hardly fair to post this at 1:30 AM for some of us, although I should point out that the article mentions nothing about what Palistinians due to Israeli's.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
You're right, Blayne. They don't mention what the Palestinians do. I guess that invalidates the article. I'm wondering, the next time you're reading a screed against the PLO or Palestinians in our media, do you stop and think, "they don't mention what the Israelis do"?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
We all know what the Palestinians do. Every time they fire a missile it's on the news, every time there is a suicide bombing it's on the news, even here. Western media hardly lacks for reporting on Palestinian atrocities committed against Israelis.
To be fair, when Israelis counterattack and kill dozens of Palestinians, they generally report that too, though it generally takes a fair bit of digging to find that 90% of those killed are usually civilians as collateral damage.
I'd like to see an independent investigation of these claims, but I don't know who could possibly do it fairly. I wouldn't trust the IDF, or anyone on the Palestinian side, and who would the IDF give access to that would be seen as credible?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:o be fair, when Israelis counterattack and kill dozens of Palestinians, they generally report that too, though it generally takes a fair bit of digging to find that 90% of those killed are usually civilians as collateral damage.
It takes a bit less digging to find that that is a patently false statement.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Half then. And a quick Google news search will back me up on that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Every time they fire a missile it's on the news, every time there is a suicide bombing it's on the news, even here
Without looking, about how many rocket attacks have you heard about since March 1?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I think it does qualify as a reign of terror. The definition of "terror" has a history of never being agreed upon though:
One definition, (A British scholar whose last name is O'Kane, forget her first) said that what characterizes terror is that innocent victims are targeted, and that the purveyors of violence feel they are delivering "summary justice". (This definition is a little contradictory, because if the people are innocent, how can justice be visited upon them?) In any case, innocent people in Gaza are dying, and many Israelis feel that their incursions are a just response to the rockets and bombings.
If these two facts are true about the situation, is it not terror? (If there is a better definition of terror that I don't know about, we could deal with that too.)
Some news from the last few days that I think demonstrates innocents are being punished and that (at least the leadership of) Israel sees this as justice:
I think any response that tries to minimize the importance of these pieces of news, which implies such treatment is deserved because of what Israelis have suffered, is not going to help this conversation. Neither side's terrorist actions should be excused in terms of the other's.
Also, we should recognize Israeli troops' behavior like what is mentioned in the_Somalian's link as a major contributing factor to the Palestinian terrorism, in addition to examining how much of this behavior could be explained by fears and pressure generated by Palestinian terrorists. If we just look at half of the cycle of violence, we're not going to get a good picture of what causes what. If you are going to consider the "terror" confessed by Israeli troops only in terms of being a response to Hamas terrorism, it is still inhumane, cruel and unusual. Any action on either side to continue the violence is wrong.
Americans should pay special attention to reports like this, because this is our tax dollars at work. We subsidize Israel's military heavily, and we're paying for atrocities. I don't want to be responsible for that, and I will not excuse it even if Israelis are afraid of Palestinian terrorists.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Hamas is a terrorist organization and I should point out the Palistinians brought this upon themselves they started it by trying to wipe Israel off the map.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
How incredibly simplistic of you Blayne. Taking perhaps the most complex and controversial conflict in the world and reducing it to one ignorant sentence. You even misspelled "Palestinians".
If I didn't know you, I'd think perhaps you were going for an intentional parody.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think any response that tries to minimize the importance of these pieces of news, which implies such treatment is deserved because of what Israelis have suffered, is not going to help this conversation.
Sure it's not going to help the conversation.
Then again, your partisanship on behalf of Palestinians probably won't be helpful either. Because the truth is that while there's now a cycle of violence over there, cycles have to start somewhere.
Who do you think started taking the cycle of violence and directing it towards civilians, Nato?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm pretty sure the cycle of violence has been going on in that part of the world for at least 3000 years now. With violence mostly suppressed during the times that it was in the grip of various strong and oppressive empires and breaking out again as each one falls.
"Who started it" arguments go nowhere.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's not even that they go nowhere, they're uselessly unanswerable. "Who started it" arguments can go back more than 2,000 years. Who started it is an academic debate at this point, they both keep it going. Besides, two wrongs don't make a right. Since suicide bombers attacked innocents, Israelis can freely do it too? Both sides are morally bankrupt under that theory.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Without looking, about how many rocket attacks have you heard about since March 1?
Heard about? Off the top of my head; almost always at least one a day. Sometimes more.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It's not even that they go nowhere, they're uselessly unanswerable. "Who started it" arguments can go back more than 2,000 years. Who started it is an academic debate at this point, they both keep it going. Besides, two wrongs don't make a right. Since suicide bombers attacked innocents, Israelis can freely do it too? Both sides are morally bankrupt under that theory.
Israel doesn't 'freely' do it in any event. Given their military advantage, if they were 'freely' doing it it would be so obvious that there wouldn't be any argument over it.
And anyway, there are cycles within cycles. Sure, an overall 'cycle of violence' has been going on in that area for thousands of years. But it hasn't been going on between Israelis and Palestinians, unless I'm very much mistaken.
The trouble is, people advancing ideas similar to Nato's here frequently in my experience say things like, "It doesn't matter who started it," but then go on to point to 'major contributing factors' to terrorism-another way of, you guessed it, pointing a finger and saying, "They started it!"
And in any case, just because the answer isn't helpful doesn't mean there isn't an answer to the question I asked. Of the two primary sides in this conflict, there is one side which has made an overall strategy out of targeting civilians.
quote:Heard about? Off the top of my head; almost always at least one a day. Sometimes more.
I confess I'm frankly skeptical that you hear about it so often, Lyrhawn. If you say you do, I'll believe you, but...I just took a glance over at CNN's world news section, specifically the Middle East, and didn't see one mention of the rocket attacks within the past four days of headlines.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The trouble is, people advancing ideas similar to Nato's here frequently in my experience say things like, "It doesn't matter who started it," but then go on to point to 'major contributing factors' to terrorism-another way of, you guessed it, pointing a finger and saying, "They started it!"
And in any case, just because the answer isn't helpful doesn't mean there isn't an answer to the question I asked. Of the two primary sides in this conflict, there is one side which has made an overall strategy out of targeting civilians.
Yeah I see what you're saying. If you really want to look at who started it, blame the Germans, blame the British. Without the holocaust, I doubt we'd be in this mess. Without the British playing cartographer in the middle east, we wouldn't be in a lot other messes in addition to this one (namely, the mess in Iraq, including the first Gulf War).
As for who started the current mess? I think if you look at who started attacking civilians on purpose, as in targeting them for maximum damage, the answer is Palestinian groups like Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyrs. But I wonder at what point that stops mattering when it comes to finding a solution. I know that it's easy, from Nato's position to say that Israel only fuels the fire with its actions, ensuring that more and more people join with the more violent ranks in attacking Israelis, but that's why they call it a cycle, because Israel can't do nothing, they HAVE to attack, and as a consequence of so many Palestinian targets hiding amongst civilians, the only way to get them is to suffer the collateral civilian casualties that are sure to come as a consequences of those Hamas and other groups' leaders decision to place themselves in civilian areas. But the Palestinian people don't make those kinds of nuanced analyses.
I still think that they will never be able to solve this problem themselves. Israel will never be able to stand back when they are attacked, they will ALWAYS move back in or retaliate in some way, which will keep it going, and groups like Hamas won't stop their attacks either. Unless a third party steps in to broker a deal AND act as a third party security force to keep them both in line, it will never work.
quote:I confess I'm frankly skeptical that you hear about it so often, Lyrhawn. If you say you do, I'll believe you, but...I just took a glance over at CNN's world news section, specifically the Middle East, and didn't see one mention of the rocket attacks within the past four days of headlines.
Well to be fair, the wording I used may have been misleading, but it's correct given the way Dag worded his question. I don't see daily news articles on it, between CNN, the BBC, Al-Jazeera English and a couple other news agencies I generally read about it every four or five days, usually only when someone actually is killed or injured, which, considering the frequency of the attacks and the number of missiles fired, isn't as often as you might think. I read about structural damage more often than I do deaths. But every time I read one of those stories they never fail to mention that there have been daily attacks. So while each individual attack doesn't make the news as it happens, they still make the news.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: We all know what the Palestinians do. Every time they fire a missile it's on the news, every time there is a suicide bombing it's on the news, even here.
That's not even slightly true. The almost daily rocket attacks from Gaza aren't even news any more, and they do not get reported here except when they manage to kill people. Not even as page 37 filler.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
There's no "cycle of violence". Israel wants to live in peace. How polite do you expect us to be when the Arabs, raised on a diet of incitement to atrocity, do their very best to wipe us off the planet?
That's their goal. They aren't interested in peace of any kind. They have one end-game, and that's exactly the same as Ahmedinajad's. Wipe Israel out.
And this article is the kind of sick propaganda piece I'd expect from the Independent. Also the sick kind of thing I'd expect from the Somalian, who has already shown what his agenda is.
And Xavier, Blayne isn't being simplistic at all. It's the situation that's simplistic. There's a good side here, and an evil side. The Palestinian Arab side is evil. It isn't a matter of some of them committing atrocities from time to time. It is a national policy to commit the most animalistic acts of vile terror. They brainwash their children, they brainwash their entire population.
All you really need to do is look at their music, and at Israeli music. Israelis sing about peace. They yearn for peace. They make the most incredibly damn-fool quixotic sacrifices for peace. And what do they get in return? Murder. Atrocities.
They are evil. They are the first population that I would call really, seriously evil, since the Nazis in Germany. They have no excuse.
Those who don't carry out the atrocities support those who do. I'm sick to death of hearing about how there are really Palestinian Arabs who are against the terror, but are afraid to say so. Screw them. They are as guilty as the ones who commit the acts. It couldn't happen without their willing participation.
They need to be put out. Period. They need to be sent elsewhere and never allowed back again, not even for a visit.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Websites have page 37 filler?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Some news from the last few days that I think demonstrates innocents are being punished and that (at least the leadership of) Israel sees this as justice:
This is a bunch of crap. They have a border with Egypt, which they aren't at war with. Why does Israel have the obligation to feed and support its own executioners? The fact that Israel does, in fact, feed and support them, is stupid, because it means that any time they let that support slack, we get propagandistic drivel like the stuff Nato posts here.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: They need to be put out. Period. They need to be sent elsewhere and never allowed back again, not even for a visit.
On the same line of thought, I think peace can just as easily come if the Israelis are kicked out, and not allowed back in for a visit. After all, Israel is a mistake. Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Why does Israel have the obligation to feed and support its own executioners?
Because they stole these people's land?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
That's dumb. We didn't steal anyone's land. If there was any stealing, it was done by the Arab marauders who stole our land at a time when we were helpless to stop them.
We never gave up our ownership to our land. Not for a day. Not for an hour. And even so, when we started building our land up again -- the land that the Arabs had been so kind as to turn mostly to desert during their barbaric tenure there -- we paid exorbinant prices for land that already belonged to us. The Arabs, though, couldn't accept that the Middle East wasn't going to remain their sole fiefdom any more, so they started murdering us.
Keep telling all the lies you want, Somalian. We both know that some people will believe you. But believe that I'll call you on the lies every time.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: They need to be put out. Period. They need to be sent elsewhere and never allowed back again, not even for a visit.
On the same line of thought, I think peace can just as easily come if the Israelis are kicked out, and not allowed back in for a visit. After all, Israel is a mistake.
Notice that he says it's a mistake, basically, because Muslims are barbarians who cannot reach a civilized peace with anyone. Do you agree? Are Muslims so filled with hatred and an inability to get along with anyone that the only solution is for everyone to give in to their bullying and run away?
Well, the Muslims couldn't get along with the Hindus, which is why Pakistan exists. They couldn't get along with Christians, which is why Lebanon exists. They couldn't get along with Jews, which is why the UN tried to partition our land. Are you seeing a pattern here?
How disgusting is is that there's a religion out that so full of poison and hatred that they have the whole damned world afraid of them. Then you complain about "Islamophobia" being some sort of problem. Well, there's what to be afraid of.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Israel was not a mistake any more Palistine was a mistake if anything the mistake was not making a jewish state that governed all of palistine from the start.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Why does Israel have the obligation to feed and support its own executioners?
Because they stole these people's land?
Possibly the stupidest comment I've heard this week, and you're competing with someone I overheard saying to his friend as they passed: "...So yeah, that's something I've had to come to copes with..."
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Nickel says this one gets locked...
Palestinians: not justified in targetting innocent civilians. Period. If you claim otherwise, you're wrong.
Israelis: not justified in targetting innocent civilians. Period. If you claim otherwise, you're wrong.
Neither side is willing to allow an act of violence to pass without violent retribution. And so anyone, anyone can destroy whatever fragile peace can be negotiated, and there's nothing anyone, no matter their intentions, can do to prevent that!
If you believe that every civilian on one side can be flagged as an enemy combatant as a matter of course, then whatever nice words or strident rhetoric you might use, you are advocating genocide.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It's well known that Israelis only pray for peace, and also that your loved ones die horribly from rat-poison covered shrapnel.
They're a loving people, innocent of any wrong. Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: This is a bunch of crap. They have a border with Egypt, which they aren't at war with. Why does Israel have the obligation to feed and support its own executioners? The fact that Israel does, in fact, feed and support them, is stupid, because it means that any time they let that support slack, we get propagandistic drivel like the stuff Nato posts here.
It's not so much that I think Israel has an obligation to provide for every need of those in Gaza or the West Bank.. But Israel has taken from these people their ability to make their living. The fishing fleet in Gaza is blockaded and risks being fired upon if they try to fish. Olive trees that take 30 years to become productive have been bulldozed by Israeli soldiers. Israel destroyed the US-funded main power plant for Gaza and withheld owed tax dollars to the democratically elected government for quite some time. (You would probably know better than I whether or not all the owed tax dollars had been returned to Gaza). You say the border with Egypt is meaningful, but Israel pressured Egypt to close its border with Gaza when it had been breached, urging them to stop the flow of people streaming across the border to buy food. The hospitals in Gaza have little power or supplies, yet Israel routinely delays and denies requests to transfer patients. The sewage system doesn't work because of the loss of power... I think when you've blown up the power station, you bear some responsibility if there is an outbreak of cholera due to the sewage stagnating.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Nickel says this one gets locked...
If so, that's a shame. We aren't grown up enough to discuss some real problems even one of the times they arise? If this topic gets locked this time, we need to figure out what causes that problem and change it so that we can discuss Palestine. If later the world decides that this was genocide, we will all have egg on our faces if we couldn't even talk about it responsibly.
Anyway, it's clear that the cycle of violence is spinning.. It's up to everybody involved to denounce terrorism in all its forms, and neither side should wait for the other to do so. (And it's up to us on the outside to try and be as honest as possible about what is going on) Watching news footage about the suicide bombings the other day made me sad. A whole generation on each side has grown up in light of terror, and now they are twisted. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Maybe others do not feel this way, but it seems to me that starting a thread that includes nothing beyond a link is a mite tacky. It's even more so when it's obvious the topic is volatile. At the very least, some sort of statement on your own position from the get go is warranted.
You've sub sequentially done so, but I'd take it as a kindness if you could do us this favor in the future.
[ April 22, 2008, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I don't normally comment on these threads, but I just wanted to say thanks for the link in the OP. I was already aware of the organization, but it was good to read more about it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Palestinians: not justified in targetting innocent civilians. Period. If you claim otherwise, you're wrong.
Agreed. And I'd add that Palestinian Arabs: Do target innocent civilians. Period. If you claim otherwise, you're wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Israelis: not justified in targetting innocent civilians. Period. If you claim otherwise, you're wrong.
Agreed. And I'd add that Israelis: Do not target innocent civilians. Period. If you claim otherwise, you're wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Neither side is willing to allow an act of violence to pass without violent retribution.
Factually, demonstrably, wrong. The Palestinian Arabs have been bombing Israel from Gaza from the first day after the pullout. Israel only periodically takes action against them. Why don't you get your facts straight before shooting from the hip like this?
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: If you believe that every civilian on one side can be flagged as an enemy combatant as a matter of course, then whatever nice words or strident rhetoric you might use, you are advocating genocide.
Israel does no such thing.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: This is a bunch of crap. They have a border with Egypt, which they aren't at war with. Why does Israel have the obligation to feed and support its own executioners? The fact that Israel does, in fact, feed and support them, is stupid, because it means that any time they let that support slack, we get propagandistic drivel like the stuff Nato posts here.
It's not so much that I think Israel has an obligation to provide for every need of those in Gaza or the West Bank.. But Israel has taken from these people their ability to make their living.
That's a lie.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: The fishing fleet in Gaza is blockaded and risks being fired upon if they try to fish.
How many times do we have to catch them bringing weapons in that way before it's not our problem?
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Olive trees that take 30 years to become productive have been bulldozed by Israeli soldiers.
You make it sound like we said, "Let's go bulldoze some olive trees to hurt some Arabs." When the Palestinian Arabs are unceasing in their attempts to commit atrocities against us, we have to do what we have to do for security. If trees got uprooted in the process, well, tough luck for the Palestinian Arabs. Maybe they should stop trying to kill us.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Israel destroyed the US-funded main power plant for Gaza and withheld owed tax dollars to the democratically elected government for quite some time.
"Owed tax dollars" forsooth. How much has their war against us cost? In dollars and in lives. You forgot the part about Israel supplying electricity to them, and them refusing to pay for it.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: (You would probably know better than I whether or not all the owed tax dollars had been returned to Gaza). You say the border with Egypt is meaningful, but Israel pressured Egypt to close its border with Gaza when it had been breached, urging them to stop the flow of people streaming across the border to buy food.
Propagandistic nonsense. The Palestinian Arabs were bringing weapons in that way; not just food.
See, that's the issue. They use ambulances to smuggle weapons and bombs. They store munitions in residential areas. They don't value human life; not even their own. They don't care if they use their own people as human shields. Israel does its best to avoid harming non-combatants, but bottom line, our safety comes before the safety of willing human shields.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: The hospitals in Gaza have little power or supplies, yet Israel routinely delays and denies requests to transfer patients.
To Israeli hospitals? Where they get the best treatment in the Middle East? For free? So that they can go back and murder more of us? Delays are inevitable when they've shown that they will use pleas of medical necessity to smuggle in suicide bombers. We aren't sheep, Nato. We're not stupid enough to let them do it again and again. Any delays are on their own heads.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: The sewage system doesn't work because of the loss of power... I think when you've blown up the power station, you bear some responsibility if there is an outbreak of cholera due to the sewage stagnating.
You think wrong. See, this is why it's a bad idea to make war against someone. Because, you know, they might strike back and harm your infrastructure. To whine that they're responsible for the loss of infrastructure is beyond nervy. No. The Palestinian Arabs have brought all of their misfortunes upon themselves. If they weren't engaged in war against the very existence of Israel, Israel wouldn't have to take steps to keep them from doing so. They'd have their precious infrastructure. It is their own fault. It is their own responsibility.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Anyway, it's clear that the cycle of violence is spinning.. It's up to everybody involved to denounce terrorism in all its forms, and neither side should wait for the other to do so. (And it's up to us on the outside to try and be as honest as possible about what is going on) Watching news footage about the suicide bombings the other day made me sad. A whole generation on each side has grown up in light of terror, and now they are twisted.
It was by design. The Arabs grew this generation like a horticulturist grows a special breed of plant.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Maybe others do not feel this way, but it seems to me that starting a thread that includes nothing beyond a link is a mite tacky. It's even more so when it's obvious the topic is volatile. At the very least, some sort of statement on your own position from the get go is warranted.
You've sub sequentially done so, but I'd take it as a kindness if you could do us this favor in the future.
The Somalian has made his agenda perfectly clear. He's started three threads in the last week or so. One used quotes in the title to deny that Israel has any right to exist. One was his Islamophobia thread. And this is the third. You work it out.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
quote:But I wonder at what point that stops mattering when it comes to finding a solution.
In the abstract world of theoretical problem solving, 'who started it' really doesn't matter very much. You're right. Unfortunately this particular set of problems doesn't exist in that world, it exists in the world where people like and are sometimes even comforted by setting blame to one party or another.
It matters-for better or worse-because whose fault it is matters to people. And anyway, just because you decide that one party is more at 'fault' than the other doesn't mean that you can't move on from there.
quote:But the Palestinian people don't make those kinds of nuanced analyses.
