought contained those firing rockets at Israeli civilians. The net results of the whole senseless conflict were the deaths of hundreds of Israeli civilians and the deaths of many more Lebanese civilians.
Oh yes. I just don't think somebody who's 'hysterically dropping cluster bombs' cannot be blamed for the result of that action.
ican711nm wrote:There were two apparent solutions for the Israelies. Do their best to rescue their captured soldiers or negotiate a return of their captured soldiers. Choosing the first alternative led them to killing Lebanese civilians because they were not competent enough to avoid killing Lebanese civilians, and stopping the captors' rockets from killing Israeli civilians. Choosing the second alternative would have led them to be more likely victims of future captors
You really seem to think there were only two solutions. Sad. It's that black-and-white point of view that makes you sound really radical.
Of course, Israel could have acted in lots of ways. It could have sent a small team. It could have contacted the Lebanese government. It could have addressed the United Nations. Many, many options. Some of them better, some of them not so good. However, the course the chose resulted in the death of hundreds of innocent civilians (and for me, there's simply no difference between dead Lebanese and dead Israeli civilians), and therefore, it was a really bad course of action.
ican711nm wrote:Alas, no civilians would have been killed had the Lebanese not tolerated soldier captors and rocket shooting murderers of civilian in their midst.
You're blaming Lebanese civilians for the fact that Hezbollah was operating out of Lebanon. That's like blaming Americans for 9/11, based on the fact that terrorists took flight lessons in the United States.
ican711nm wrote:I expect the Lebanese will not make that mistake again.
Yeah. No. They seem to be quite dead.
ican711nm wrote:They now know the Israelis are not competent enough to wage war against murderers without killing civilians in whose midst the murderers are located.
Is that supposed to be an argument in favour of the IDF?
ican711nm wrote:As a general self-interest rule, I would suggest that we should always do our best to prevent murderers of both others and ourselves from being in our midst. Its close to being equally risky to our lives and limbs if we don't.
How would we go about doing that?
Israel could have easily killed several hundred thousands in Leb, but worked hard to avoid this (with pamphlets, etc.). Hez, however, has always worked hard to kill as many civilians as possible.
Advocate wrote:Israel could have easily killed several hundred thousands in Leb, but worked hard to avoid this (with pamphlets, etc.). Hez, however, has always worked hard to kill as many civilians as possible.
In that case, how do you explain that the IDF killed ten times as many innocent civilians as Hezbollah?
old europe wrote:Advocate wrote:Israel could have easily killed several hundred thousands in Leb, but worked hard to avoid this (with pamphlets, etc.). Hez, however, has always worked hard to kill as many civilians as possible.
In that case, how do you explain that the IDF killed ten times as many innocent civilians as Hezbollah?
Israel didn't kill the civilians. Hez did it by hiding among the civilians.
Advocate wrote:Had German Americans moved to Germany just before WWII at the request of Germany, you can be sure that OE would not allow them to return.
With Israel, it is always a double standard wherein Israel is always at fault.
Your analogy between Palestinians and German Americans is inept. The US didn't perpetrate ethnic cleansing against German Americans to dispossess them of their country (and before you go into one of your ridiculous non-sequiturs about Palestine not being a nation, I'm using the word 'country' in the sense of "the land of a person's birth, residence, or citizenship [Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, definition 2 a].)"
A better analogy would be between the Zionists' ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the US' ethnic cleansing of Native Americans.
The Israelis could learn something from the way the US has attempted to redresss it's tort against the Amerindians. That is not to say that the US has done enough, or has been effective enough in its attempts, but Israel has a long way to go to even reach the level of redress that the US has achieved.
Nonsense is right; what ever happened to their common sense if they ever had it. The police doesn't kill the civilians just because a killer is hiding amongst them.
You say that Israel is guilty of ethnic cleansing. Well, they certainly did a poor job, with millions of Pals in Israel and in the WB and Gaza.
We should talk about the Arab Pals who are driving out the Christians and other minorities. And don't forget how they massacred every Jew in Hebron. Now that is real ethnic cleansing.
Advocate wrote:You say that Israel is guilty of ethnic cleansing. Well, they certainly did a poor job, with millions of Pals in Israel and in the WB and Gaza.
Yeah, Benny Morris also laments the fact that the Haganah didn't ethnically cleans all of the land that came under the control of the Zionist forces, and instead allowed those Palestinians to remain for public relations purposes.