Perhaps not in the way you're describing, no. Then again, there is definitely some sort of analysis going on when hiding in a civilian neighborhood is tolerated. Sometimes it's going to be for fear of reprisals, sometimes it's going to be they don't really know who's hiding in their `hood, and sometimes it's going to be approval, but there's definitely some reasoning going on.
quote:Israel will never be able to stand back when they are attacked, they will ALWAYS move back in or retaliate in some way, which will keep it going...
Here's the flaw I see: you seem to be suggesting that if Israel didn't respond violently to attacks, those attacks would stop. I fail to understand how anyone could arrive at that conclusion. "They're killing us" is not the only reason Palestinians attack Israelis, remember.
-----------
quote:Those who don't carry out the atrocities support those who do. I'm sick to death of hearing about how there are really Palestinian Arabs who are against the terror, but are afraid to say so. Screw them. They are as guilty as the ones who commit the acts. It couldn't happen without their willing participation.
Well, that's just foolish. There is such a thing as duress. There's a reason we have a word for it. It doesn't absolve responsibility, but it does change things.
-------------
Nato,
quote:Israel destroyed the US-funded main power plant for Gaza and withheld owed tax dollars to the democratically elected government for quite some time.
Are you really going to state it so blandly and pretend that's it? Israel withholds money from HAMAS. Shocking!
quote:It's up to everybody involved to denounce terrorism in all its forms, and neither side should wait for the other to do so.
I think you've got an unorthodox definition for the word 'denounce', then. I haven't been on Hatrack as much as I used to, but if memory serves you've never denounced Palestinian terrorism without pointing to some Israeli offense that somehow caused it or, wait, was a 'major contributing factor'.
The IDF does some pretty damn bad things sometimes. But it's not policy for them to do really bad things like it's policy for their enemies. Again, if it was policy it would be so obvious the issue would be beyond argument.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I wondered when Lisa was going to show up and prove her moral superiority by bullying and insulting people.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Israel withholds money from HAMAS. Shocking!
The fact that Israel is justified in this cannot be emphasized enough.
On NPR yesterday, they quoted Carter as saying that Hamas would accept a settlement negotiated by the non-Hamas government in the West Bank if the Palestinian people approved it in referendum.
However, when giving the details, Carter said that in response to his pressing them to accept Israel's continued existence, they said they would grant a 10-year truce in exchange for the division being returned to the 1967 borders.
A 10-year truce, refusal to state that they will not seek Israel's destruction, and a non-compromise position.
When you elect a party that desires the destruction of the nation giving you power and food, you shouldn't be surprised when that nation stops giving you power and food.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: When you elect a party that desires the destruction of the nation giving you power and food, you shouldn't be surprised when that nation stops giving you power and food.
In my opinion-and this is what I was talking about earlier when I said it would be obvious-you should in fact be surprised if the nation formerly giving you power and food doesn't commit itself fully to your destruction in response.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I wondered when Lisa was going to show up and prove her moral superiority by bullying and insulting people.
Bite me, kat. I was wondering when you'd show up and snark at me without adding one little bit of content to the discussion.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: When you elect a party that desires the destruction of the nation giving you power and food, you shouldn't be surprised when that nation stops giving you power and food.
In my opinion-and this is what I was talking about earlier when I said it would be obvious-you should in fact be surprised if the nation formerly giving you power and food doesn't commit itself fully to your destruction in response.
If only Israel was rational enough to do just that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If only Israel was rational enough to do just that.
I'm glad they're not. When your sole guiding star is rationality, things can get ugly pretty fast.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:If only Israel was rational enough to do just that.
I'm glad they're not. When your sole guiding star is rationality, things can get ugly pretty fast.
When your idea of rationality is the complete destruction of another people, things are already ugly.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I was wondering when you'd show up and snark at me without adding one little bit of content to the discussion.
Every time you act so predictably and make the discussion not worth respect and time of serious thought.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:When your idea of rationality is the complete destruction of another people, things are already ugly.
Sure. But taking that approach to the problem, for the Israelis, would not be irrational.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:When your idea of rationality is the complete destruction of another people, things are already ugly.
Sure. But taking that approach to the problem, for the Israelis, would not be irrational.
In a bubble, it might not be irrational. But in a world that has many nations that would take issue with the complete destruction of any people, it wouldn't be rational to do so.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:I was wondering when you'd show up and snark at me without adding one little bit of content to the discussion.
Every time you act so predictably and make the discussion not worth respect and time of serious thought.
Address the issues or shut up. All you're doing here is trolling.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
They would not have to kill all of the Palestinians to destroy them in this context, Javert. I'm not saying they could do it overnight or that it wouldn't be extremely difficult, but Israel could start policies aimed at simply getting all of the Palestinians out of the area and moved elsewhere.
And as for the problems other nations would have with that...well, Israel deals regularly with the antagonism of most of the planet. What are those 'many nations' that would have a problem with that but not so much daily acts of war by Palestinians do about it?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:When your idea of rationality is the complete destruction of another people, things are already ugly.
Sure. But taking that approach to the problem, for the Israelis, would not be irrational.
In a bubble, it might not be irrational. But in a world that has many nations that would take issue with the complete destruction of any people, it wouldn't be rational to do so.
Depends on how you define "destroy". If you mean kill them all, you're right. But no one is suggesting that. At least I hope Rakeesh isn't (I assume he isn't), and I'm certainly not. But sending them elsewhere, permanently, is something else entirely.
Enough is enough. They'll never settle for anything else than the extripation of Israel. Letting them stay between the Jordan and the Mediterranean will only extend and exacerbate the situation. They have to go. Every last one of them. Will that stop them from hating us? No. Will it stop them from trying to hurt us? No. But it'll be a lot easier to deal with them if they're fully outside of defensible borders, and then we won't have any responsibility for them whatsoever. We won't have to have checkpoints, we won't have to worry about whether they have power or food or medical care. Let them be an Arab problem.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: They would not have to kill all of the Palestinians to destroy them in this context, Javert. I'm not saying they could do it overnight or that it wouldn't be extremely difficult, but Israel could start policies aimed at simply getting all of the Palestinians out of the area and moved elsewhere.
And as for the problems other nations would have with that...well, Israel deals regularly with the antagonism of most of the planet. What are those 'many nations' that would have a problem with that but not so much daily acts of war by Palestinians do about it?
You've just changed the example.
Setting the morality aside, we're talking about the rationality of the complete destruction of a people. Regardless of who is doing the destroying and who is being destroyed, I'd like to think the US would be up in arms about it. I know that I would.
[Edit: Well, I was talking about complete destruction as the example. I'm glad that you aren't.]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Sorry. Easy isn't an option.
You're going to have to learn to get along.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Nato,
quote:Israel destroyed the US-funded main power plant for Gaza and withheld owed tax dollars to the democratically elected government for quite some time.
Are you really going to state it so blandly and pretend that's it? Israel withholds money from HAMAS. Shocking!
Israel withholds human rights from those in the PA, especially Gaza. I believe Hamas won the election because Fatah was corrupt and ineffective at providing for basic needs of the population. Because of sanctions on the Hamas government from Israel, the US, and many EU states (maybe the whole thing?), the Hamas government has been able to do even less to secure basic needs for the people than Fatah. I don't subscribe to Hamas' political claims that terrorist-style responses to sanctions are justified, nor is it acceptable to me when innocent people are killed on either side. I think many on both sides assume, like Lisa does, that the whole population against them is morally corrupt and wants only their death and destruction. This is wrong.
quote:
quote:It's up to everybody involved to denounce terrorism in all its forms, and neither side should wait for the other to do so.
I think you've got an unorthodox definition for the word 'denounce', then. I haven't been on Hatrack as much as I used to, but if memory serves you've never denounced Palestinian terrorism without pointing to some Israeli offense that somehow caused it or, wait, was a 'major contributing factor'.
I denounce Palestinian terrorism and all terrorism. I think that Palestinian's human rights (and then civil rights, political rights) should be protected even if some of them are terrorists. I will not accept Lisa's claim that the whole generation/race consists of terrorists/guilty accessories. (I don't believe this of any population.) One thing my study of terrorism has led me to believe is that terrorism against states arises when a population is occupied and controlled by a state in which the population has no meaningful impact on policy or believes this to be the case. I think the incentives to terrorize are intensified by violations of the human rights of the population that feels oppressed. I think this drives the dynamic of terrorism in Palestine, and human rights must be restored if we are to have a chance at stemming the terrorism.
quote: The IDF does some pretty damn bad things sometimes. But it's not policy for them to do really bad things like it's policy for their enemies. Again, if it was policy it would be so obvious the issue would be beyond argument.
I think this is the question at hand, but it's not beyond argument. Are the atrocities committed by the IDF "policy?" They are common, regular, frequent, promulgated by commanders within the force... The article from the first post seems to suggest that the NGO providing these testimonies of atrocities is trying to '"to force Israeli society to address the reality which it created" in the occupied territories.' which suggests they are trying to make the argument that this is policy. They are making claims about policy through a plethora of examples, and while they can be debated, I don't think they can be dismissed. I think their efforts are similar to groups in the US working to raise consciousness of the extent torture was used and justified by our own government. Such groups should be listened to and their claims factored in on discussion of what policy is and what it should be. I don't see why that if human rights violations were policy they would be any more obvious than they are right now.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Sorry. Easy isn't an option.
You're going to have to learn to get along.
And if they won't, we have to just learn to live with the constant war? I don't think so.
Lyrhawn said we should stop responding when they hammer us. We've tried that. Not indefinately, obviously, because when we've tried it, it hasn't had the effect that Lyrhawn wishes it would. It just encourages them. When we back down, they grin and say, "Hey, we have them on the run, now". They don't think like you. They don't return good for good. They have a goal, and they are implacable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think the incentives to terrorize are intensified by violations of the human rights of the population that feels oppressed. I think this drives the dynamic of terrorism in Palestine, and human rights must be restored if we are to have a chance at stemming the terrorism.
This is a delightful plan. What's your plan for when such things are viewed as incentives to further terrorism by those terrorizing, as of course they will be?
quote:They are common, regular, frequent, promulgated by commanders within the force... The article from the first post seems to suggest that the NGO providing these testimonies of atrocities is trying to '"to force Israeli society to address the reality which it created" in the occupied territories.' which suggests they are trying to make the argument that this is policy.
Taken out of any meaningful context (does context matter less to you when it's the IDF you're pointing at?), it could appear to be a policy, yes. But given the disparities in military power between the two parties, I'll say it again: if the IDF and Israel was pursuing a policy of atrocity against Palestinians, it would be so obvious as to be beyond argument.
But it's not obvious. It only looks obvious when you step back from any context, like what you're doing here. If it was policy among the IDF to the extent that it is policy among their enemies, the body counts would be much, much higher.
Anyway, I'm tiring out on this conversation. Let me just point out that even though you're supposedly not trying to assign blame, you're pretty willing to agree with things like assessments that Israeli society has created the current reality.
They haven't. It takes two to tango, something that shouldn't need to be pointed out if you were really uninterested in pointing the finger.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Address the issues or shut up.
Your behavior is an issue.
Specifically, if the Israeli government thinks of the Palestinians and treats them with the same attitude that you express towards them and with the same respect that you treat the other posters, then they don't have any moral authority. They are the oppressors.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Address the issues or shut up.
Your behavior is an issue.
Specifically, if the Israeli government thinks of the Palestinians and treats them with the same attitude that you express towards them and with the same respect that you treat the other posters, then they don't have any moral authority. They are the oppressors.
You are such a child sometimes.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
If only Israelis and Palestinians were oppressing each other with bitter complaints, nailed to telephone posts throughout the Gaza strip Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Should we ignore the sort of crimes detailed in the Independent article because they don't constitute enough of a "body count" to indicate that this is an intentional policy? What number would indicate that civilian casualties are "policy?"
It was a pretty quiet year, relatively speaking. Only 457 Palestinians and 10 Israelis were killed, according to the B'Tselem human rights organization, including the victims of Qassam rockets. Fewer casualties than in many previous years. However, it was still a terrible year: 92 Palestinian children were killed (fortunately, not a single Israeli child was killed by Palestinians, despite the Qassams). One-fifth of the Palestinians killed were children and teens - a disproportionate, almost unprecedented number. The Jewish year of 5767. Almost 100 children, who were alive and playing last New Year, didn't survive to see this one. ..
quote:Anyway, I'm tiring out on this conversation. Let me just point out that even though you're supposedly not trying to assign blame, you're pretty willing to agree with things like assessments that Israeli society has created the current reality.
Eh, alright... It's a horrible situation. I would rather raise awareness of viewpoints like that of the Breaking the Silence NGO than cast blame, because I think recognizing the full scope of what the Palestinians endure will cause people to support their human rights. I think more humane living conditions would remove the strongest incentives to resist with such a desperate strategy as suicide bombing.
I would say the Israeli military has created the current dynamic more than I would the society.. And the article the_Somalian linked argues the same. I just don't think all the incidents of violence against Palestinians by the IDF should be discounted in context of the few casualties caused by Qassams. The quote from the article I mentioned seemed to be treating the state and the society too much together for my preferences, but I still think their viewpoint needs more exposure.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
So Lisa, what is the alternative?
You say that Hamas is an evil terrorist organization that must be removed.
Then you say that all the Palestinian Arabs are bread to be terrorists, raised on hate, and impossible to work with, trust, or talk to.
You state that the Isreali army never targets civilians, but you imply that there are no true Arab Palestinian civilians since they are all trained, raised, indoctrinated to destroy Israel.
There can be no peace since the only thing you believe that all Arab Palestinians know is to destroy Israel. No matter what they may publicly claim, promise, or sign, they can not be trusted.
They lie to well and too often.
What is the solution?
It can't be to continue living as you are now, in an eternal low level conflict that kills and destroys the land and property and people.
Is it truly, "All of them or all of us!"
Is the only solution to stop the attacks on Israel the utter and complete destruction of all Arab Palestinians?
What are you suggesting the solution be, other than Genocide?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
There are many on both sides who truly believe it is "All of them or all of us." This they say over the bodies of their children. Even if you are an Israeli or Palestinian who does not agree, will it matter what you think when everyone else is in a mortal struggle? No one yet has (what they view as)an acceptable solution to their problem, so they're gonna have to work it out themselves (by killing each other, eventually.)
I don't like it, but I know who I'm rooting for. Here's a hint: not the side that celebrated 9/11 as a big victory.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Amazingly, Lisa, continuing the personal insults does nothing to improve your position or your persuasiveness.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: So Lisa, what is the alternative?
You say that Hamas is an evil terrorist organization that must be removed.
Actually, you're mistaken. They are absolutely no more and no less a terrorist organization than Fatah. Which, incidentally, is the Arabic name for the PLO. Hamas is simply less interested in playing the PR game. They're like Fatah, 20 years ago. The goal hasn't changed, and the tactics haven't changed. Just the voiceover.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Then you say that all the Palestinian Arabs are bread to be terrorists, raised on hate, and impossible to work with, trust, or talk to.
You state that the Isreali army never targets civilians, but you imply that there are no true Arab Palestinian civilians since they are all trained, raised, indoctrinated to destroy Israel.
No, no, no, no, no. Does it give you some sort of thrill to blur distinctions? Yes, every single one of them is culpable. No, they are not all the same. There are levels of culpability. Not everything is black and white. You may want to pretend that I think things are only black and white, but that's you, not me.
Those who actually commit acts of violence against Israel, or attempt to do so, should be killed. Yes. Without exception. Fire a rocket at us, you die. Carry arms or munitions into Israel, you die. Kidnap or attack an Israeli, with firearms, molotov cocktails, or so much as a rock, and you die. War sucks, Dan. Stop committing war, and you stop dying. It's that complicated and it's that simple.
Those who propagandize for them and those who allow themselves to be used as human shields are not the same. We should not intentionally harm them, but neither do we have any responsibility for their well being.
It's the difference between pushing someone off a cliff and deciding whether or not to risk yourself by pulling them up from a cliff. The actual combatants should be pushed off. Their supporters should be left to twist in the wind, and if they get hurt in the process, well... they bought and paid for the opportunity.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: There can be no peace since the only thing you believe that all Arab Palestinians know is to destroy Israel. No matter what they may publicly claim, promise, or sign, they can not be trusted.
That's the case. They have never taken one step back from their goal to wipe Israel off the planet. Nor will they ever do so. They respond to concessions and favors by upping the violence, like animals seeing a sign of weakness in their prey.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: They lie to well and too often.
What is the solution?
It can't be to continue living as you are now, in an eternal low level conflict that kills and destroys the land and property and people.
No, that's true. Israel has to do something very difficult, and at the same time something very simple. We simply have to decide to win. You might think that's bizarre. I mean, what kind of people have to think twice before deciding to win? The answer is, a people who are at once too compassionate for their own good, and too scared of what people will say. A people who are terrified that some day the worst will happen and Israel will be destroyed. And that when we're back in exile, dispersed among the nations of the world, we'll need examples of our extreme and insane compassion to convince people not to treat us the way they have for the past millenia.
Fear and an excess of compassion, Dan. It's always been our plague. Our first king, Saul, had an excess of compassion for the Amalekite king Agag, and our people were nearly wiped out by the Persians, egged on by a descendent of the king that Saul spared. The Rabbis say that one who is compassionate to the cruel will inevitably wind up being cruel to the compassionate.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Is it truly, "All of them or all of us!"
Is the only solution to stop the attacks on Israel the utter and complete destruction of all Arab Palestinians?
It's the elimination of any such thing as Palestinian Arabs. They can be Arabs, but elsewhere.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: What are you suggesting the solution be, other than Genocide?
Expulsion. Permanent and irrevocable.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Amazingly, Lisa, continuing the personal insults does nothing to improve your position or your persuasiveness.
<yawn> Pot, have you met kettle? You've said nothing in this thread other than that I'm a poo-poo head, and that Israel must be wrong if I'm on their side. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Do you realize how hostile and evil you sound as you call for genocide?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Do you realize what an ass you sound like when you claim that I'm calling for genocide?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Here's the flaw I see: you seem to be suggesting that if Israel didn't respond violently to attacks, those attacks would stop. I fail to understand how anyone could arrive at that conclusion. "They're killing us" is not the only reason Palestinians attack Israelis, remember.
I don't think it's nearly that simple, nor do I think that'd actually happen, but I know for sure that so long as retaliation follows retaliation, the cycle will continue, looping endlessly until one of them breaks it one way or the other. I don't think that just not responding will solve the problem, but I think that any peaceable settlement that could be reached will involve restraint, on both sides.
It's hard to imagine what a peaceful solution will look like these days, especially when it really only takes one guy with a gun, or a bomb, or a home made qassam to ruin a fragile peace (should one be established). It'll be two or three generations, even if they settled on peace today, before the lingering resentments and hatred die away. I think expelling them from Palestine would be bloody, with thousands dying on both sides (mostly Palestinians). In return, Israel would lose all moral authority they have, and billions in worldwide aid. I'm not convinced they'd be a viable state without it, especially if pressed by Arab military powers in the region. But, frankly no one wants or cares about Palestinians. Iran only cares about them so they have a tool to whip up anti-semitic fervor in the Persian heartland, and everyone else just likes using it as a wedge issue against the West and the US specifically. If the Palestinians are expelled, no one will willingly take them in and see to their needs. They'd become the world's largest displaced, nationless refugees, and I think it's likely that they'd die in droves, and the ones who survive would pass their hatred of Israel down through generations. And maybe for Israel that's still better than the status quo, I couldn't say, as I don't live there.
But a peaceful solution will never come with the current rulers of Hamas in charge. They will continue to agitate. I don't even think they care about Israel and Palestine anymore, like most tyrants, I think they care about what keeps them in power, and in this case it's the same thing that keeps Iran's hardliners going: hatred of Israel and the desire to wipe it off the map. So they feed into and off of that desire to empower themselves and to indoctrinate Palestinians into the cause.
Short of a massive, massive military intervention from NATO and Arab forces, the confiscation of all personally held weapons in the Palestinian territories, and a huge rebuilding efforts in the territories, I don't see what else will work to suppress violence and allow something to take its place. And I don't think that will ever happen.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Sometimes I wonder if Lisa isn't a really smart Palestine supporter, and she's foxing us all good.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Is it truly, "All of them or all of us!"
Is the only solution to stop the attacks on Israel the utter and complete destruction of all Arab Palestinians? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the elimination of any such thing as Palestinian Arabs. They can be Arabs, but elsewhere.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Dan_raven: What are you suggesting the solution be, other than Genocide? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expulsion. Permanent and irrevocable.
So the solution is Ethnic Cleansing.