Quote:We should talk about the Arab Pals who are driving out the Christians and other minorities.
Um, apparently you're ignorant of this, but those Christians and other minorities that you refer to are by and large
Arab. The groups doing the driving out to whom you refer are
Islamists.
Quote:And don't forget how they massacred every Jew in Hebron. Now that is real ethnic cleansing.
You have your facts wrong about "how they massacred every Jew in Hebron." According to the
Jewish Virtual Library, "by the time the massacres ended, 67 Jews lay dead and the survivors were relocated to Jerusalem, leaving Hebron barren of Jews for the first time in hundreds of years."
Yeah, it's tragic and unfortunate what occurs when one people systematically dispossess another people of their country. The dispossessed tend to get violent. To this very day we're seeing in Israel/Palestine the after affects of those actions.
Infra said: "Um, apparently you're ignorant of this, but those Christians and other minorities that you refer to are by and large Arab. The groups doing the driving out to whom you refer are Islamists."
Um, I didn't say anything different. I guess you are ignorant that the cleansers are Islamist Pals.
Is that anything like the Zionists?
Advi wrote:Infra said: "Um, apparently you're ignorant of this, but those Christians and other minorities that you refer to are by and large Arab. The groups doing the driving out to whom you refer are Islamists."
Um, I didn't say anything different. I guess you are ignorant that the cleansers are Islamist Pals.
Geez, you wrote:
We should talk about the Arab Pals who are driving out the Christians and other minorities.
You made a distinction between "Arab Pals" and "Christian and other minorities." The point is that those Christian and other minorities are Arab Palestinians. There is no distinction there. The difference is between those Arab Palestinian Christians and other minorities, and the Arab Palestinian Islamists who are doing the driving out. Do you understand, Advi?
InfraBlue wrote:Advi wrote:Infra said: "Um, apparently you're ignorant of this, but those Christians and other minorities that you refer to are by and large Arab. The groups doing the driving out to whom you refer are Islamists."
Um, I didn't say anything different. I guess you are ignorant that the cleansers are Islamist Pals.
Geez, you wrote:
We should talk about the Arab Pals who are driving out the Christians and other minorities.
You made a distinction between "Arab Pals" and "Christian and other minorities." The point is that those Christian and other minorities are Arab Palestinians. There is no distinction there. The difference is between those Arab Palestinian Christians and other minorities, and the Arab Palestinian Islamists who are doing the driving out. Do you understand, Advi?
I see you are another asinine nitpicker.
Advocate wrote: I see you are another asinine nitpicker.
Is that the result of all your posts (at least most) being asinine?
cicerone imposter wrote:Is that anything like the Zionists?
Duh, the Zionists didn't do ethnic cleansing. That's why there are so many Pals inside and out of Israel. But take a look at what the Islamists are doing throughout the ME. Now that is ethnic and religious cleansing.
Advocate wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Is that anything like the Zionists?
Duh, the Zionists didn't do ethnic cleansing. That's why there are so many Pals inside and out of Israel.
You deny, and the
Jewish Virtual Library downplays the Zionists' ethnic cleansing, but that's not what Benny Morris has to say about the matter. In a 2004 interview with Ha'aretz he talked about some of the facts he brings up in his book, [1]The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited[/i], "There were twenty-four small scale massacres perpetrated by the Israeli forces in 1948. Morris says, "in some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot. There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing and killed anything that moved.
"The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.
"That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres."
There was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order in Operation Hiram. "One of the revelations in the book [The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, 2004] is that on October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth."
Advi wrote:But take a look at what the Islamists are doing throughout the ME. Now that is ethnic and religious cleansing.
What the Islamists are doing throughout the ME does not negate the fact that the Zionists perpetrated ethnic cleansing in Palestine in 1948.
By Ran HaCohen:
December 30, 2002
Ethnic Cleansing: Past, Present and Future
There is a puzzling paradox about Holocaust denial: those who deny it are precisely the ones who would have supported it. I couldn't help thinking of this paradox when I heard that American university professors have recently been accused of anti-Semitism (!) for signing a document warning against Israeli intentions to drive out masses of Palestinians, possibly during a American attack on Iraq. It seems that those likely to support such a crime are precisely the ones who so vehemently deny that Israel might be contemplating it.
In Israel itself, however, the idea of "transfer" - the common euphemism for ethnic cleansing or mass deportation - is discussed openly. Several political parties support it; one of them is in Sharon's cabinet. They may speak of "voluntary transfer", but Minister Benny Elon has been quite explicit about what they mean by "voluntary": It's like a man who refuses to give his wife a divorce, he said. According to Jewish law, the defiant husband can be jailed and slashed until he - "voluntarily" - complies. (If you wonder why Israel is turning Palestinian life into hell, this - not the futile "war on terrorism" - is the answer.)
Gamla, a group founded by former Israeli military officers and settlers, offers a detailed plan for forcibly expelling all Palestinians, both from the occupied territories and the Palestinian citizens of Israel, within a 3-5 year period. This may be too long for some: there are persistent reports that Ariel Sharon has ordered his forces to prepare to drive hundreds of thousands of Palestinians over the border into Jordan, possibly on the day the United States conflict starts against Iraq. Sharon has recently rejected an official Jordanian request that Israel issue a public declaration opposing the "Transfer" of Palestinians (Haaretz, 29.11.02).
As recent Jewish history shows, the way from mass-deportation to mass-murder is a dangerously short one. Recall that Hitler's death camps were his second-best "solution" for the Jewish "problem": at first, the Third Reich intended "just" to deport (or "re-settle") the Jews to wherever possible - Palestine, Eastern Europe, Madagascar.
How come - in a poll conducted last April - 44% of Jewish Israelis, a people that suffered both deportation and extermination, support similar measures against the Palestinians? One possible answer is that people do not learn from History, or learn the wrong lessons. I don't think it is the answer in this case. The fact is that Israelis and Israel-supporters do not refuse to learn from History: they deny History. The denied historical pattern keeps duplicating itself, and won't stop until its denial is stopped.
Ethnic Cleansing: The Past
What people fail to recognise is that Israel owes its very existence as a Jewish State to massive ethnic cleansing. The overall picture is undisputed: In 1948, there were about 600.000 Jews in Palestine. The number of Palestinians driven out from the territory taken by Israel in 1947-1949 is estimated at 600.000 to 720.000 (says the nationalistic Israeli historian Benny Morris in his authoritative The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem); about 100.000 Palestinians, a.k.a Israeli Arabs, remained. Without driving most of the Arabs out, then, or without prohibiting their return after the war, no Jewish majority could have been established.
This information is not part of the Israeli collective consciousness. Israelis confronted with it would deny it, often out of true ignorance. Everybody in Israel knows that many Arabs left in 1948. There is some controversy among laymen about whether they fled the war zone spontaneously ("their own fault"), were encouraged to leave by Arab leaders, or were expelled; experts agree that all three factors played a role. Older people still remember "that Arab village down the road, that was erased once the inhabitants left". But the extent of the Palestinian exodus, especially in proportion to the Jewish population, is virtually suppressed.
The Price of Denial
When denial is no longer possible, Israel-supporters faced with this information tend to take refuge in an accusation like "so you deny Israel's right to exist". This procedure is logically, morally, and practically wrong.
Logically wrong, because what was born in sin does not necessarily lose its right to exist. Some people claim we were all born in sin, yet they do not demand that we all commit suicide. Few people would deny the crimes committed against Native Americans, yet I never heard that the US should be dismantled because of them.
Morally wrong, because recognising historical facts should not depend on their political implications. One cannot deny a fact simply because one does not like its consequences.
And, finally, practically wrong, because if Israelis were aware of the ethnic cleansing of 1948, they would not be so eager to try this abortive "solution" once again. I doubt how many Israelis would think repeating the crime is a good way to peace, if they were aware of the fact that the hundreds of thousands driven out in 1948 have now grown into millions of refugees along Israel's borders, whose hatred towards Israel and whose desire to return home have been nurtured by decades of humiliation and discrimination in Lebanon, Syria or Jordan.
Just like we demand the Arabs to recognise the Holocaust, recognising the ethnic cleansing of 1948 is a precondition to reconciliation. As long as most (pro-) Israelis deny it, Israel is in danger of repeating it. Since Israel's political system is run by former generals responsible for the ethnic cleansing of 1948, since the military echelon is run by their devoted disciples, warnings of Israel's intentions to repeat the crime in the (possibly near) future should be taken very seriously.
We all know who the deniers are on this thread.