My problem with that are many, but the most practical one is simply, that won't solve the problem. Take every Arab out of Palestine, regardless of the provable level of the culpability in Israeli deaths, and you move them out past the borders of what was Palestine. What do you do with that country? The obvious answer is that it goes to the people who fight to make it terrorist free--the Israelis.
Now you have Arabs of Palestinian descent outside of Palestine. Won't they start launching missiles into Palestine, where the new Israeli borders are? Won't Israeli settlers move into every corner of land that once was the Kingdom of Israel, and do what they do now--demand protection from Palestinian Arabs who look on that land as their own?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Can't you see that since you constantly resort to personal insults when you are called on your bigotry and hate, you only reinforce that I'm right?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I can provoke your insults. Therefore, I win the argument. QED.
I gotta try that one sometime.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Palestinians: not justified in targetting innocent civilians. Period. If you claim otherwise, you're wrong.
Agreed. And I'd add that Palestinian Arabs: Do target innocent civilians. Period. If you claim otherwise, you're wrong.
Yes. Some do. Which doesn't seem to be a distinction you feel inclined to make.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Israelis: not justified in targetting innocent civilians. Period. If you claim otherwise, you're wrong.
Agreed. And I'd add that Israelis: Do not target innocent civilians. Period. If you claim otherwise, you're wrong.
As a matter of policy, the Israeli government does not target civilians, at least not in the same manner that Palestinian extremists do. Israeli soldiers, on the other hand, have been known to act with disproportianate or unilateral force, something which there are standing examples of outside of the article which started this topic. And many of the actions taken by the Israeli government- including the destruction of settlements- punish the innocent for the sake of not failing to punish and halt the actions of the guilty. It's become acceptable for some to think of Palestinians as a grand "they", which makes the loss of civilian lives for the sake of "surgical" strikes on terrorists somehow acceptable... After all, they're either terrorists or terrorists-to-be, right?
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Neither side is willing to allow an act of violence to pass without violent retribution.
Factually, demonstrably, wrong. The Palestinian Arabs have been bombing Israel from Gaza from the first day after the pullout. Israel only periodically takes action against them. Why don't you get your facts straight before shooting from the hip like this?
Palestinian attacks are frequent and random. Israeli reciprocity is less frequent, but more coordinated and brings more force to bear. Not responding to attacks on an individual basis is part of what has allowed the justification of collective punishment in the first place.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: If you believe that every civilian on one side can be flagged as an enemy combatant as a matter of course, then whatever nice words or strident rhetoric you might use, you are advocating genocide.
Israel does no such thing.
I wasn't speaking about Israel as a whole. Just certain of its current and former inhabitants.
I support Israel's right to exist. I believe the foundation of Israel is a story of bravery in the face of ludicrous odds. That doesn't mean, to crib a quote from Iain Banks, that Israel has some kind of moral "blank check" in the name of security.
At the risk of sounding terribly Pollyanna, when Palestinian and Israeli youth are exposed to oneanother in safety, they often seem to find they have much more in common than their past history would suggest.
When most of the contact between Israelis and Palestinians is behind guns, and most of what each believes about the other comes from the stories of their hard-line elders, why wouldn't their perceptions of each other as enemies be set?
And for all that Israel has done in the name of security, does it seem to be any closer to ending violence there?
(If this leads to my being told that Israel's lack of peace is due to the level of restraint Israel has shown, I'm preparing to roll my eyes.)
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Is it truly, "All of them or all of us!"
Is the only solution to stop the attacks on Israel the utter and complete destruction of all Arab Palestinians? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the elimination of any such thing as Palestinian Arabs. They can be Arabs, but elsewhere.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Dan_raven: What are you suggesting the solution be, other than Genocide? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expulsion. Permanent and irrevocable.
So the solution is Ethnic Cleansing.
My problem with that are many, but the most practical one is simply, that won't solve the problem. Take every Arab out of Palestine, regardless of the provable level of the culpability in Israeli deaths, and you move them out past the borders of what was Palestine. What do you do with that country? The obvious answer is that it goes to the people who fight to make it terrorist free--the Israelis.
Now you have Arabs of Palestinian descent outside of Palestine. Won't they start launching missiles into Palestine, where the new Israeli borders are? Won't Israeli settlers move into every corner of land that once was the Kingdom of Israel, and do what they do now--demand protection from Palestinian Arabs who look on that land as their own?
There's something temptingly logical about Lisa's proposal--if the Palestinians continue to be a problem, simply ethnically cleanse them out of the coveted land. Maybe Egypt can be persuaded to take them in, with the help of US pressure. Then the Palestinians might still have issues with Israel, but at least they'll be a distant problem.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Is it truly, "All of them or all of us!"
Is the only solution to stop the attacks on Israel the utter and complete destruction of all Arab Palestinians? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the elimination of any such thing as Palestinian Arabs. They can be Arabs, but elsewhere.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Dan_raven: What are you suggesting the solution be, other than Genocide? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expulsion. Permanent and irrevocable.
So the solution is Ethnic Cleansing.
Label it however you want. It's like saying that killing a lunatic on a rampage with an assault rifle is the same as killing someone getting money out of an ATM. Both are killing, but they're as different as night and day. You want to call it ethnic cleansing, fine. I don't care. It needs to be done, and it'll save countless lifes on both sides. Not that I'm overly concerned about the lifes on their side, but that's something that might concern you.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: My problem with that are many, but the most practical one is simply, that won't solve the problem. Take every Arab out of Palestine, regardless of the provable level of the culpability in Israeli deaths, and you move them out past the borders of what was Palestine. What do you do with that country? The obvious answer is that it goes to the people who fight to make it terrorist free--the Israelis.
Excuse me. There is no "Palestine". The area that was once called Palestine is now made up of two countries, Israel and Jordan, and the disputed territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. There was never a country called Palestine. Never in all of history.
We're not talking about taking people out of their country. There's no country to take them out of. We're talking about Israel establishing permanent boundries that include all of what was once called Palestine to the west of the Jordan River. That's about 21-22% of the area once called Palestine, and a much smaller percentage of the historic Land of Israel.
It's our land. I wasn't aware when I posted before that my intent was that vague. I'm saying they go elsewhere, and we live at peace in our land. Hebron, where our patriarchs are buried (and I'd note that Isaac and Jacob are buried there; Ishmael isn't). Shechem (Nablus), where Joseph is buried. Bethlehem, where King David was born and raised. The rest of the land, where our ancestors were brutally exiled by Romans who had no connection with our land in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Now you have Arabs of Palestinian descent outside of Palestine.
No, you have Arabs outside of Israel. If they want Palestine, they still have 78-79% of it on the east side of the Jordan. They can fight it out with their fellow Arabs.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Won't they start launching missiles into Palestine, where the new Israeli borders are? Won't Israeli settlers move into every corner of land that once was the Kingdom of Israel, and do what they do now--demand protection from Palestinian Arabs who look on that land as their own?
Do you honestly see no difference between fighting a conventional war and dealing with terrorists of this sort? If they launch missiles into Israel, we have an airforce to deal with them. It'll be the responsibility of the country where they're living to stop them from doing that.
The people who build towns and cities in Judea and Samaria will not be "settlers". They'll be Israeli Jews, living in all corners of our own land.
You know something? Back when the state hadn't been declared yet, there were four ideas floating around as to what the new state should be called. One was Israel, obviously, and that's the one that won. One was Zion, which made a lot of sense, given that Zionism was the name of the ideology which convinced people that the time to return had arrived. But Zion really refers to Jerusalem, rather than to the whole land, so that wasn't adopted. Nor was Judea, for the same reason. The fourth idea was Palestine. Since the Jews living in the area had been called Palestinians for a very long time, some people thought it'd be best to retain the name, despite the fact that it was an offensive term placed on our land by Hadrian after putting down a Jewish revolt.
In fact, the Jerusalem Post, Israel's major English language newspaper, was originally called the Palestine Post. If you look at the masthead today, you'll see that that's still the name of the corporation that publishes the Jerusalem Post.
Just as a thought experiment, consider what might have been different had the early Zionists chosen to retain the name of Palestinian that everyone knew them by. I mean, my partner's great-grandfather was a Palestinian. He's buried in Safed.
You get so hung up on semantics that are just an accident of history. These Arabs are Arabs. Period. There was never any ethnic difference between the Arabs living to the east of the Jordan and Arabs living to the west. It's an artificial distinction. Which I wouldn't care about, really, except that it's used to try and delegitimize the real owners of Israel, which is the people of Israel.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I can provoke your insults. Therefore, I win the argument. QED.
I gotta try that one sometime.
<snicker>
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Wouldn't all the Israelis leaving work just as well?
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
If ethnic cleansing really is a 'solution'--and mind you, I don't think it is--where does it stop? If it's alright for the Israelis to 'cleanse' the Palestinians, then by the same token, isn't it 'right' for the similar actions in Serbia, in so many African countries, etc, to do the same thing? Even if every Palestinian Arab was forced out of Israel, as Dan said, that doesn't stop the problem. You'd have to kill them, you would! Where does the fighting and killing stop? When Israel is the sole state left in the Middle East?
Also, please tell me I'm not the only one to see the irony in the fact that a member of a group that suffered the Holocaust is advocating ethnic cleansing.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It's not so much irony, as following the OT - Killing Jews = bad, Jews killing their enemies = ordained by God.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Yeah, but if you start invoking that sort of argument, that's another slippery slope.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I used to wonder why there was so much conflict in the middle east. After seeing Lisa, it all makes sense.
I can't get over the evil, wicked sadness that a state created because of a great wrong is defended by proposing the great wrong again.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I don't normally read these threads or comment on them, but one might use "Palestinian Arabs" and "Palestinian Jews" to describe Arabs and Jews living in or born in the Mandate of Palestine and/or descended from the same, in a discussion about events prior to 1948 where the distinction is relevant.
I have no interest in addressing or discussing any of the other stuff [in this thread] on this forum at this stage, and likely won't continue reading this thread beyond today, but I thought that might be useful.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Palestinians: not justified in targetting innocent civilians. Period. If you claim otherwise, you're wrong.
Agreed. And I'd add that Palestinian Arabs: Do target innocent civilians. Period. If you claim otherwise, you're wrong.
Yes. Some do. Which doesn't seem to be a distinction you feel inclined to make.
There was an Israeli named Ami Popper. He snapped one day, grabbed 7 Arabs at a construction site, and shot them down in cold blood.
Israel went berzerk. Ami Popper was put in jail forever. Everyone was horrified.
That's a far cry from the popular support that suicide bombers receive among Palestinian Arabs. They name schools and streets after them. They celebrate them. They teach their children to want to grow up and be martyrs, so long as they take a bunch of Jews with them.
So no, Sterling, I'm not inclined to make the distinction. They don't. They lionize terrorists. They make them heroes of the people. We are revolted and horrified and come down on such people like a ton of bricks.
You should be ashamed of yourself for not making that distinction.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Israelis: not justified in targetting innocent civilians. Period. If you claim otherwise, you're wrong.
Agreed. And I'd add that Israelis: Do not target innocent civilians. Period. If you claim otherwise, you're wrong.
As a matter of policy, the Israeli government does not target civilians, at least not in the same manner that Palestinian extremists do.
Quit it with the weasel words. Israel doesn't target civilians, period. Israel has, time and again, sent ground troops into hotbeds of terrorist activity, going door to door and taking massive casualties, when carpet bombing the area would have spared our own boys. It's sickening, but the Israeli government actually thinks that's either the moral thing to do, or at the very least the politically prudent thing to do. I can guarantee you that I'd do otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Israeli soldiers, on the other hand, have been known to act with disproportianate or unilateral force,
In your opinion. You're no judge of what's proportionate. And what the hell would be multilateral force? Israel's suppose to politely ask the nations of the world to help?
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: It's become acceptable for some to think of Palestinians as a grand "they", which makes the loss of civilian lives for the sake of "surgical" strikes on terrorists somehow acceptable... After all, they're either terrorists or terrorists-to-be, right?
Or supporters of terrorists. Yes.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Neither side is willing to allow an act of violence to pass without violent retribution.
Factually, demonstrably, wrong. The Palestinian Arabs have been bombing Israel from Gaza from the first day after the pullout. Israel only periodically takes action against them. Why don't you get your facts straight before shooting from the hip like this?
Palestinian attacks are frequent and random. Israeli reciprocity is less frequent, but more coordinated and brings more force to bear.
So if a nut takes an assault rifle and started randomly shooting up a college campus, and a person who is trained with firearms pulls a pistol and drops him with a single shot, the nut is a victim and the guy who shoots him is a villain? That's twisted. Badly twisted. One hundred Arabs trying to murder us or support those trying to murder us... against say one or two Jews just living their lives... and the just choice is for the two Jews to die, because that's only two deaths, rather than one hundred? No.
They try and kill us. And yes, it is a national effort. It is supported by their grassroots. It is not a bunch of bad guys in a junta with helpless peons who can't stop the madness. You're mad if you think it is. Or maybe you simply can't wrap your mind around such evil. But it exists, Sterling. It's there. It's there in the words of mothers who send their own flesh and blood to blow themselves up for the greater glory of Allah. Who smile when their children die, so long as they took many Jews with them.
Our responsibility is to protect our people. If protecting one of our lives costs one hundred of theirs, that's cheap. Our lives are of inestimable value to us. The lives of people who are committing war against us are not and should not be worth anything at all.
That's not to say that we should kill them all indescriminately. Evil or not, they're still human beings. Every single one of them has the capacity to some day turn away from their evil and become civilized human beings instead of the barbarians they are. So if we can protect the life of a single one of our people either at the cost of 100 of their lives or at the cost of 1000 of our lives, our proper choice is the 100. But it will never, ever, ever, be to let one our own die in order to spare them.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Not responding to attacks on an individual basis is part of what has allowed the justification of collective punishment in the first place.
We don't have that luxury. If they were to surrender up the perpetrator of a terrorist action, we could punish that one person and be done with it. That's not how it works. This is a nation at war. They, as a nation, are trying to wipe us out. Those who fight, fight. Those who plan, plan. The rest support it, either actively or passively. They do nothing to stop it, and it's not because they're afraid, it's because they agree with it.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: At the risk of sounding terribly Pollyanna, when Palestinian and Israeli youth are exposed to oneanother in safety, they often seem to find they have much more in common than their past history would suggest.
All of those groups start from the premise that Israel is an aggressor. Their Israeli components are members of the left who are on the side of the Palestinian Arabs to begin with. You never have groups like that where the Arabs accept that terrorist acts are inherently unacceptable.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: When most of the contact between Israelis and Palestinians is behind guns, and most of what each believes about the other comes from the stories of their hard-line elders, why wouldn't their perceptions of each other as enemies be set?
Right. It's just Israeli leaders who have misled us to think that the Palestinian Arab war of extermination against us enjoys virtually unanimous grassroots support. In your dreams, Sterling. You really have to shut your eyes to one instance after another of evil Palestinian Arab hate-mongering to believe that.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: And for all that Israel has done in the name of security, does it seem to be any closer to ending violence there?
Israel keeps taking half measures. No question about that. And the State of Israel bears culpability for that. Like I said earlier, we have to decide to win. Until we do that, we're simply drawing this conflict out.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: (If this leads to my being told that Israel's lack of peace is due to the level of restraint Israel has shown, I'm preparing to roll my eyes.)
Roll them, then.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Sorry this popped up as a double post.
Lisa, you have honed in on some details that I was mistaken about, but you missed the main point.
How many Arabs are there that you want out of Isreal?
Where would they go?
Who would pay for them to go?
Part of this whole problem was that during those first few years of Israel, no Arab or Islamic country wanted to take Arab refuge's from Israel. It was and is cheaper to give them some guns and let them die killing Israeli's than it is to bring them into the fold.
But suppose that 2 million Arabs who believe that Palestine is thier home--perhaps not the country, but cities like Jerusalem and Hebron, where they have lived for centuries. They suddenly find themselves in Jordan or Syria or Egypt. Wont some of them feel embittered to the point of launching attacks from thier host countires? There is a lot of frontier and desert on your borders.
Will Israel then bomb their neighbors for not being able to police their borders?
This can only grow larger, not be over.
[ April 22, 2008, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Dan_raven ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Human: If ethnic cleansing really is a 'solution'--and mind you, I don't think it is--where does it stop? If it's alright for the Israelis to 'cleanse' the Palestinians, then by the same token, isn't it 'right' for the similar actions in Serbia, in so many African countries, etc, to do the same thing?
Or in other words:
If killing is really a 'solution' -- and mind you, I don't think it is -- where does it stop? If it's alright to shoot someone who is on a rampage with an assault rifle, then by the same token, isn't it 'right' to shoot any random person you pass on the street?
When the Palestinian Arabs persist in their bloody attempts to wipe us out (a kind of ethnic cleansing that doesn't seem to bother you very much, or is it just that you don't believe they can succeed?), they choose their own punishment.
And your comment about the Holocaust is foul beyond belief. To compare a nation which supports mass murder of civilians, and names schools after the perpetrators, to the Jews who lived in Germany, and wanted nothing more than to be good Germans, shows a complete lack of moral sense on your part. There's a context, even if you're too foolish to understand it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I used to wonder why there was so much conflict in the middle east. After seeing Lisa, it all makes sense.
I can't get over the evil, wicked sadness that a state created because of a great wrong is defended by proposing the great wrong again.
You're breaking my heart. And you're full of crap, too. If I was on the other side of this argument, you would be as well. You don't give half a damn about it; you're just interested in bashing me. It's childish, kat. Grow up.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It's our land. I wasn't aware when I posted before that my intent was that vague. I'm saying they go elsewhere, and we live at peace in our land. Hebron, where our patriarchs are buried (and I'd note that Isaac and Jacob are buried there; Ishmael isn't). Shechem (Nablus), where Joseph is buried. Bethlehem, where King David was born and raised. The rest of the land, where our ancestors were brutally exiled by Romans who had no connection with our land in the first place.
Do you realize that many Palestinians share very similar feelings about Israel being "their land"? Some still have the keys and deeds to the homes that they were kicked out of decades ago (my history teacher personally knows a family that does). It amazes me that you can declare Israel to be your people's land based off of ancestry while completely ignoring similar Palestinian claims.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You get so hung up on semantics that are just an accident of history. These Arabs are Arabs. Period. There was never any ethnic difference between the Arabs living to the east of the Jordan and Arabs living to the west.
There is a huge cultural difference. Arabs have their own share of stereotypes about each other just like we have our own share of stereotypes about each other. For example, white people are white people but I am not a Texan (no hate ).
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Which I wouldn't care about, really, except that it's used to try and delegitimize the real owners of Israel, which is the people of Israel.
That is not a fact. It's your opinion.
EDIT: To clarify that last comment, I believe in Israel's right to exist. I don't believe that the land itself is reserved for Jews.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: So if a nut takes an assault rifle and started randomly shooting up a college campus, and a person who is trained with firearms pulls a pistol and drops him with a single shot, the nut is a victim and the guy who shoots him is a villain?
That's not a correct analogy. In your hypothetical, I think the guy would be given cautious praise for his actions, with grumbles about vigilantism. But for that to be an appropriate analogy to what is happening in Israel/Palestine, the guy would pull the pistol, fire off the whole clip, take out two fellow students, a child, and the guy with the assault rifle, and he'd be condemned for his actions. It may be that he actually saved lives by doing so, but he took some as well, to say nothing of the fact that he became the guy who decides who lives and who dies, and that shouldn't be his choice to make.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Maybe others do not feel this way, but it seems to me that starting a thread that includes nothing beyond a link is a mite tacky. It's even more so when it's obvious the topic is volatile. At the very least, some sort of statement on your own position from the get go is warranted.
You've sub sequentially done so, but I'd take it as a kindness if you could do us this favor in the future.
The Somalian has made his agenda perfectly clear. He's started three threads in the last week or so. One used quotes in the title to deny that Israel has any right to exist. One was his Islamophobia thread. And this is the third. You work it out.
See I have not been all over hatrack these past few days, and I did not connect the dots between those specific threads. If King of Men started a thread and simply linked a lecture by Richard Dawkins talking about organized religion I would still think it's tacky.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: When the Palestinian Arabs persist in their bloody attempts to wipe us out (a kind of ethnic cleansing that doesn't seem to bother you very much, or is it just that you don't believe they can succeed?), they choose their own punishment.
What bothers me (and likely other people here) is that you lump all of the Palestinians together as your enemy. That would be like me declaring that Muslims are our enemy because of the actions of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.
Btw, I would just like to mention that Tancredoism has never proven itself to be a successful deterrent to attacks.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: If killing is really a 'solution' -- and mind you, I don't think it is -- where does it stop? If it's alright to shoot someone who is on a rampage with an assault rifle, then by the same token, isn't it 'right' to shoot any random person you pass on the street?
When the Palestinian Arabs persist in their bloody attempts to wipe us out (a kind of ethnic cleansing that doesn't seem to bother you very much, or is it just that you don't believe they can succeed?), they choose their own punishment.
And your comment about the Holocaust is foul beyond belief. To compare a nation which supports mass murder of civilians, and names schools after the perpetrators, to the Jews who lived in Germany, and wanted nothing more than to be good Germans, shows a complete lack of moral sense on your part. There's a context, even if you're too foolish to understand it.
I don't think either of you is right. I think you're killing each other over some land and the words written down in books a few thousand years ago. I think both sides are committing the same sin and the same crime, the one that is going to damn the whole freaking race if we're not careful: killing and hurting each other for no damn reason than divides that lie mostly in our minds. Just because it's traditional, or "divinely" inspired, or whatever, doesn't make it right, on either side.
I don't think I'm missing the context, by the way, and I resent being called a fool simply because I don't agree with you. You're advocating ethnic cleansing of a sect of people you consider a threat to your land and your culture and your safety. Does this sound familiar at all? In my eyes, all three groups stand on shaky ethical ground at best.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Do you realize that many Palestinians share very similar feelings about Israel being "their land"? Some still have the keys and deeds to the homes that they were kicked out of decades ago (my history teacher personally knows a family that does). It amazes me that you can declare Israel to be your people's land based off of ancestry while completely ignoring similar Palestinian claims.
Does it really amaze you, or are you being rhetorical? Because if I'm forced out of my home, and while I'm away, someone breaks in and writes himself a deed, I don't much care about his deed. So the Ottomans conquered the region and started giving out deeds to their own people. This concerns me exactly why?
We never forfeited our own claim to our own land.
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You get so hung up on semantics that are just an accident of history. These Arabs are Arabs. Period. There was never any ethnic difference between the Arabs living to the east of the Jordan and Arabs living to the west.
There is a huge cultural difference. Arabs have their own share of stereotypes about each other just like we have our own share of stereotypes about each other. For example, white people are white people but I am not a Texan (no hate ).
That's not really my problem. It's something that was constructed by the Arabs themselves. They can't create a nationality out of thin air and then insist that I respect it.
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Which I wouldn't care about, really, except that it's used to try and delegitimize the real owners of Israel, which is the people of Israel.
That is not a fact. It's your opinion.
No, it's fact.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: EDIT: To clarify that last comment, I believe in Israel's right to exist. I don't believe that the land itself is reserved for Jews.
Thanks for the clarification. That, however, is your opinion.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: What bothers me (and likely other people here) is that you lump all of the Palestinians together as your enemy. That would be like me declaring that Muslims are our enemy because of the actions of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.
Would it make you feel better if Lisa always said "84% of Palestinians" or "64% of Palestinians" instead of "Palestinians"?
quote: According to the poll, of 1,270 Palestinians in face-to-face interviews, 84 percent supported the March 6 attack on the Mercaz Harav yeshiva, one of Israel’s most prominent centers of religious Zionism and ideological wellspring of the settler movement in the West Bank. Mr. Shikaki said that result was the single highest support for an act of violence in his 15 years of polling here. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
On negotiations between Ehud Olmert, prime minister of Israel, and Mr. Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, 75 percent said they were without benefit and should be terminated. Regarding the thousands of rockets that have been launched on Israeli towns like Sderot and Ashkelon, 64 percent support it.
Lisa, your viscious and hostile reaction concerning this topic is downright evil. It's also so nonsensical that I think you're either playing a game or else are missing a tacos from your combination plate.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: So if a nut takes an assault rifle and started randomly shooting up a college campus, and a person who is trained with firearms pulls a pistol and drops him with a single shot, the nut is a victim and the guy who shoots him is a villain?
That's not a correct analogy. In your hypothetical, I think the guy would be given cautious praise for his actions, with grumbles about vigilantism.
I don't really think so. I think that had one of the people in the classroom at the last college shooting pulled out a sidearm and ended the attacker, any grumblings about vigilantism would have been shouted down. It isn't vigilantism to stop a crime in action.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But for that to be an appropriate analogy to what is happening in Israel/Palestine, the guy would pull the pistol, fire off the whole clip, take out two fellow students, a child, and the guy with the assault rifle, and he'd be condemned for his actions. It may be that he actually saved lives by doing so, but he took some as well, to say nothing of the fact that he became the guy who decides who lives and who dies, and that shouldn't be his choice to make.
Your analogy is wrong. If you want to be precise, it'd be four maniacs in ski masks bursting into the room, three of them covering the room while one shot wildly at everyone. And the student with the handgun taking out one of the non-shooters in the process of taking out the shooter. Again, I don't think anyone would mind.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
Hi everyone.
To understand what Israel is up against, consider this op-ed piece written by the founder of Hamas, Mahmoud al-Zahar, and published recently in the Washington Post.
Here's some of what al-Zahar has to say:
quote: A "peace process" with Palestinians cannot take even its first tiny step until Israel first withdraws to the borders of 1967; dismantles all settlements; removes all soldiers from Gaza and the West Bank; repudiates its illegal annexation of Jerusalem; releases all prisoners; and ends its blockade of our international borders, our coastline and our airspace permanently. This would provide the starting point for just negotiations and would lay the groundwork for the return of millions of refugees. Given what we have lost, it is the only basis by which we can start to be whole again.
So before even the first tiny step can be taken in any negotiations for peace, Israel must give up everything in the negotiation.
In other words, Hamas will not begin negotiating for peace unless and until Israel first gives in on every issue.
Instead, Hamas wages unrelenting war. And because it hides munitions, and rocket launchers, and its fighters among the civilian population in Gaza, any response by Israel is likely to harm civilians.
Because Hamas has made it clear that good faith negotiations are not an option, Israel must choose between only 2 options: Fighting back (when doing so is likely to harm civilians), or not fighting back and allowing Hamas to wage its unrelenting war without any resistance.
The horrible truth of any war is that people suffer and die, even civilians. But the difference morally between Israel and Hamas is stark:
1. Hamas hides among civilians, making it very difficult for Israel to wage the war effectively without harming civilians.
2. Israel's military is not hidden among civilians, and yet Hamas directs all of its war efforts against Israeli civilians.
3. Hamas’s demands to end the war and end fighting are impossible for Israel to meet.
4. Israel’s only demand to end the war is for Hamas to stop fighting.
(Just thought I post my 2 cents.)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: When the Palestinian Arabs persist in their bloody attempts to wipe us out (a kind of ethnic cleansing that doesn't seem to bother you very much, or is it just that you don't believe they can succeed?), they choose their own punishment.
What bothers me (and likely other people here) is that you lump all of the Palestinians together as your enemy.
And what bothers me is that you insist on ignoring the fact that this is a national goal, with a national consensus on means. If the town that the Unibomber grew up in were to change the name of the main drag to Ted Kosinsky (sp?) Street, and put shows on TV telling the townskids that the best thing they could hope to do with their lives, what would be really heroic, would be to emulate him, would you accept that this is a town of evil people?
Just because you can't comprehend the level of evil necessary for people to act this way doesn't mean it isn't real.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: That would be like me declaring that Muslims are our enemy because of the actions of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.
No, it wouldn't. There are Muslim groups who have condemned those attacks. I don't think they've done enough, but there's no parallel amongst the Palestinian Arabs in the Middle East.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
Maybe others do not feel this way, but it seems to me that starting a thread that includes nothing beyond a link is a mite tacky. It's even more so when it's obvious the topic is volatile. At the very least, some sort of statement on your own position from the get go is warranted.
You've sub sequentially done so, but I'd take it as a kindness if you could do us this favor in the future.
The Somalian has made his agenda perfectly clear. He's started three threads in the last week or so. One used quotes in the title to deny that Israel has any right to exist. One was his Islamophobia thread. And this is the third. You work it out.
See I have not been all over hatrack these past few days, and I did not connect the dots between those specific threads. If King of Men started a thread and simply linked a lecture by Richard Dawkins talking about organized religion I would still think it's tacky.
Think what you want, but you're just preaching arbitrarily defined netiquette. The only thing that's tacky is complaining that someone is violiting some norm that only exists in your head.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Human: I don't think I'm missing the context, by the way, and I resent being called a fool simply because I don't agree with you. You're advocating ethnic cleansing of a sect of people you consider a threat to your land and your culture and your safety. Does this sound familiar at all? In my eyes, all three groups stand on shaky ethical ground at best.
Resent away. You are young, and idealistic, and that's great. But you don't know what you're talking about. This isn't me "considering them a threat". What the hell do they have to do to convince you that I'm right about them? Wipe out half of our population? Forgive me, but I think our ethical obligation is to stop them before they do that.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: ... some norm that only exists in your head.
Yes, because the topic list in the forum is just littered with starting posts with only a link and nothing else.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: We never forfeited our own claim to our own land.
And I suppose that the people that lived there before Jews got there for the "very" first time have given up all of their claims to their land? Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: [Resent away. You are young, and idealistic, and that's great. But you don't know what you're talking about. This isn't me "considering them a threat". What the hell do they have to do to convince you that I'm right about them? Wipe out half of our population? Forgive me, but I think our ethical obligation is to stop them before they do that.
You have to convince me you're less of a monster than they are. You've just advocated wiping out an entire race of human beings, or at the very least denying them their rights AS human beings. You've just said you don't care if they die. Right now, I'm not convinced that you're any different than they are. But I'm done. You can have your war, and your cleansing, and your final solution. You can have your land. I don't care anymore.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: ... some norm that only exists in your head.
Yes, because the topic list in the forum is just littered with starting posts with only a link and nothing else.
This is a petty AND tacky digression IMO.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I cast Lisa on this thread
Effect: dull potential for sympathizing with Israel 2 points
Effect: Lisa has 20% chance to slapfight every turn
Effect: 700% lock chance modifier applied to thread
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
Hi, again. I repeat myself just in case my earlier post was missed in the foray above. And this may address some of Human's concerns.
To understand what Israel is up against, consider this op-ed piece written by the founder of Hamas, Mahmoud al-Zahar, and published recently in the Washington Post.
Here's some of what al-Zahar has to say:
quote: A "peace process" with Palestinians cannot take even its first tiny step until Israel first withdraws to the borders of 1967; dismantles all settlements; removes all soldiers from Gaza and the West Bank; repudiates its illegal annexation of Jerusalem; releases all prisoners; and ends its blockade of our international borders, our coastline and our airspace permanently. This would provide the starting point for just negotiations and would lay the groundwork for the return of millions of refugees. Given what we have lost, it is the only basis by which we can start to be whole again.
So before even the first tiny step can be taken in any negotiations for peace, Israel must give up everything in the negotiation.
In other words, Hamas will not begin negotiating for peace unless and until Israel first gives in on every issue.
Instead, Hamas wages unrelenting war. And because it hides munitions, and rocket launchers, and its fighters among the civilian population in Gaza, any response by Israel is likely to harm civilians.
Because Hamas has made it clear that good faith negotiations are not an option, Israel must choose between only 2 options: Fighting back (when doing so is likely to harm civilians), or not fighting back and allowing Hamas to wage its unrelenting war without any resistance.
The horrible truth of any war is that people suffer and die, even civilians. But the difference morally between Israel and Hamas is stark:
1. Hamas hides among civilians, making it very difficult for Israel to wage the war effectively without harming civilians.
2. Israel's military is not hidden among civilians, and yet Hamas directs all of its war efforts against Israeli civilians.
3. Hamas’s demands to end the war and end fighting are impossible for Israel to meet.
4. Israel’s only demand to end the war is for Hamas to stop fighting.
(Just thought I'd post my 2 cents.)
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Do you realize that many Palestinians share very similar feelings about Israel being "their land"? Some still have the keys and deeds to the homes that they were kicked out of decades ago (my history teacher personally knows a family that does). It amazes me that you can declare Israel to be your people's land based off of ancestry while completely ignoring similar Palestinian claims.
Does it really amaze you, or are you being rhetorical? Because if I'm forced out of my home, and while I'm away, someone breaks in and writes himself a deed, I don't much care about his deed. So the Ottomans conquered the region and started giving out deeds to their own people. This concerns me exactly why?
So people who have been living there for centuries should just pack up and leave because your people lived there two thousand years ago? Does your argument work if you don't believe that Jews have a God-given right to the land?
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Which I wouldn't care about, really, except that it's used to try and delegitimize the real owners of Israel, which is the people of Israel.
That is not a fact. It's your opinion.
No, it's fact.
In your opinion. The concept is easily disputable.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: ... some norm that only exists in your head.
Yes, because the topic list in the forum is just littered with starting posts with only a link and nothing else.
It didn't take me long to find two examples:...
Two examples? Out of roughly 40? And one of them Resh's amazingly abnormal thread? Way to point out that 38/40 posts *aren't* just a provocative link.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
^you said:
quote: Yes, because the topic list in the forum is just littered with starting posts with only a link and nothing else.
You didn't really qualify this, so whatever. Anyway, I think it's kind of petty to expect me to have added "I think the Israeli's are doing bad things" or something to that effect. I just wanted to share the article. Don't be so peevish, ya'll.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Two examples? Out of roughly 40? And one of them Resh's amazingly abnormal thread? Way to point out that 38/40 posts *aren't* just a provocative link.
[ April 22, 2008, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: We never forfeited our own claim to our own land.
And I suppose that the people that lived there before Jews got there for the "very" first time have given up all of their claims to their land?
You obviously won't accept that the owner of the land gave it to us, but He did. Aside from that, everyone who once lived there before us assimilated into the surrounding cultures and ceased to exist as a discrete nationality. Certainly, none of stuck around and publically and loudly proclaimed their claim to the land several times daily for the past several millenia. We did.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Human:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: [Resent away. You are young, and idealistic, and that's great. But you don't know what you're talking about. This isn't me "considering them a threat". What the hell do they have to do to convince you that I'm right about them? Wipe out half of our population? Forgive me, but I think our ethical obligation is to stop them before they do that.
You have to convince me you're less of a monster than they are. You've just advocated wiping out an entire race of human beings, or at the very least denying them their rights AS human beings.
That's ridiculous. In the first place, the very idea that you could compare killing people with denying them "rights" that you arbitrarily claim for them is appalling. You should be ashamed of yourself for saying such a thing. That's the remark of a child who thinks being denied what he wants is the same thing as being killed.
In the second place, I dispute your claim that I'm talking about denying them human rights. They don't have any right to stay where they are and continue a genocidal war against us. They don't have any right that obligates us to be willing targets for their murderous evil.
quote:Originally posted by Human: You've just said you don't care if they die.
Why should I? I also said that if there are two ways to stop them, it's correct to pick the one that harms them less. Precisely because they are human beings, and are capable of turning away from the evil that they've chosen to do. But it isn't my responsibility to save them from themselves.
I'll tell you what, Human. You go and find a cop and try and take his gun from him and point it at him. If you survive the attempt, you can come back and tell me how rude he was to try and put you down before you had a chance to kill him. How he didn't take your rights into consideration.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I don't see how anyone can dispute that Israel belongs to anyone other than the Israelis. Any small amount of research will show that there is no doubt as to how they came to repossess the land after it was taken from them so many times over in history. If the argument is "Israel is an abuser of human rights, but the Palestinians can be forgiven for doing much worse because (insert reason here)," then you may have something worth debating. But to say that Israel has no claim to the land is to simply be taking sides, and against an ally and for a declared enemy. So be proud of yourself for sympathizing with the wrong side, traitors. Maybe you'll learn what virtue is in hell.
That was kind of harsh, so try to remember who's writing before you get all butt-hurt.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Does it really amaze you, or are you being rhetorical? Because if I'm forced out of my home, and while I'm away, someone breaks in and writes himself a deed, I don't much care about his deed. So the Ottomans conquered the region and started giving out deeds to their own people. This concerns me exactly why?
So people who have been living there for centuries should just pack up and leave because your people lived there two thousand years ago? Does your argument work if you don't believe that Jews have a God-given right to the land?
Actually, there were Jews who lived in the land straight through, despite the Roman expulsion. The town of Pekiin is a notable example. The last Jews were finally forced out last month by Arab violence.
But it's moot. Even international law discusses at what point a displaced populace loses a claim on its land. The fact that we never stopped publically declaring our intent to someday return to our land means that the Arab conquest was illegal on the face of it. Do I feel bad for people who grew up there wrongly, not realizing that they were on our land? A little. I'd feel a lot worse had they not been trying to kill us for so long.
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Which I wouldn't care about, really, except that it's used to try and delegitimize the real owners of Israel, which is the people of Israel.
That is not a fact. It's your opinion.
No, it's fact.
In your opinion. The concept is easily disputable.
So you think that your ability to dispute something makes it not a fact? There've been plenty of disputes on this forum about evolution, about global warming, about pretty much anything. So none of those can be a matter of fact, because they can be disputed?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: ^you said:
quote: Yes, because the topic list in the forum is just littered with starting posts with only a link and nothing else.
You didn't really qualify this, so whatever. Anyway, I think it's kind of petty to expect me to have added "I think the Israeli's are doing bad things" or something to that effect. I just wanted to share the article. Don't be so peevish, ya'll.
You lie. You wanted to share the article because you have an agenda to try and demonize Israel. The last three threads you started make it pretty clear.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I'll tell you what, Human. You go and find a cop and try and take his gun from him and point it at him. If you survive the attempt, you can come back and tell me how rude he was to try and put you down before you had a chance to kill him. How he didn't take your rights into consideration.
Sure. But if he beats me into a bloody pulp after shoving me into his cop car and restraining me with handcuffs, I'm gonna sue his ass. Don't patronize me, Lisa. I may not be as old as you, but I'm not dumb, either. You want me to listen to you, treat me like something other than an idiot. Like I said, I think you're both wrong. But I at least understand BOTH points of view. Doesn't make me agree with either point, but at least I have a better chance of making a fair decision.
But like I said, I'm done. I do not shy away from debate, but any discussion where I'm treated like a fool for holding my own, not-unreasonable opinion has moved far beyond debate.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
You think you understand both points of view, but you do not. You refuse to understand their point of view, and that's why you come to unreasonable and irrational conclusions. You want to think that they're people like you, who can be reasoned with. That's commendable. If we hadn't made the same mistake these past 60+ years, this war would have ended long ago. But the problem is, I think there really is nothing they can do to convince you that you're wrong about them. I can't even imagine them doing something blatant enough that you wouldn't find some way to look for blame elsewhere. Because you can't accept that an entire cultural group can be implacably evil.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
No, I can't. I cannot believe that an entire RACE is evil. Because too many people have made that claim and been wrong. For god's sake, I'm GAY. And people have been claiming my entire life that there's something about gay people that makes them evil and wrong and inherently bad. They said that about the blacks, they said that about Asians, they said that about the Jews, they said that about the native Americans, it's been used as an excuse thousands of times throughout history: "They're just all evil, they can't be reasoned with, they're just animals, so who cares if we kill them?"
And you know what the real irony is? I bet there's plenty of Palestinians that say the same thing about Israelis: "They can't be reasoned with, they just want us all dead, they've kept us from our homes and jobs, they can't be trusted...so we'll deal with it for once and for all." And who's more right? You? Because the Torah tells you so? Because God came down from the heavens and mandated that Israel was to be yours and no others? When does it stop? If it stops when the other side is dead, then be HONEST about it and start killing them, instead of pretending that we can still be nice about it!
But no. I am not so foolish to believe that every man, woman and child of an entire group of people, thousands strong, is irredeemably evil and should be removed or destroyed. Because then it makes that sort of claim legitimate, and I don't like where that stops.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I agree [edit:]with Lisa. Cultural relativism. When you see people dancing and celebrating because one of their own killed himself or herself in an attempt to kill as many innocent people as possible, women and children included, you don't try to understand them, You don't sympathize with their plight. And you don't point to the fact that there are some in the culture who do not agree with the murder. Because we aren't talking about individuals; we are talking about a culture that must be destroyed. Since we are better than them, we may not need to resort to outright killing the members of the culture. But the culture itself must die, or it will kill us instead.
Generally speaking. In relation to Israel and Palestine, things are too complicated and we must be more specific.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Then when you succeed, and you dance in the streets because the evil monsters are dead, honoring your warriors who died to make that happen--what does that make you? Conquering heroes?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Ok, so can we make a distinction Human between a Race and a Culture? The Race is fine, but the Culture is evil...? The confusion lies with the fact that the Culture consists of one Race. But take the individual of said Race out of Said Culture and you have a potentially wonderful human being.
I am not addressing homosexuality here whatsoever.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
But how do you do that? How do you separate those two? I'm honestly wondering, here.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: ^you said:
quote: Yes, because the topic list in the forum is just littered with starting posts with only a link and nothing else.
You didn't really qualify this, so whatever. Anyway, I think it's kind of petty to expect me to have added "I think the Israeli's are doing bad things" or something to that effect. I just wanted to share the article. Don't be so peevish, ya'll.
You lie. You wanted to share the article because you have an agenda to try and demonize Israel. The last three threads you started make it pretty clear.
I didn't put forth a reason for why I wanted to share the article, so it makes no sense for you to be accuse me of lying.
Israel is already a pariah state much like apartheid South Africa, with whom it had a close relationship. I don't really need to do much to demonize it. Anyway, if criticizing Israel is automatically deemed "demonization" by you then so be it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Human: No, I can't. I cannot believe that an entire RACE is evil.
Human, they aren't a race. Nor are they evil by reason of their birth. That's what racism is, you know. Being against a group of people because of who they are, inherently. Not because of any choices they've made, but because of their identity.
That's not what we're talking about here. I know Palestinian Arabs who have converted to Judaism. Some of those are among the most passionate opponents of the culture they came from, precisely because they know it better than anyone else.
It's a cliche, but what I think is a lot like the "blessing for the Czar" in Fiddler on the Roof. "May the Lord bless and keep the Czar... far, far away." Let them live and be well. Elsewhere. They won't behave themselves where they are now. They try incessantly to kill me and mine. They lionize the murderers. They celebrate our tragedies. We don't celebrate when Arabs die in our attempts to prevent their violence. If you can't see the difference, I'm sorry for you.
quote:Originally posted by Human: Because too many people have made that claim and been wrong. For god's sake, I'm GAY.
What the hell do you think I am, Human? For that matter, I'm trans. When I came out, even the gay community treated people like me like crap. You want to play "Who is the bigger victim of discrimination"? That's silly. Homophobia sucks. Anti-semitism sucks. People who hate Arabs for being Arabs suck, too.
quote:Originally posted by Human: it's been used as an excuse thousands of times throughout history: "They're just all evil, they can't be reasoned with, they're just animals, so who cares if we kill them?"
And in every case, it's been "They're evil by their very nature. They can't even stop being evil. It's just who they are." This is different. I know for a fact that they can stop it. They choose not to. Is choosing good over evil an easy choice for them? In their culture of brainwashing, probably not. But a choice it damn well is.
quote:Originally posted by Human: And you know what the real irony is? I bet there's plenty of Palestinians that say the same thing about Israelis: "They can't be reasoned with, they just want us all dead, they've kept us from our homes and jobs, they can't be trusted...so we'll deal with it for once and for all." And who's more right? You? Because the Torah tells you so?
Because they celebrate death and murder, and we bend over backwards for the cause of peace. Sure, there probably are some of them who think that if we'd just frakking give up and leave, they wouldn't have to kill us any more. Well, tough. It would be a very bad idea to give them the idea that too many of them already have that violence and murder and atrocities can win them what they want.
You saw those videos of the Micky Mouse look-alike on Palestinian Arab official TV that told the kids to murder Jews, didn't you? Or did you? Did you miss that? Did you miss the bee that came afterwards? They've had a string of Sesame Street type critters sitting with young children in their laps listening to them parrot back that the Jews need to be killed.
If that's not evil, what is? Where are the voices of protest from within their ranks? Answer: they don't exist.
When you start to understand that this culture is absolutely dedicated to evil goals and evil means of carrying them out, you're going to be very disillusioned, I think.
quote:Originally posted by Human: But no. I am not so foolish to believe that every man, woman and child of an entire group of people, thousands strong, is irredeemably evil and should be removed or destroyed. Because then it makes that sort of claim legitimate, and I don't like where that stops.
Not irredeemably. But until they make the choice to stop their evil, then they need to be treated as they are.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Human: Then when you succeed, and you dance in the streets because the evil monsters are dead, honoring your warriors who died to make that happen--what does that make you? Conquering heroes?
We don't do that. We didn't even do it when Arafat died. Or when Saddam died. We don't do that. That's one of the big differences between us and them. Learn from it.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: That's a far cry from the popular support that suicide bombers receive among Palestinian Arabs. They name schools and streets after them. They celebrate them. They teach their children to want to grow up and be martyrs, so long as they take a bunch of Jews with them.
So no, Sterling, I'm not inclined to make the distinction. They don't. They lionize terrorists. They make them heroes of the people. We are revolted and horrified and come down on such people like a ton of bricks.
You should be ashamed of yourself for not making that distinction.
I should be ashamed for unwillingness to presume that every person in a group supports violence against the innocent?
I can't imagine trying to suggest to my neighbor that the person responsible for costing me my livelihood is deserving of justice and peace when said neighbor and many others vocally of the opposite view are loud and heavily armed.
I'm not ashamed of refusing to assume that humanity is unique to the Israeli side of the equation. And a big, stomping they can be used to justify all manner of things, but rhetoric should never be confused for accuracy.
quote: Quit it with the weasel words. Israel doesn't target civilians, period. Israel has, time and again, sent ground troops into hotbeds of terrorist activity, going door to door and taking massive casualties, when carpet bombing the area would have spared our own boys. It's sickening, but the Israeli government actually thinks that's either the moral thing to do, or at the very least the politically prudent thing to do. I can guarantee you that I'd do otherwise.
I "weaselly" dare to assume that there is actually some attempt to target the violent in these actions, that government-mounted efforts are not specifically targetting civilians, and that harm done to civilians in these actions is, at worst, the product of either accidents or a level of "collateral damage" considered acceptable for the goals the actions hope to attain. The latter is somewhat appalling, but the entirety of the above notion would be considered by many the height of naivite.
A less optimisitic view would suggest that Israel's restraint is tied in with the source of their superb military's funding, and that a policy of carpet-bombing in the name of sparing Israeli military casualties- if "some people" were in charge- would turn Israel from a well-funded and armed nation surrounded by a sea of enemies to a poorly funded and armed nation surrounded by a sea of enemies.
So, just so I'm clear and not being weaselly, Israel should probably thank its lucky stars you aren't in charge.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: In your opinion. You're no judge of what's proportionate. And what the hell would be multilateral force? Israel's suppose to politely ask the nations of the world to help?
When children throwing stones are met by automatic weapons fire, I find that disproportianate. And "unilateral" is meant in this case as "one sided", as in, "this student is wearing a Palestinian flag pin, and upon refusing to remove it, they are shot."
Again, in my pro-Israel naivite, I'm willing to believe that such incidents are the work of individuals under strain, and most of their superiors neither support nor approve such actions.
It is, perhaps, an unavoidable result of extended service in a war zone.
quote:Or supporters of terrorists. Yes.
What can I possibly say to that?... If the man who could lead Palestine to a lasting peace becomes "collateral damage" as a boy today, God help us all.
quote:So if a nut takes an assault rifle and started randomly shooting up a college campus, and a person who is trained with firearms pulls a pistol and drops him with a single shot, the nut is a victim and the guy who shoots him is a villain? That's twisted. Badly twisted.
No, the person who trained in firearms and shoots the random killer is a hero. It's the guy who trained in firearms and shoots the random killer's friend just in case...
quote:That's not to say that we should kill them all indescriminately. Evil or not, they're still human beings. Every single one of them has the capacity to some day turn away from their evil and become civilized human beings instead of the barbarians they are.
Assuming you are correct, just where would the impetus for such a change come from?
quote:We don't have that luxury. If they were to surrender up the perpetrator of a terrorist action, we could punish that one person and be done with it. That's not how it works. This is a nation at war. They, as a nation, are trying to wipe us out. Those who fight, fight. Those who plan, plan. The rest support it, either actively or passively. They do nothing to stop it, and it's not because they're afraid, it's because they agree with it.
I wish I had a link to the comic in question, but I believe the punch line was "if being the good guys was easy, everyone would do it."
quote:All of those groups start from the premise that Israel is an aggressor...
From one of the linked sites in question:
quote:The Peres Center for Peace is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, non-governmental organization founded in 1996 by Nobel Peace Laureate, former Prime Minister, and current President of Israel Mr. Shimon Peres, with the aim of furthering his vision in which people of the Middle East region work together to build peace through socio-economic cooperation and development, and people-to-people interaction...
...Does a group founded by Shimon Peres "starting from the premise that Israel is the aggressor" fit with the script?
quote:Right. It's just Israeli leaders who have misled us to think that the Palestinian Arab war of extermination against us enjoys virtually unanimous grassroots support. In your dreams, Sterling. You really have to shut your eyes to one instance after another of evil Palestinian Arab hate-mongering to believe that.
...Not what I said... But, again, where would the average Palestinian get anything that any message that countermanded the image the hate-mongers are producing, from either side?
quote:Israel keeps taking half measures. No question about that. And the State of Israel bears culpability for that. Like I said earlier, we have to decide to win. Until we do that, we're simply drawing this conflict out.
And if Israel stops taking "half measures" and peace still doesn't come?...
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Lisa: Then why are you waiting around for my approval to do something about it? Why is Israel waiting for anyone's approval? If they're evil, if they cannot be dealt with, if they are the kinds of abominations you say they are, then why wait? Why haven't bombs been dropped on the entire set of Palestinian Arab areas? Why haven't they already been forced out?
You don't need my approval, what are you waiting for?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
i would like to point out that I do believe that Israel's foreign aid from the United States is somewhat trivial.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: i would like to point out that I do believe that Israel's foreign aid from the United States is somewhat trivial.
Are you kidding? Without US foriegn aid Israel's entire military infrastructure would collapse.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: That's a far cry from the popular support that suicide bombers receive among Palestinian Arabs. They name schools and streets after them. They celebrate them. They teach their children to want to grow up and be martyrs, so long as they take a bunch of Jews with them.
So no, Sterling, I'm not inclined to make the distinction. They don't. They lionize terrorists. They make them heroes of the people. We are revolted and horrified and come down on such people like a ton of bricks.
You should be ashamed of yourself for not making that distinction.
I should be ashamed for unwillingness to presume that every person in a group supports violence against the innocent?
No. You should be proud of yourself for presuming that. You should be ashamed of yourself for sticking to an uninformed presumption when there's so much information to disprove it.
There's nothing shameful about starting out thinking the best of people. There's nothing but shame in refusing to learn.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I can't imagine trying to suggest to my neighbor that the person responsible for costing me my livelihood is deserving of justice and peace when said neighbor and many others vocally of the opposite view are loud and heavily armed.
That's not my problem. There are societies that have risen up against evil people. These people not only don't rise up, but they celebrate in the streets when Jews are murdered. You honestly won't accept it, will you? There is nothing in God's earth that will make you accept the reality of it. It simply doesn't fit the way you want the world to be.
Oh, that's a great link. Let's start from the beginning. Adalah, an Arab group for "Arab rights" (meaning the right to kill us without repercussions). The "Alternative Palestinian Agenda", which has as one of its goals implementing the Palestinian "right of return", which means the "right" of millions of Palestinian Arabs who never lived here, but who have relatives who claim to have lived here, to return, and swamp us out of existence demographically. Arab Human Rights Association, same as Adalah. Let's skip some. Arab-Jewish Peace Walk. Israeli Jews who are so desperate for peace that they've embraced the Arab position on Israel.
You know what, I can't read through the whole thing. It's making me sick to my stomach. Why don't you find me one single instance on that page of a group that's dedicated to opposing Palestinian Arab violence against Israel. Just one.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I'm not ashamed of refusing to assume that humanity is unique to the Israeli side of the equation. And a big, stomping they can be used to justify all manner of things, but rhetoric should never be confused for accuracy.
quote: Quit it with the weasel words. Israel doesn't target civilians, period. Israel has, time and again, sent ground troops into hotbeds of terrorist activity, going door to door and taking massive casualties, when carpet bombing the area would have spared our own boys. It's sickening, but the Israeli government actually thinks that's either the moral thing to do, or at the very least the politically prudent thing to do. I can guarantee you that I'd do otherwise.
I "weaselly" dare to assume that there is actually some attempt to target the violent in these actions, that government-mounted efforts are not specifically targetting civilians, and that harm done to civilians in these actions is, at worst, the product of either accidents or a level of "collateral damage" considered acceptable for the goals the actions hope to attain. The latter is somewhat appalling, but the entirety of the above notion would be considered by many the height of naivite.
That's right, we do specifically try and avoid harming civilians. As contrasted to their side, where they specifically target them.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: When children throwing stones are met by automatic weapons fire, I find that disproportianate.
Children throwing stone, my ass. They have teenagers hurling building bricks. Israeli soldiers have been killed by this "stone throwing".
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: And "unilateral" is meant in this case as "one sided", as in, "this student is wearing a Palestinian flag pin, and upon refusing to remove it, they are shot."
Never happened. More Palestinian propaganda. Any Israeli soldier doing any such thing would be in jail for a very, very long time.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Or supporters of terrorists. Yes.
What can I possibly say to that?... If the man who could lead Palestine to a lasting peace becomes "collateral damage" as a boy today, God help us all.
No one there is going to do that. Nor do we have any obligation to wait for them to find such a "messiah". They are a clear and present danger. We're not going to stand their like sheep baring our necks while we wait for them to regain a modicum of sanity.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:That's not to say that we should kill them all indescriminately. Evil or not, they're still human beings. Every single one of them has the capacity to some day turn away from their evil and become civilized human beings instead of the barbarians they are.
Assuming you are correct, just where would the impetus for such a change come from?
The moral sense that every human being has, innately. Unlike Christians, we don't believe that people are born evil. Everyone has the ability to choose to do good. It is evil to target civilians. A human being who does so, or who praises someone who does so, is embracing evil.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:We don't have that luxury. If they were to surrender up the perpetrator of a terrorist action, we could punish that one person and be done with it. That's not how it works. This is a nation at war. They, as a nation, are trying to wipe us out. Those who fight, fight. Those who plan, plan. The rest support it, either actively or passively. They do nothing to stop it, and it's not because they're afraid, it's because they agree with it.
I wish I had a link to the comic in question, but I believe the punch line was "if being the good guys was easy, everyone would do it."
So you sit on the sidelines and tell us that we have to be "good guys" by your standards. By standards you'd never adhere to in a million years yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:All of those groups start from the premise that Israel is an aggressor...
From one of the linked sites in question:
quote:The Peres Center for Peace is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, non-governmental organization founded in 1996 by Nobel Peace Laureate, former Prime Minister, and current President of Israel Mr. Shimon Peres, with the aim of furthering his vision in which people of the Middle East region work together to build peace through socio-economic cooperation and development, and people-to-people interaction...
...Does a group founded by Shimon Peres "starting from the premise that Israel is the aggressor" fit with the script?
Yes. Peres is a tragedy. He was one of the architects of Oslo, and one of the people responsible for bringing Arafat out of his deserved obscurity in Libya. I hope to see the day when he is tried for treason.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Right. It's just Israeli leaders who have misled us to think that the Palestinian Arab war of extermination against us enjoys virtually unanimous grassroots support. In your dreams, Sterling. You really have to shut your eyes to one instance after another of evil Palestinian Arab hate-mongering to believe that.
...Not what I said... But, again, where would the average Palestinian get anything that any message that countermanded the image the hate-mongers are producing, from either side?
You don't do evil, regardless of the propaganda. That's what it means to be a decent human being.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Israel keeps taking half measures. No question about that. And the State of Israel bears culpability for that. Like I said earlier, we have to decide to win. Until we do that, we're simply drawing this conflict out.
And if Israel stops taking "half measures" and peace still doesn't come?...
And if Israel continues to bare its neck and peace doesn't come? I think sanity mitigates towards our taking action to protect ourselves.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: i would like to point out that I do believe that Israel's foreign aid from the United States is somewhat trivial.
Are you kidding? Without US foriegn aid Israel's entire military infrastructure would collapse.
One of the reasons I support Ron Paul is that he'd end foreign aid to Israel and to the Arabs. To answer Human's question above, if we weren't hooked on US aid like a back alley junkie on smack, we'd have dealt with this already.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Are you kidding? Without US foriegn aid Israel's entire military infrastructure would collapse.
If that's true, then it makes me more likely to support continuing such aid, considering that were there infrastructure to collapse, there's no reason to think that the many people who have officially called for wiping out Israel wouldn't take the chance to make good on their word.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Israel can manage without US handouts.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Israel's defense infrastructure wouldn't collapse. They export enough military hardware all over the world to stay in business, and I suspect if the US pulled their aid, Israel would sell a lot more weapons than before, since they'd probably feel unhindered by US restrictions on what Israel can export, though that might come with even more problems. The US is Israel's biggest trade partner if I'm not mistaken, and sanctions on top of cut aid WOULD devastate Israel.
They'd still make all the weapons they usually make, they just wouldn't be able to afford to equip everyone, train everyone, and update their materiel nearly as well as they do now. Given the problems they had in Lebanon, I think it'd be enough to leave them seriously vulnerable to Arab attacks. On the other hand, they could pretty much do whatever they wanted. The people they sell to aren't going to stop buying their stuff because of politics, they just want the guns. But if they went too far, they'd be out on a limb with no support.
It'd be a tenuous situation, and I think that though Israel might find themselves politically much more free, the kinds of things that they'd want to do with that freedom would spur military action from their neighbors that the threat of US intervention has long kept at bay. It's hard to say what would happen.
Edit to add: I should reemphasize the difference in US aid types. While we give a sizeable portion of aid to Israel in the form of military machinery which we purchase and give to them, and cash infusions for their military as well, aid also comes in the form of large loans to their government. Israel has always had big trade deficits, which result from having few natural resources but a high technology sector that makes for good exports (just not enough). They always have budget deficits, but we cover a lot of them through loans, and currently own half of Israel's debt. If the US cut off ALL aid to Israel, all aid entirely, it would be devastating to Israel's economy and military. So long as they weren't attacked, they'd be fine, they'd survive at least. Their economy is growing at a brisk pace, but I don't doubt that their neighbors would take advantage of those difficulties.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Which I wouldn't care about, really, except that it's used to try and delegitimize the real owners of Israel, which is the people of Israel.
That is not a fact. It's your opinion.
No, it's fact.
In your opinion. The concept is easily disputable.
So you think that your ability to dispute something makes it not a fact?
I didn't say that. If it makes you happy then "In my opinion that is not a fact. In your opinion it is a fact." My point is that what you take to be fact is not generally taken to be fact. You assume it as fact and then debate as if it were true and everyone else is just misled. It's impossible to debate ethics with you over this situation because your assumptions allow you to justify almost anything to protect your land.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Israel can manage without US handouts.
I used "if" for a reason.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: You mean abnormal like this?
Indeed, I think we both would consider that pretty abnormal
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You obviously won't accept that the owner of the land gave it to us
Good point Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
*sigh*
So, if I'm interpreting this correctly,
1. Anything that Israelis do to Palestinians must be justified, for if it were not, the supremely efficient and moral justice system of Israel would clamp down on the offender.
2. Anything the Palestinians do to Israelis comes from an unreasoning and groundless hatred of Israelis and the Jewish people as a whole, for which they should expect to be punished (collectively as necessary), as they are evil people.
3. Anything that claims otherwise must be the result of Arab propoganda.
4. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be an Arab sympathizer, and if Israeli in origin, a traitor.
...
I do believe my hope for peace in Israel is at an all-time low.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I do believe my hope for peace in Israel is at an all-time low.
Because of a single poster?
You need to get out more.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
This must be the most fruitless thread I've seen in years.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Israel is in a tough situation. They take a lot of hits, but when they do hit back they pack a wallop, and people get hurt....and collateral damage occurs.
Add to that the fact that their enemy uses large civilian populations as bases of aggression to make being hit back a lot harder, and there you have it.....
....no matter what they do they are screwed.
I honestly don't know what I would do if I was there myself.
All I know is there seems to be a surplus of hate on both sides....but if I had to choose a side to win it would be Israel, hands down.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I do believe my hope for peace in Israel is at an all-time low.
Because of a single poster?
You need to get out more.
More because a relatively small minority with an identical mindset could easily stifle others' efforts.
EDIT: Although- heh!- you're probably right. Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: This must be the most fruitless thread I've seen in years.
I think it's one of the most interesting threads in years.
I just read through the whole thing now, and I just want to say that I think Lisa argued her position better than she got credit for and did not deserve the insults sent her way by Katharina and a few others before. I didn't see her being insulting or hostile until she was being accused of it.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Those who actually commit acts of violence against Israel, or attempt to do so, should be killed. Yes. Without exception. ... Those who propagandize for them and those who allow themselves to be used as human shields are not the same. We should not intentionally harm them, but neither do we have any responsibility for their well being .... And yes, it is a national effort. It is supported by their grassroots. It is not a bunch of bad guys in a junta with helpless peons who can't stop the madness. ... Our responsibility is to protect our people. If protecting one of our lives costs one hundred of theirs, that's cheap.
quote: Everyone has the ability to choose to do good. It is evil to target civilians. A human being who does so, or who praises someone who does so, is embracing evil.
Such a fine line, who is and isn't evil.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: This must be the most fruitless thread I've seen in years.
I think it's one of the most interesting threads in years.
I just read through the whole thing now, and I just want to say that I think Lisa argued her position better than she got credit for and did not deserve the insults sent her way by Katharina and a few others before. I didn't see her being insulting or hostile until she was being accused of it.
Kat might have been a little provacative, but given Lisa's history with this subject, and her actions in the past, I don't think it was unfair.
My problem with Lisa's debate style is that she often represents opinions as unerring, unassailable facts. When you try to disagree with her, you're generally wrong, but she goes further than just saying you're wrong. She'll call people liars, she'll label vast groups with moral absolutes like good and evil. She's a fanatic. There's nothing inherently offensive or insulting in the term fanatic, and I think it's a very accurate word to describe her feelings towards a place she doesn't live, but still has a clear connection to.
I've mostly shied away from engaging her in this thread (hooray, personal growth for Lyrhawn!), because I've found over the years of debating this subject with her that it's not a debate of merits, it's a largely a debate of faith, with a sprinkling of current events mixed in. She'll never change her mind, and she'll rarely even listen to opposing viewpoints before soundly denouncing them. Thus the only real reason to argue with her is because sometimes poking the bear is just plain fun; it's interesting to see just how outlandish her statements can get before you call her on them and she tries to parse them into something less shocking.
Plus inevitably, any discussion about Israel and Palestine on Hatrack becomes enmeshed in her rhetoric. Once she wades into the fray, most substantive conversation ends.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Kat - I'd just like to state for the record that Lisa began this thread (in my opinion) in a relatively guarded, rational way and that insults did not enter into the equation until you went on the attack.
As much as I don't agree with Lisa's views on Israel most of the time, I have to agree with her in this thread that you're not bringing anything to the discussion but instigation, kat, and that there was far less hostility before you started in on Lisa.
I don't know why I feel compelled to say this - especially as I've pretty much sworn off posting in Israel/Palestine threads (though I still read them) - but I couldn't help but notice when the tenor of the conversation changed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, MightyCow, I won't say such a person is totally, irreversibly evil, but I am quite comfortable in saying that it is evil to endorse and cheer on the deliberate targeting of civilians for murder.
-----
quote:More because a relatively small minority with an identical mindset could easily stifle others' efforts.
Here's the thing you appear to be missing (at least in this conversation, anyway): a small minority stifling and even destroying outright the majority's option to take another stance isn't the Israeli problem, it's the Palestinian problem.
Seriously. Any individual hate-filled lunatic among the Palestinians can break any sort of peace or negotiations at any time. But instead of suggesting that the Palestinians themselves be responsible for controlling their own people, the common suggestion-even unmentioned-is that Israel should just, I don't know, 'tolerate' a 'few' suicide bombers.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You're wrong, Flying Cow.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sorry, Katie, but I agree with FC on this.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't agree with either of you.
Rivka, I know you hate these threads, but if you're going to pop in and comment on user's posts, I wish you would say something about what Lisa says and the way she posts. I can't imagine that you approve of her calls for ethnic cleansing, but the silence isn't helpful. If you're going to comment, comment on everyone's. Do you approve of her actions and words? If not, how do you disagree?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Nope. You don't get to tell me what to comment on.
And silence is the most helpful way to deal with many of Lisa's posts. I recommend it.
The last few times I explained which of Lisa's comments I agreed with and which I did not was too nuanced -- I ended up getting attacked by both sides. I am not going to claim I disagree with everything she says (I certainly don't), and I am not going to join the cohort attacking every word she says either.
I found your posts in this thread worse -- considerably -- than hers. And that's saying something.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Considering she's advocating ethnic cleansing and swearing at people, it certainly does, but not about me.
I'll give you a break and assume it's a matter of expectations. No one is shocked by the contents of a compost pile either.
[ April 23, 2008, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, ethnic cleaning* is not a very radical suggestion in this issue at all. I've heard it often.
*Not to be confused with genocide.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think the ability to draw a nuanced line between ethnic cleansing and genocide is the only thing that made your post possible, Jeff. Unfortunately, I don't think that distinction actually can -- in practice -- be usefully made.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Even if I agreed with Lisa's goal, I don't think it could possibly be executed without such massive loss of life that actually carrying it out would be a significant human rights violation.
But people here have condemned Israel for not spending its own resources to support people who elected a political party whose official position calls for ethnic cleansing. In the last week, they have demanded that Israel give in to all the Palestinians territorial demands - including allowing millions of people who voted for the ethnic-cleansing-advocating party to move inside Israel's pre-1967 borders. They have refused every chance to say they would no longer seek Israel's destruction, promising only a 10-year truce - and that only if Israel gives in to all its demands.
People are demanding more of Lisa than they are of the elected government with whom Israel is supposed to negotiate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think the ability to draw a nuanced line between ethnic cleansing and genocide is the only thing that made your post possible, Jeff. Unfortunately, I don't think that distinction actually can -- in practice -- be usefully made.
The line isn't that nuanced. Even if I'm right that practically speaking one couldn't move the Palestinians without killing so many as to amount to the same wrong as genocide, Lisa's disagreement on that does not mean that she supports genocide.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tom, that's a different discussion entirely. I don't really know if the distinction would be possibly outside the abstract, of course.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
When Lebanon was partitioned off from Syria, all Christians in Syria were forced to leave and go to Syria. Of course, not all Muslims were forced to leave Lebanon, which is why Lebanon became such a mess. But the Christians weren't killed. It wasn't genocide, despite the fact that "Christian Syrian" became a null set.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which is why I prefer to say that Lisa believes the Palestinians should be removed or killed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Which is a really annoying tendency you have - to apply your beliefs about likely consequences to someone else's policy preferences and then say that that person supports the outcome you think likely.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Which is why I prefer to say that Lisa believes the Palestinians should be removed or killed.
Or you could say that Lisa believes the Palestinian Arabs (important qualification, btw, because "Palestinian" includes all the Jews living there as well) should be abducted by aliens, or tickled with feather boas until they wet themselves, or any other thing that you might make up that I've never said and that I've denied supporting.
I mean, as long as you want to be an idiot about it, that is.
Or you could, you know, just take what I say about what I believe at face value, and stop attributing your beliefs about my beliefs to me.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I am with Dags on this issue, at least as far as I have heard so far. I don't think it is wrong to withhold support for people trying to kill you, nor do I think they usually target civilians.
But I do understand why this is such a hard topic to discuss.....because neither side is willing to grant the others an inch. Israel has tried that, and it usually has been a bad idea, and the Arabs (the specific ones we are talking about, however you want to name them) are only looking for a better base from which to attack.
If the same situation happened here in the US, we probably wouldn't have any better way of dealing with it, as it seems to be a true catch-22.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
your wrong there if soemthing similar happened to Fortress Americana the US would've responded with as much force as deemed necessary to eliminate the threat regradless of how it would have looks or what the world would have thought.
Israel is in a harder position, it is in a position where it is at least trying to have good foreign relations with people and not be the target of the umpteenth UN sanction correspondingly vetoed by the US.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Or you could say that Lisa believes the Palestinian Arabs (important qualification, btw, because "Palestinian" includes all the Jews living there as well) should be abducted by aliens, or tickled with feather boas until they wet themselves, or any other thing that you might make up that I've never said and that I've denied supporting.
Abducted by aliens, of course, constitutes removal. Torturing them as a matter of policy -- with feather boas or otherwise -- until they "voluntarily" leave, given that you're a Randian, would also constitute a form of removal.
quote:Or you could, you know, just take what I say about what I believe at face value...
I do. Frankly, you're being very disingenuous here about what you have in the past said "at face value."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Abducted by aliens, of course, constitutes removal. Torturing them as a matter of policy -- with feather boas or otherwise -- until they "voluntarily" leave, given that you're a Randian, would also constitute a form of removal.
Yes, Tom, but someone saying that the want a particular thing to happen does not mean that they support all ways of achieving that thing.
It'd be like accusing someone who wants to see more kidneys available for transplant of favoring mandatory harvesting of kidneys of unwilling donors.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Or you could say that Lisa believes the Palestinian Arabs (important qualification, btw, because "Palestinian" includes all the Jews living there as well) should be abducted by aliens, or tickled with feather boas until they wet themselves, or any other thing that you might make up that I've never said and that I've denied supporting.
Abducted by aliens, of course, constitutes removal. Torturing them as a matter of policy -- with feather boas or otherwise -- until they "voluntarily" leave, given that you're a Randian, would also constitute a form of removal.
I said until they wet themselves. Not until they leave. Read what I wrote, Tom, and not what you invent.
Also, I'm an Objectivist. I'm most certainly not a Randian.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Or you could, you know, just take what I say about what I believe at face value...
I do. Frankly, you're being very disingenuous here about what you have in the past said "at face value."
Cite it or admit that you're lying.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: your wrong there if soemthing similar happened to Fortress Americana the US would've responded with as much force as deemed necessary to eliminate the threat regradless of how it would have looks or what the world would have thought.
Israel is in a harder position, it is in a position where it is at least trying to have good foreign relations with people and not be the target of the umpteenth UN sanction correspondingly vetoed by the US.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I would think it likely, but then again the situations would be a little different.
Flip it around though...put the US in the Palestinians situation....would we allow someone, regardless of their (far) past claim to any plot of land, to establish a country we laid claim to?
I don't think so, even if they paid for the land.
Of course that is a VERY lopsided analogy to say the least, but it does show that there is more than one side to this conflict, and that perhaps BOTH sides feel they are in the right at times, which is why this is such a hard situation to resolve peacefully.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Pretty sure the US DOES have a somewhat analagous situation, and they're living in poverty on reservations all over the US right now after centuries of forced marches and slaughter.
It's not totally the same I know, for a lot of reasons, but we have our own terrible legacy to deal with. Marching the American natives around the country whenever we wanted their lands took a massive toll on their way of life and their population count. While it's a much smaller scale in Israel, I think it's impossible to imagine that an Arab Trail of Tears, forcibly removing people who do not want to leave, who are fighting to stay independently, will happen peacefully. This to say nothing of the fact that they have nowhere to go. Israel marches them into the Sinai or Jodan, closes the door behind them and then what? Thousands more will die in camps on Israel's borders while Israel sends bulldozers and settellers into Gaza and the West Bank.
Academically I can make the distinction between a forced exodus and genocide. But specific to this discussion? Such a distinction doesn't exist. We aren't talking academically about the different between cleansing and genocide, we're talking about actual solutions to this problem, aren't we?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think it's impossible to imagine that an Arab Trail of Tears, forcibly removing people who do not want to leave, who are fighting to stay independently, will happen peacefully. This to say nothing of the fact that they have nowhere to go. Israel marches them into the Sinai or Jodan, closes the door behind them and then what? Thousands more will die in camps on Israel's borders while Israel sends bulldozers and settellers into Gaza and the West Bank.
Academically I can make the distinction between a forced exodus and genocide. But specific to this discussion? Such a distinction doesn't exist. We aren't talking academically about the different between cleansing and genocide, we're talking about actual solutions to this problem, aren't we?
It's one thing to argue that this is what will happen, therefore Israel should not embark upon this project. That happens to be my reason for thinking it's a horrible idea.
It's another to say that those who disagree with us about the possibility of removing them without having a de facto genocide desire that de facto genocide to happen, which is essentially what Tom has done.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I agree mostly.
But with Lisa it's hard to give her the benefit of the doubt. Given her comments in the past, and her view of Palestinian Arabs, I really have to wonder if she wouldn't be okay with the price that'd have to be paid to implement such a move. I won't go so far as to actually assign beliefs upon her, I think academically you're right about assigning beliefs based on what will probably happen even if something seems like a good idea without the consequences, but I'm also extremely skeptical of much of what Lisa says; it has to be reconciled with past statements.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Pretty sure the US DOES have a somewhat analagous situation, and they're living in poverty on reservations all over the US right now after centuries of forced marches and slaughter.
It's both unjust and plain incorrect to compare the Palestinian Arabs to the American Indians. The Europeans who conquered America were not the people who were kicked out of it prior to a bloody Indian conquest.
That said, if the Indians had committed the sort of atrocities against the US that the Palestinian Arabs have against Israel, there probably wouldn't be an Indian left to tell the story. And I'm not talking about expulsion, either.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: This to say nothing of the fact that they have nowhere to go.
Yes, they do. There's plenty of room in the Sinai. Hell, have you looked at the population densities in either Egypt or Jordan?
Far as I'm concerned, they can go back to Arabia.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Israel marches them into the Sinai or Jodan, closes the door behind them and then what? Thousands more will die in camps on Israel's borders while Israel sends bulldozers and settellers into Gaza and the West Bank.
Nope. No "settlers". Just Israelis, living in Israel. No having to install iron grates over our windshields to protect us from cinderblocks thrown at our cars. No need any more to install bulletproof windows on our cars and buses. No expensive bypass roads to take us around hostile areas. We can have normal trashcans in public areas, instead of the incredibly expensive bomb-proof ones that don't hold very much. If we forget a bag at a busstop, we can go back for it without worrying that the bomb squad is already there. We can go into an air conditioned mall on a brutally hot day without having to spend 20 minutes waiting in line at the door as guards check our bags for bombs.
Basically, we can live normal lives. Not lives under siege. Not lives lived in fear. Sounds like an excellent situation to me.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Academically I can make the distinction between a forced exodus and genocide. But specific to this discussion? Such a distinction doesn't exist. We aren't talking academically about the different between cleansing and genocide, we're talking about actual solutions to this problem, aren't we?
We're talking about the difference between amputation, which has risk associated with it, and dying painfully of drawn out gangrene. And note that the risk diminishes according to the behavior of the Palestinian Arabs.
You know, I'm actually even willing to pay them. Granted, that might be a very bad idea, because even suggesting it might indicate to them that it's an acknowledgement that we're wronging them, rather than a gift given out of good will, and in hopes that they'll be able to use the money to live good lives.
This article points out that Israel spends about $150 billion every 10 years to counter internal Arab threats. As Feiglin points out, "That money is enough to give every Arab family in Yesha $250,000". Note, btw, that the article mistakenly translates "Yesha" as "Gaza". It's actually a Hebrew acronym for "Judea, Samaria and Gaza".
So, we give them a choice: leave voluntarily for a quarter of a million dollars cash, tax free, or leave involuntarily and get nothing.
Now that sounds like a peace plan to me.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I agree mostly.
But with Lisa it's hard to give her the benefit of the doubt. Given her comments in the past, and her view of Palestinian Arabs, I really have to wonder if she wouldn't be okay with the price that'd have to be paid to implement such a move. I won't go so far as to actually assign beliefs upon her, I think academically you're right about assigning beliefs based on what will probably happen even if something seems like a good idea without the consequences, but I'm also extremely skeptical of much of what Lisa says; it has to be reconciled with past statements.
The last time you made a claim about my "past statements" and I challenged you to cite it or retract it, you basically retracted it, though extremely grudgingly. Should we do that again?
No, I think this time you'll probably stick to vagueness about "past statements" without making any explicitly false claims that you'll only have to eat. Wise move. Not as good as avoiding the vague implications, which are false as well, but better than out and out lies.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Nope.
You're going to have to get along.
No genocide. No ethnic cleansing. Isaac and Ishmael, no one's leaving camp this time. I'm not concerned about how long it takes.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
How much money would it take for all the Israelis to leave? Couldn't they also just take the money and walk away?
For some reason, everybody would prefer to stay and kill each other.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Its because israel is the rightful land of the Jewish people, why should they leave? They were already forced out by Romans, they came back after the world tried to purge them from existence why should they leave?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And yet still I get sucked in...
quote:It's both unjust and plain incorrect to compare the Palestinian Arabs to the American Indians. The Europeans who conquered America were not the people who were kicked out of it prior to a bloody Indian conquest.
That said, if the Indians had committed the sort of atrocities against the US that the Palestinian Arabs have against Israel, there probably wouldn't be an Indian left to tell the story. And I'm not talking about expulsion, either.
I'm going to ignore the whole Israel being the land of god's chosen people bit, because it's something you'll never, ever convince me with, and it's something I'll never talk you out of, so why waste our breath?
I'm talking about the situation involving a forced march and displacing internal populations of people, I'm not comparing the entire US/Indian relationship to the entire Arab/Israeli situation throughout history and today.
quote:Yes, they do. There's plenty of room in the Sinai. Hell, have you looked at the population densities in either Egypt or Jordan?
Far as I'm concerned, they can go back to Arabia.
Yeah that's my point, you don't really care where they go, so long as they aren't in your way. Would you care if they all died in the desert? No one would take them all in. They'd either have to force their way in, visiting a massive crisis upon whichever country they more or less invade, or they'd have to start somewhere from scratch. There's plenty of room in Israel too, it's not a matter of space.
quote:Nope. No "settlers". Just Israelis, living in Israel.
Parse the words whatever way you want, you'll boot them out the back door and then move right in on your new digs. It'll look horribly callous.
quote:You know, I'm actually even willing to pay them. Granted, that might be a very bad idea, because even suggesting it might indicate to them that it's an acknowledgement that we're wronging them, rather than a gift given out of good will, and in hopes that they'll be able to use the money to live good lives.
So, we give them a choice: leave voluntarily for a quarter of a million dollars cash, tax free, or leave involuntarily and get nothing.
Now that sounds like a peace plan to me.
That on the other hand, might come closer to working. If you give them a real means with which to live their lives and build a new society in whatever place you dump them, it could make such a plan viable, and considerably less bloody.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The last time you made a claim about my "past statements" and I challenged you to cite it or retract it, you basically retracted it, though extremely grudgingly. Should we do that again?
No, I think this time you'll probably stick to vagueness about "past statements" without making any explicitly false claims that you'll only have to eat. Wise move. Not as good as avoiding the vague implications, which are false as well, but better than out and out lies.
At least twice now, when you've called me a liar, I've contradicted that with previous statements of yours that clearly do not jive. I'm sick of you saying something, then denying it, then calling anyone a liar who calls you on it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: ... No genocide. No ethnic cleansing. Isaac and Ishmael, no one's leaving camp this time. I'm not concerned about how long it takes.
When (or if) the situation deteriorates to the extent that genocide or ethnic cleansing are real possibilities, I'm sure that one of the last things that will be relevant to either the Palestinian Muslims or Israelis will be your concern or your fiat to behave Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It's one thing to argue that this is what will happen, therefore Israel should not embark upon this project. That happens to be my reason for thinking it's a horrible idea.
It's another to say that those who disagree with us about the possibility of removing them without having a de facto genocide desire that de facto genocide to happen, which is essentially what Tom has done.
In fairness, Tom isn't exactly the only one suggesting there's inevitable consequences to a particular plan or course of action, here.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I was thinking about the treatment of the US Indian population and our history with them when I wrote my post, but there were enough loaded statements floating around out there that I didn't feel the need to draw a direct comparison.
Blayne..should the indigenous people of Canada want their land back would you have a problem leaving your home to them? Because it WAS their land first...
When talking about claims of who lived where first, there comes a point of diminishing return regarding property rights. Almost every culture has taken their land from someone else. I know that if some Indian tribe wanted the land I owned I would fight them tooth and nail to keep it, despite the fact that my family has only been in the US for about 250 years.
The point is that we are suppose to be doing things differently these days to prevent the cycle of violence from continuing.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
I just find it amusing that the ad at the bottom of this page is for a Muslim-oriented dating service...
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Nope.
You're going to have to get along.
No genocide. No ethnic cleansing. Isaac and Ishmael, no one's leaving camp this time. I'm not concerned about how long it takes.
No offensive, Scott, but who cares what you have to say about it? You're just a bystander. And we have no obligation to wait while they learn how to get along.
You can continue with your inane position that "we" have to learn how to get along, as though we haven't bent over backwards to do just that, but it just makes you look like you're not paying attention.
They do need to learn how to get along. But they won't. So they have to leave.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Heck, Mucus, they don't care now. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: In fairness, Tom isn't exactly the only one suggesting there's inevitable consequences to a particular plan or course of action, here.
Tom is, however, the only person who has blatantly claimed that I advocate genocide, which is a bald-faced lie, but which he supports based on his belief in inevitable consequences.
If I'm mistaken, and there are others who have made this claim, they're liars as well, and I apologize for overlooking their dishonesty.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I was thinking about the treatment of the US Indian population and our history with them when I wrote my post, but there were enough loaded statements floating around out there that I didn't feel the need to draw a direct comparison.
Blayne..should the indigenous people of Canada want their land back would you have a problem leaving your home to them? Because it WAS their land first...
When talking about claims of who lived where first, there comes a point of diminishing return regarding property rights. Almost every culture has taken their land from someone else. I know that if some Indian tribe wanted the land I owned I would fight them tooth and nail to keep it, despite the fact that my family has only been in the US for about 250 years.
The point is that we are suppose to be doing things differently these days to prevent the cycle of violence from continuing.
There are huge differences on of them is that the Israeli's actually got their land back and are a nation state.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:The last time you made a claim about my "past statements" and I challenged you to cite it or retract it, you basically retracted it, though extremely grudgingly. Should we do that again?
No, I think this time you'll probably stick to vagueness about "past statements" without making any explicitly false claims that you'll only have to eat. Wise move. Not as good as avoiding the vague implications, which are false as well, but better than out and out lies.
At least twice now, when you've called me a liar, I've contradicted that with previous statements of yours that clearly do not jive. I'm sick of you saying something, then denying it, then calling anyone a liar who calls you on it.
Jibe. Not jive. And no, you have not.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: [qb] Nope.
You're going to have to get along.
No genocide. No ethnic cleansing. Isaac and Ishmael, no one's leaving camp this time. I'm not concerned about how long it takes.
No offensive, Scott, but who cares what you have to say about it? You're just a bystander. And we have no obligation to wait while they learn how to get along.
It doesn't matter what other people think about me, Lisa. It only matters what I think.
quote:You can continue with your inane position that "we" have to learn how to get along, as though we haven't bent over backwards to do just that, but it just makes you look like you're not paying attention.
They do need to learn how to get along. But they won't. So they have to leave.
No. They really don't. Wave your arms around, scream and cry, be insulting, lobby, do whatever you please, they do not have to leave.
Neither should Israelis be forced to leave.
I do not grant that the land belongs exclusively to the Jews. I believe they have a place there, the same way EVERYONE has a place there, or anywhere. I'm not concerned with previous claims to the land, no matter how old they are, or who the Owner was.
I don't know that Israel has handled the situation badly. I know that your demands, Lisa, are horrific and immoral.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Jibe. Not jive.
"No offense," not "No offensive."
Davidson's law.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In fairness, Tom isn't exactly the only one suggesting there's inevitable consequences to a particular plan or course of action, here.
I agree with Tom on that point.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Abducted by aliens, of course, constitutes removal. Torturing them as a matter of policy -- with feather boas or otherwise -- until they "voluntarily" leave, given that you're a Randian, would also constitute a form of removal.
Yes, Tom, but someone saying that the want a particular thing to happen does not mean that they support all ways of achieving that thing.
It'd be like accusing someone who wants to see more kidneys available for transplant of favoring mandatory harvesting of kidneys of unwilling donors.
Incidentally that's not a bad idea....
I'll let the victims know who to thank Dag.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Or you could, you know, just take what I say about what I believe at face value...
I do. Frankly, you're being very disingenuous here about what you have in the past said "at face value."
Cite it or admit that you're lying.
As if those were the only two options.
I'd just like to go on record as saying that I'm quite sure I remember Lisa saying that all Palestinians want the destruction of Israel, and that since they wouldn't change their minds, the only solution would be for them to be dead. Can I cite it? No, in part because I can't remember exactly what words she used, and in part because given the volatility of these threads, there's a good possibility that it's been deleted. What it comes down to is that it's Lisa's present word against the word of those who say they saw it. We don't need to "take it back." What a childish sentiment anyway.
In any case, I guess I view it as progress that Lisa now claims she isn't in favor of genocide.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Heck, Mucus, they don't care now.
This is true. Although I must admit curiosity. If you know that they won't care then why issue the instructions? Was it to relieve stress? Was it a prediction (i.e. this is what is going to happen, get resigned to it)?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah that's my point, you don't really care where they go, so long as they aren't in your way. Would you care if they all died in the desert?
Actually, believe it or not, yes, I would. So would the rest of Israel. While I'm sure there'd be some voices opposing dropping aid packages for them, I think they'd lose. On the whole, we'd care every bit as much as we'd care for any other population in distress, if they were in distress. Of course, with a quarter million bucks per family, I doubt they'd be in distress.
What? You think we're like them? You think we'd hold a grudge? Honest to God, Lyrhawn, we don't wish them ill; we just want them to leave us alone.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Nope. No "settlers". Just Israelis, living in Israel.
Parse the words whatever way you want, you'll boot them out the back door and then move right in on your new digs. It'll look horribly callous.
There's a point at which acting for our own self-preservation is going to have to trump "looking callous". Hell, Lyrhawn, do you honestly think there's anyone out there who would be okay with us kicking them out, but not okay with us moving in afterwards? No. The people who would find it horribly callous would be so busy frothing at the mouth about the expulsion that our moving in would hardly be noticeable.
But then, you know, after a while, they might start to notice that the world was a bit calmer. The more intelligent among them might even start to draw conclusions from that.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:You know, I'm actually even willing to pay them. Granted, that might be a very bad idea, because even suggesting it might indicate to them that it's an acknowledgement that we're wronging them, rather than a gift given out of good will, and in hopes that they'll be able to use the money to live good lives.
So, we give them a choice: leave voluntarily for a quarter of a million dollars cash, tax free, or leave involuntarily and get nothing.
Now that sounds like a peace plan to me.
That on the other hand, might come closer to working. If you give them a real means with which to live their lives and build a new society in whatever place you dump them, it could make such a plan viable, and considerably less bloody.
Sounds cool to me. I'd prefer less blood and violence.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:The last time you made a claim about my "past statements" and I challenged you to cite it or retract it, you basically retracted it, though extremely grudgingly. Should we do that again?
No, I think this time you'll probably stick to vagueness about "past statements" without making any explicitly false claims that you'll only have to eat. Wise move. Not as good as avoiding the vague implications, which are false as well, but better than out and out lies.
At least twice now, when you've called me a liar, I've contradicted that with previous statements of yours that clearly do not jive. I'm sick of you saying something, then denying it, then calling anyone a liar who calls you on it.
Jibe. Not jive. And no, you have not.
Really? Prove me wrong, or retract that statement.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I'd just like to go on record as saying that I'm quite sure I remember Lisa saying that all Palestinians want the destruction of Israel, and that since they wouldn't change their minds, the only solution would be for them to be dead.
My only question, then, would be whether you are lying intentionally, or whether you're simply mistaken. Even if you're mistaken, I'd class it as intellectual laziness, because I'm quite certain that I've been accused of that enough times, and pointed out that it isn't true enough times, that only a fool or a knave would be able to continue making the claim.
So Glenn... which are you?
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Can I cite it? No, in part because I can't remember exactly what words she used, and in part because given the volatility of these threads, there's a good possibility that it's been deleted. What it comes down to is that it's Lisa's present word against the word of those who say they saw it. We don't need to "take it back." What a childish sentiment anyway.
It's a childish sentiment to demand that a libelous and vicious lie be retracted? What about all of the threads where you defended pedophilia as a "legitimate expression of love"?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
A wrong statement is not necessarily a lie. What do you see behind Glenn and Lyrhawn's claims that would lead you to believe that they are intentionally making false statements about you?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Read the sentence in my previous post that starts "Even if you're mistaken". Asked and answered. You don't attribute support for genocide to someone lightly if you have the slightest moral sense.
I've been denying this lie for years here. Every time it comes up in the face of those denials, it becomes more and more obvious that the people making the claim are being less than honest.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:It's a childish sentiment to demand that a libelous and vicious lie be retracted?
Words cannot be retracted, which is exactly the problem you're having with yours.
quote:So Glenn... which are you?
Once again, false dichotomy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:pointed out that it isn't true enough times
If only wishing made it so.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:It's a childish sentiment to demand that a libelous and vicious lie be retracted?
Words cannot be retracted, which is exactly the problem you're having with yours.
The problem is, I never said what you're claiming.
You know, you can go back several years on Usenet and find imbeciles like Tom and Lyrhawn and yourself making the same libelous claims. And me denying them. You're suggesting that even after I was denying those claims, I was -- again -- advocating genocide here. That's stupid even for you, Glenn.
And let me add that someone like you, who has repeatedly said that "rape just isn't such a big deal" is really in no position to be casting aspersions on other people.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:You're suggesting that even after I was denying those claims, I was -- again -- advocating genocide here.
quote:In any case, I guess I view it as progress that Lisa now claims she isn't in favor of genocide.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:pointed out that it isn't true enough times
If only wishing made it so.
I don't delete my posts, Lyrhawn. If I'd said it, you'd have been able to find it by now. You can't, because I didn't. Instead, you did exactly what Tom did. You took what I did say, reformulated it in your own mind to include what you feel are inevitable, or at least highly likely outcomes, and have attributed the result to me.
You know as well as I do that even if you're too lazy to bother searching, there are umpteen dozen other people on this forum who have already done the search since this current disagreement began, and who would have been only too happy to post a link to it had they found anything.
It may have been a misrememberance the first time. Even the second time. But now you're just a damned liar.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:You're suggesting that even after I was denying those claims, I was -- again -- advocating genocide here.
quote:In any case, I guess I view it as progress that Lisa now claims she isn't in favor of genocide.
What's your point? I was denying it on Usenet years before I even joined Hatrack. For you to honestly think I'd advocate genocide here after I'd had to deal with morons like you on Usenet before that, you're wackier than I thought.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's another to say that those who disagree with us about the possibility of removing them without having a de facto genocide desire that de facto genocide to happen, which is essentially what Tom has done.
Not quite. I don't for a minute think that Lisa desires that a genocide occur. I think she is willing to keep genocide on the table as a possible solution, however, should all else fail.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This is my favorite spectator sport.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
You need to get out more. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This is my favorite spectator sport.
Get in the game! Go out and oppress someone today.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It's another to say that those who disagree with us about the possibility of removing them without having a de facto genocide desire that de facto genocide to happen, which is essentially what Tom has done.
Not quite. I don't for a minute think that Lisa desires that a genocide occur. I think she is willing to keep genocide on the table as a possible solution, however, should all else fail.
Then you're an imbecile. Because only an imbecile would attribute such an intent to someone who is right there and who can be asked what her intent is.
No, I would not keep genocide on the table. Nor could I, because it never was on the table to begin with. Maybe it would be for you. In fact, the more I hear you attributing that view to me, the more I'm put in mind of the rabbinic maxim that one who libels someone is generally doing so because the libel is true of himself.
Maybe you're enough of a moral viper to consider such a thing. I'm not. Nor is anyone I know, and believe me, I know a lot of people who are further to the right than I am. None of them would consider such a thing.
It isn't necessary. It will never be necessary. Even with well meaning idiots like yourself dragging out the conflict by rejecting reasonable solutions to it, it will still never be necessary.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It isn't necessary. It will never be necessary.
This may be a difference in definitions. How many Palestinians do you think you'll need to kill before the others agree to run away?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Bite me. No one is planning on anything of the sort. You really are an ass, Tom.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Lisa, here are some statements of yours that I take issue with. I can't speak for anybody else but maybe by looking at the issues I take with you some of your attitudes we can focus the discussion on what you are saying that causes people to perceive that you support genocide (a flaky claim imo) and/or relatively indiscriminate killing of Palestinians (an impression that I have gotten).
For example, you said:
quote:The Palestinian Arabs have brought all of their misfortunes upon themselves. If they weren't engaged in war against the very existence of Israel, Israel wouldn't have to take steps to keep them from doing so. They'd have their precious infrastructure. It is their own fault. It is their own responsibility.
So the Palestinians are responsible for the consequences of Israeli attacks? That type of attitude basically absolves Israel of any responsibility for their actions against the Palestinians. The consequences of Israel's actions are the fault of the Palestinians and, therefore, Israel can do whatever they want as long as they can blame the Palestinians for provoking them (assuming you statements to be true). "Blame the victim" attitudes are dangerous in general because they can be used to justify almost anything.
quote:Those who actually commit acts of violence against Israel, or attempt to do so, should be killed. Yes. Without exception. Fire a rocket at us, you die. Carry arms or munitions into Israel, you die. Kidnap or attack an Israeli, with firearms, molotov cocktails, or so much as a rock, and you die.[/qb]
Many people would view the implementation of the death penalty for smuggling and assault as barbaric. Supporting such a practice suggests a blatant disregard for the value of human life.
[quote]Our responsibility is to protect our people. If protecting one of our lives costs one hundred of theirs, that's cheap. Our lives are of inestimable value to us. The lives of people who are committing war against us are not and should not be worth anything at all.
I completely disagree with this attitude. If I were given the option of killing 300,000 American-hating Muslims to stop another 9/11 then I would refuse.
quote:Israel doesn't target civilians, period. Israel has, time and again, sent ground troops into hotbeds of terrorist activity, going door to door and taking massive casualties, when carpet bombing the area would have spared our own boys. It's sickening, but the Israeli government actually thinks that's either the moral thing to do, or at the very least the politically prudent thing to do. I can guarantee you that I'd do otherwise.
It's statements like this that make me think that you could really care less how many Palestinians die as a result of this conflict.
Overall, I think the issue is that there does not appear to be any ethical code by which you believe Israel is obligated to obey. You don't support genocide but your viewpoints do not exclude the possibility.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Israel doesn't target civilians, period. Israel has, time and again, sent ground troops into hotbeds of terrorist activity, going door to door and taking massive casualties, when carpet bombing the area would have spared our own boys. It's sickening, but the Israeli government actually thinks that's either the moral thing to do, or at the very least the politically prudent thing to do. I can guarantee you that I'd do otherwise.
It's statements like this that make me think that you could really care less how many Palestinians die as a result of this conflict.
I may point out that that particular statement does not seem *particularly* crazy. The same sentiment was expressed at the end of WWII in regards to an invasion of Japan. The decision was maid that dropping the two nuclear bombs and killing roughly 200k civilians was preferable to sending in the troops to go "door to door" and take casualties.
Granted, you could disapprove of both carpet bombing and the Nagasaki/Hiroshima decision, but I'm just trying to point out she's not completely out of the ballpark.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In case anyone is curious, here are some past statements by Lisa which demonstrate how she feels about the value of Arab/Muslim/Other life. I know that she'd want me to be specific:
quote:For the record, and as a matter of full disclosure, if Muslims want to butcher one another because of their religion, that's just fine and dandy with me. It's when their blood-lust is directed at everyone else that we have a serious problem.
quote:You mean the Canaanites? Sure I will. I'm proud of it. God told us to destroy them, and we did. The only thing we did wrong was in not completing the job fast enough, and we paid the price for that.
quote:Nine Israeli soldiers died today in house-to-house fighting. Note: The purpose of house-to-house fighting, when it'd be easier just to drop a bomb on the neighborhood, is to avoid civilian casualties.
That's nine more boys we sacrificed for the sake of saving Arab lives.
It wasn't worth it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: So the Palestinians are responsible for the consequences of Israeli attacks?
Yes.
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Those who actually commit acts of violence against Israel, or attempt to do so, should be killed. Yes. Without exception. Fire a rocket at us, you die. Carry arms or munitions into Israel, you die. Kidnap or attack an Israeli, with firearms, molotov cocktails, or so much as a rock, and you die.
Many people would view the implementation of the death penalty for smuggling and assault as barbaric.
Well, good thing I wasn't talking about the death penalty. The death penalty is a judicial procedure carried out against convicted criminals. Killing enemy combatants during war is a very different thing.
And I don't give half a damn if you think it's barbaric. Nothing else stops them from committing their atrocities against us. I guarantee you that no one killed while doing it will repeat the crime.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Supporting such a practice suggests a blatant disregard for the value of human life.
In your opinion.
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Our responsibility is to protect our people. If protecting one of our lives costs one hundred of theirs, that's cheap. Our lives are of inestimable value to us. The lives of people who are committing war against us are not and should not be worth anything at all.
I completely disagree with this attitude.
Um... good for you?
quote:Originally posted by Threads: If I were given the option of killing 300,000 American-hating Muslims to stop another 9/11 then I would refuse.
And yet, we aren't talking about setting out to kill people, even for a positive purpose. We're talking about the fact that we aren't responsible for them getting hurt during the process of our stopping them.
It's really easy. They stop trying to kill us, all violence stops. It is that friggin' easy.
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Israel doesn't target civilians, period. Israel has, time and again, sent ground troops into hotbeds of terrorist activity, going door to door and taking massive casualties, when carpet bombing the area would have spared our own boys. It's sickening, but the Israeli government actually thinks that's either the moral thing to do, or at the very least the politically prudent thing to do. I can guarantee you that I'd do otherwise.
It's statements like this that make me think that you could really care less how many Palestinians die as a result of this conflict.
I've been explicit throughout this thread. For you to try and interpret me like this demonstrates that you either have piss-poor reading comprehension skills, or that you're a pig. I'm not sure which. Would you care to enlighten us?
If I can save lives on our side by killing either 100 of the enemy or 1000, I'll choose the 100. Because I do care. But if the cost of sparing those 100 is the loss of even one of my people, the price is far too high.
They're the ones perpetrating this war. If we stop, they keep killing us. If they stop, the violence stops. Period.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Overall, I think the issue is that there does not appear to be any ethical code by which you believe Israel is obligated to obey. You don't support genocide but your viewpoints do not exclude the possibility.
Bullshit. Are you that stupid? Really? When I say that I exclude the possibility from consideration, you can still claim that my viewpoints don't exclude the possibility? Moron.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: In case anyone is curious, here are some past statements by Lisa which demonstrate how she feels about the value of Arab/Muslim/Other life. I know that she'd want me to be specific:
quote:For the record, and as a matter of full disclosure, if Muslims want to butcher one another because of their religion, that's just fine and dandy with me. It's when their blood-lust is directed at everyone else that we have a serious problem.
quote:You mean the Canaanites? Sure I will. I'm proud of it. God told us to destroy them, and we did. The only thing we did wrong was in not completing the job fast enough, and we paid the price for that.
quote:Nine Israeli soldiers died today in house-to-house fighting. Note: The purpose of house-to-house fighting, when it'd be easier just to drop a bomb on the neighborhood, is to avoid civilian casualties.
That's nine more boys we sacrificed for the sake of saving Arab lives.
It wasn't worth it.
How long did that take you, Lyrhawn? I have no problem with any of those quotes. I could probably find you more, if you like. So you think it's a good thing that we essentially murdered nine of our own boys in order to spare Arab lives. Or that I should be horrified by inter-Muslim violence.
Poor Lyrhawn. All that time searching, and you still can't find anything to back up your lies. God, it must really suck to be you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I could probably find you more, if you like.
Lisa on Palestinians:
"One innocent life on our side is worth more than all the innocent lives on their side combined."
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And yet, we aren't talking about setting out to kill people, even for a positive purpose. We're talking about the fact that we aren't responsible for them getting hurt during the process of our stopping them.
It's really easy. They stop trying to kill us, all violence stops. It is that friggin' easy.
I'm imagining Lisa walking through Palestine, swinging her fists in the air saying, "I'm just punching the air, if anyone gets in my way, I'm not responsible for them getting punched."
It's like the Simpsons Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I could probably find you more, if you like.
Lisa on Palestinians:
"One innocent life on our side is worth more than all the innocent lives on their side combined."
Yep. That's certainly true. Certainly to us. As it should be to any sane people facing an enemy perpetrating war against them. Do you have a problem with it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:That's certainly true. Certainly to us.
Certainly to you. I know plenty of Israelis who would be offended if I suggested that that sentiment was true to them.
Ah, but of course — they must not be sane.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:How long did that take you, Lyrhawn? I have no problem with any of those quotes. I could probably find you more, if you like. So you think it's a good thing that we essentially murdered nine of our own boys in order to spare Arab lives. Or that I should be horrified by inter-Muslim violence.
Poor Lyrhawn. All that time searching, and you still can't find anything to back up your lies. God, it must really suck to be you.
Actually being me is pretty awesome 95% of the time.
Didn't really take me that long, I just put your name in with a search for "blatent disregard for human life" and all sorts of interesting stuff popped up. And duh, of course you aren't bothered by those quotes, you said those things.
I think anyone should be horrified, or at least sad, about Muslim on Muslim violence, or any violence wherein innocent people are killed. I'm sort of sad for you that you don't care about people dying, and that on the contrary, you're kind of happy about it. And yeah, I think it's a good thing that the IDF cared enough about people not involved with the fighting to spare their lives at the cost of the lives of soldiers. I know you don't agree, because you think they're all complicit in the actions of the terrorists, and they deserve what they get, but not everyone has as little regard for non-Jewish human life as you do.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: not everyone has as little regard for non-Jewish human life as you do.
Amen.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: it must really suck to be you.
Did we all morph into 7th graders and no one told me?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Lyrhawn, I searched for "Lisa" and "genocide". And I just wanted to verify that as far back as... I think it was 2005... there are instances of people accusing her of supporting genocide, and her denying that.
It seems disingenuous to me for people to continue to accuse her of supporting genocide.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Bullshit. Are you that stupid? Really? When I say that I exclude the possibility from consideration, you can still claim that my viewpoints don't exclude the possibility? Moron.
If you live with a world view in which you believe your god can come down and tell you to commit genocide at any point (because he's done it before, according to you), is any possibility really excluded from consideration?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Lyrhawn, I searched for "Lisa" and "genocide". And I just wanted to verify that as far back as... I think it was 2005... there are instances of people accusing her of supporting genocide, and her denying that.
It seems disingenuous to me for people to continue to accuse her of supporting genocide.
The problem is that although Lisa repeatedly denies supporting genocide, she also continually supports policies and expresses attitudes that many people see as genocidal. As long as she keeps saying things like
"One innocent life on our side is worth more than all the innocent lives on their side combined."
People are likely to keep accusing her of supporting genocide.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: not everyone has as little regard for non-Jewish human life as you do.
Amen.
Wrong. It isn't non-Jewish human life. It's the lives of those who are trying to kill us. What a shame you can't distinguish between the two.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Lyrhawn, I searched for "Lisa" and "genocide". And I just wanted to verify that as far back as... I think it was 2005... there are instances of people accusing her of supporting genocide, and her denying that.
It seems disingenuous to me for people to continue to accuse her of supporting genocide.
The problem is that although Lisa repeatedly denies supporting genocide, she also continually supports policies and expresses attitudes that many people see as genocidal. As long as she keeps saying things like
"One innocent life on our side is worth more than all the innocent lives on their side combined."
People are likely to keep accusing her of supporting genocide.
Only idiots who think that making things up is a good way to win an argument.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Even if someone went along with your contention that people who have not raised a hand in violence against you 'are trying to kill' you and deserve to die because they have not been as vociferous as you would like in opposing those have engaged in violence, are you including the children who do die and would die more given the indiscriminate Israeli policy you advocate as among those you have little regard for?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
We don't -- and shouldn't -- target civilians. To say nothing of children. But neither should we risk our own lives to save them.
You know, if there's any justice in this world, you will some day learn what it is to be on the receiving end of a war. I suspect your misplaced compassion won't survive it. That, or you won't.
What I advocate is removing them from a place where they refuse to stop being violent.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Lisa, stop insulting other posters.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But neither should we risk our own lives to save them.
And you have previously defined "risking our own lives" as "sending individual soldiers into danger instead of carpet-bombing a section of the city." Right?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I think anyone should be horrified, or at least sad, about Muslim on Muslim violence, or any violence wherein innocent people are killed.
Seriously, you haven't heard of "divide and conquer"? Even now I occasionally run across news reports that people in favour of the Iraq occupation bring up the point that at least its provoked "them" (i.e. Muslims) into fighting each other there instead of bringing the fight to our shores.
Its easy to claim that every innocent life is worth the lives of many soldiers when you're riding high and not really risking all that much. (which, if it is not clear, is "now") The real test comes when you really do have to risk big or when you're really fighting for your nation's survival rather than just on foreign shores.
I would't bet against the possibility that the US, indeed any nation, would take just such a hard-line if their nation's survival was actually at stake.
Indeed, AKAIK I would note that the US has never ruled out using nuclear weapons in a "declarative, unqualified, unconditional no-first-use polic[y]." The conclusion that one can draw is that there ARE circumstances where the US would consider using the indiscriminate power of a nuclear weapon (probably killing civilians in the process) rather than take the risk of sustaining casualties on its side.
In short, while I agree that such an attitude as you've quoted is unfortunate and should be minimized, it is probably also a part of human nature and will probably be staying with us for a while yet.
Or even shorter, while I suspect that we would both be horrified, I am not naive enough to assume that that attitude would be shared by anything near approaching "anyone."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Lisa, stop insulting other posters.
You're funny. I guess you don't consider it an insult for other posters to accuse me of advocating genocide.
Go away.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Wrong. It isn't non-Jewish human life. It's the lives of those who are trying to kill us. What a shame you can't distinguish between the two."
Above you were quoted as saying "One innocent life on our side is worth more than all the innocent lives on their side combined," and you stated that you still agree with this.
Innocent people are also innocent of trying to kill "us," however "us" happens to be defined.
You are placing near infinitely different values on equally innocent human lives.
The talmud tells us, and yes its cliched, that whoever saves a life has saved the entire world, that each human life has infinite value.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You're funny. I guess you don't consider it an insult for other posters to accuse me of advocating genocide.
For what it's worth, I'm not accusing you of advocating genocide. I'm accusing you of countenancing it. I believe that you are sincere when you say you'd prefer that they all pack up and leave without having to be killed first.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You're funny. I guess you don't consider it an insult for other posters to accuse me of advocating genocide.
For what it's worth, I'm not accusing you of advocating genocide. I'm accusing you of countenancing it. I believe that you are sincere when you say you'd prefer that they all pack up and leave without having to be killed first.
And I say I don't countenance it. But you'll continue to lie about it anyway.
And incidentally, yes, you did accuse me of advocating it. Tell the truth, for once.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Do not insult the other posters, Lisa. Casting aspersions on integrity counts as an insult.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Can you explain to me, Lisa, what you consider to be the distinction between your actual position and a tolerance of genocide/ethnic cleansing? You issue a lot of flat denials, but the rest of your words seem to contradict 'em.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Lisa, stop insulting other posters.
You're funny. I guess you don't consider it an insult for other posters to accuse me of advocating genocide.
Go away.
It's apparent people misunderstand your posts.
I don't think you communicate your point of view very well.
If you combine the two elements-- general dislike of the immoral and horrific position you take, and a seeming inability on your part to help yourself be understood through civil discussion (or uncivil discussion, as it turns out)-- you get a concoction of misstatement and hard-headedness.
I give the others in this discussion more leeway, because of those mitigating circumstances. They apparently misunderstand you, for good reason.
There's really no excuse for name-calling, though.
Please stop insulting people.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Do not insult the other posters, Lisa. Casting aspersions on integrity counts as an insult.
Pot, have you met kettle?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I freely admit that I think your support of ethnic cleansing and your consideration that the lives of non-Jews are of lesser value than those of Jews is evil.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Can you explain to me, Lisa, what you consider to be the distinction between your actual position and a tolerance of genocide/ethnic cleansing? You issue a lot of flat denials, but the rest of your words seem to contradict 'em.
Interesting technique.
1. Start with the phrase "ethnic cleansing".
2. Define it to mean any removal of a population from one place to another.
3. Dismiss any and all context, so that moving the population because they're Jewish or Muslim or gay or redheaded or lefthanded or just because you don't like them is morally equivalent to moving them because they're engaged in a bloody war against you.
4. Morph the phrase to "genocide/ethnic cleansing", conflating the two even when no genocide is involved.
5. Presto! You've managed to redefine moving a hostile and violent population that's engaged in non-stop atrocities as genocide.
Congratulations, Tom. By being without any moral sense whatsoever, you've managed to define black as white. Up as down. Good as bad.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Lisa, stop insulting other posters.
You're funny. I guess you don't consider it an insult for other posters to accuse me of advocating genocide.
Go away.
It's apparent people misunderstand your posts.
No. It's possible that they misunderstood my posts. I've been as crystal clear as an unsullied stream about correcting them. When they continue to insist that I said something I did not, it can no longer, even by the most charitable measure, be considered "misunderstanding". It's flat out lying.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't think you communicate your point of view very well.
Oh, I think I do. I think there have been several people on this thread, even people who don't like me and usually argue with everything I have to say, who have put their two cents in here about the dishonest crap that's going on. Even people who disagree with me on this issue have voiced their opinion that people who keep accusing me of advocating genocide are being dishonest.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If you combine the two elements-- general dislike of the immoral and horrific position you take,
Screw you, too. My position is neither immoral nor horrific. Well... horrific is subjective. If you're horrified at the prospect of doing something productive to end the bloodshed, then I suppose you could use the word horrific. But it doesn't speak well to your personal set of values.
Immoral, on the other hand, is not a subjective term. And my position is anything but immoral.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: and a seeming inability on your part to help yourself be understood through civil discussion (or uncivil discussion, as it turns out)-- you get a concoction of misstatement and hard-headedness.
So you're admitting that they're misstating what I said, and being hardheaded about admitting that they're wrong. And yet you're still blaming me for it. Like I said, you're funny.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I give the others in this discussion more leeway, because of those mitigating circumstances. They apparently misunderstand you, for good reason.
No. Even if they could be excused for misunderstanding me to begin with, which I don't think they can, because I am extremely clear about my positions, there is no way to excuse them once they were corrected.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: There's really no excuse for name-calling, though.
Please stop insulting people.
Boy, this really is a lot like the middle east, isn't it. Tom insults me. Lyrhawn insults me. I insult them back and you tell me to stop insulting people.
Actually, you really aren't that funny. You're sick.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I freely admit that I think your support of ethnic cleansing and your consideration that the lives of non-Jews are of lesser value than those of Jews is evil.
Crap. The lives of anyone trying to wipe me and mine out are of lesser value than our lives. The fact that they're non-Jews has nothing to do with it.
Though why I'm bothering to respond to you escapes me. You aren't even interested in the subject. Like I said before, if I was on the other side, you'd be attacking me just the same. Grow up, kat.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think Tom has accurately expressed that there continues to be a misunderstanding about your position on genocide. I believe his reasoning is sound, and that you have not been clear on this issue.
Regardless of whether you feel you have been clear or not, please stop insulting other people.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The lives of anyone trying to wipe me and mine out are of lesser value than our lives.
Lisa, I think the disconnect people are having is your inclusion of those you've described as innocent (as in their innocents are worth less than one of ours) in the group of those trying to wipe you out.
I myself am confused as to what your meaning is in this regard.
quote:My position is neither immoral nor horrific. Well... horrific is subjective. If you're horrified at the prospect of doing something productive to end the bloodshed, then I suppose you could use the word horrific. But it doesn't speak well to your personal set of values.
I, for one, am horrified at what I see as the likely outcome of the forced removal you advocated. I consider that likely outcome to be either abandonment of the plan (in which case I would not be horrified, but your plan would not really have been put into effect) or an immoral result (literally hundreds of thousand or millions of deaths if it were not abandoned early on). And the result is immoral even taking into account the fact that many Palestinians support the destruction of Israel, either expressly or through their support of Hamas.
Therefore I think it would be immoral for Israel to forcibly remove the Palestinians. That's different from saying that your position is immoral.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Fair enough. And I disagree with you. But I respect the way you've expressed yourself.
But we're going to have to do it eventually. And trust me, the longer it gets put off, the more "horrific" it's going to be.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:the longer it gets put off, the more "horrific" it's going to be
Out of interest, what do you think will make it more horrific later?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I think anyone should be horrified, or at least sad, about Muslim on Muslim violence, or any violence wherein innocent people are killed.
Seriously, you haven't heard of "divide and conquer"? Even now I occasionally run across news reports that people in favour of the Iraq occupation bring up the point that at least its provoked "them" (i.e. Muslims) into fighting each other there instead of bringing the fight to our shores.
Its easy to claim that every innocent life is worth the lives of many soldiers when you're riding high and not really risking all that much. (which, if it is not clear, is "now") The real test comes when you really do have to risk big or when you're really fighting for your nation's survival rather than just on foreign shores.
I would't bet against the possibility that the US, indeed any nation, would take just such a hard-line if their nation's survival was actually at stake.
Indeed, AKAIK I would note that the US has never ruled out using nuclear weapons in a "declarative, unqualified, unconditional no-first-use polic[y]." The conclusion that one can draw is that there ARE circumstances where the US would consider using the indiscriminate power of a nuclear weapon (probably killing civilians in the process) rather than take the risk of sustaining casualties on its side.
In short, while I agree that such an attitude as you've quoted is unfortunate and should be minimized, it is probably also a part of human nature and will probably be staying with us for a while yet.
Or even shorter, while I suspect that we would both be horrified, I am not naive enough to assume that that attitude would be shared by anything near approaching "anyone."
You're certainly welcome to you're opinion. We have a precedent. I can't tell if you're taking a position or playing devil's advocate/defending someone else's position but, how do you feel about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I do believe that, despite how horrible the effects of those weapons were, they ended a war that would have cost millions more innocent lives. The difference I guess here is how you feel about it. While I still might think it was necessary to do it, I'm not happy about all those innocents who died, or the thousands who suffered the lingering aftereffects of the bombs and suffered horribly. Despite the horrible things done to Americans by the Japanese, I still don't wish that on them, and yeah, I'm saddened by those who suffered as a result.
Lisa,
Maybe it isn't fair that people keep accusing you of supporting genocide. I think the problem people are having is with your rather casual attitude towards the suffering and death of innocents. And in your disputing of who is and isn't an innocent. You keep saying you don't support genocide, and I don't think you support genocide in general as a policy, but I think that in this specific case, if a hand swooped down from heaven and crushed every Arab Palestinian, you'd be "just fine and dandy" with it. And I get that impression from continual statements you make that make Arabs seem like a lesser people than yours, and statements you make where you clearly state that lives on your side have at least a thousand times greater value than lives on theirs. When you say so many times and in so many ways (and there's plenty of evidence of such statements in this thread alone) that you either care less or not at all about them, it's easy to surmise that all their deaths put together wouldn't bother you.
Now add to that your continual advocacy for a policy that many here believe would be tantamount to genocide - forced removal from their homes to an undisclosed location - and you get the icing on the cake. I think that policy would lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, I think it would be genocide by the time it was over. If you don't want to argue on that point, then fine. I do note however your past inclusion in this policy of payment to those who voluntarily leave, which I think would make such a policy viable, possibly, but it'd depend on how many took you up on it, and what happens to everyone else. I think I saw polling data a couple years ago from the Palestinian territories that said something like 40% of the people there would take a similar deal. 60% is still a big number, and it's impossible to say what they'd do. The result could still be catastrophic.
Can you at least see why some people think what they think about you and your position, and why it's possible we aren't all liars out to get you?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The lives of anyone trying to wipe me and mine out are of lesser value than our lives.
Lisa, I think the disconnect people are having is your inclusion of those you've described as innocent (as in their innocents are worth less than one of ours) in the group of those trying to wipe you out.
I myself am confused as to what your meaning is in this regard.
What I mean is very simple. It is an individual's obligation to protect himself against someone trying to harm him. It is a nations obligation to protect itself against a nation trying to destroy it.
War sucks. War is a very bad idea. Someone who perpetrates war against someone else should be rendered incapable of doing it again. It's not a game. It's not a contest. War should never happen, and if someone commits it, they should be crushed.
We are responsible for the well-being of our people. They are responsible for the well-being of theirs. We are not responsible for the well-being of theirs. We have no moral obligation, as the victims of their assault, to make sure that we don't harm any innocents that might exist on their side. That's one of the sucky things about war. It's one of the things that makes war qualitatively different than crime.
Crime is an act of individuals. War is an act of nations. A criminal is responsible for his own actions. But a nation is responsible for its own actions as well.
If a person is the member of a nation committing war against others and does not want to get hurt when their nation is opposed, they need to leave. Or they need to stop their nation from committing the war. They can't have it both ways. They can't sit there and engage in social commerce with the very people who are trying to murder others and say, "Well, I didn't actually lift a gun myself".
The non-combatants of a nation committing war are entitled to expect that they not be targeted. They are not entitled to expect that the victims of their nation's aggression should risk themselves to save them.
It's pretty simple. The lives of our innocents are precious to us, and should be. The lives of anyone who is part of a nation committing war against us are not our problem. We don't target them, and should not target them. We should, and do, choose the lesser path when it comes to actions which could take their lives, but only when all other things are equal.
I know that there's an ethos in our Christian dominated society that says the life of another, even someone trying to kill you, is no less of value than your own. I find that frighteningly immoral.
There was a period of time when movies and TV reflected the idea that killing, even in self-defense, was immoral. That it was actually more moral to allow yourself to die than to take the life of someone trying to kill you. Thank God this idea has become less prevalent over the past 15-20 years, because it's a really bad and really wrong idea.
To go back to the issue of our responsibility for their non-combatants, there is a reason why international law forbids using medical emergency vehicles to transport weapons. Yet the Palestinian Arabs do it all the time. They use our mercy and compassion against us, and laugh at the idea that we think they should be bound by such rules. And when we stop ambulances now to check them for weapons and bombs (which we find with distressing -- but no longer surprising -- regularity), we get accused of harming the passengers in the ambulances. Delaying medical care.
See, we can't win with people who play by no rules themselves. We have to keep to moral rules, because that's who we are. But we can't afford to keep to rules that really aren't moral at all. Not when the people aggressing against us recognize no rules whatsoever.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You're certainly welcome to you're opinion. We have a precedent. I can't tell if you're taking a position or playing devil's advocate/defending someone else's position but, how do you feel about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I do believe that, despite how horrible the effects of those weapons were, they ended a war that would have cost millions more innocent lives. The difference I guess here is how you feel about it. While I still might think it was necessary to do it, I'm not happy about all those innocents who died, or the thousands who suffered the lingering aftereffects of the bombs and suffered horribly. Despite the horrible things done to Americans by the Japanese, I still don't wish that on them, and yeah, I'm saddened by those who suffered as a result.
I'm not actually taking a position, at least not on Lisa's side or the "other" side.
I'm observing that there are a fair number of posters who seem to be implying that they would never do something similar. Ex:
quote:Originally posted by Threads: I completely disagree with this attitude. If I were given the option of killing 300,000 American-hating Muslims to stop another 9/11 then I would refuse.
or the disapproval of
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Nine Israeli soldiers died today in house-to-house fighting. Note: The purpose of house-to-house fighting, when it'd be easier just to drop a bomb on the neighborhood, is to avoid civilian casualties.
That's nine more boys we sacrificed for the sake of saving Arab lives.
It wasn't worth it.
In response, I'm formally noting that "I doubt it." If positions were reversed, if the US was the one surrounded by enemies, fighting for its very existence. If the US was practically at war one way or another for decades. If the US was the one that relatively suffered a Holocaust, then I really doubt that a fair number of the people of the United States would still *not* consider some of these sentiments and sacrifices of enemy lives acceptable.
Consider that with only a 9/11 incident which killed only a small fraction of the American population, we have already started two invasions, compromised freedoms with approval of wiretapping and military prisons of a dubious nature. How much further would be go if a 9/11 incident killed 10% of the American population? How about 60%?
Some posters seem to be labelling her views as "evil." I think this is unhelpful, I see her views as a potentially pretty inevitable consequence of being human.
I'm not making a moral statement, at least not yet. I'm making a prediction that most humans are not *that* different.
In the end, you've already claimed that you would drop the nuclear bombs again, but you would feel "bad" about it. From the POV of those that died, does it really make a huge difference whether the person making the decision is someone that feels "very" sorry about it or someone that "kinda" sorry about it?
*shrug*
(To make it clear, my position isn't approval of Lisa's attitudes, it is just that her attitudes are somewhat human)
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
What's sad is that the entire post could have been written by a member of Hamas, with only minor changes to account for "side," and different facts highlighted.
Whether the Hamas post, or the Lisa post, is more accurate, almost doesn't matter. As long as people believe "We are responsible for the well-being of our people. They are responsible for the well-being of theirs. We are not responsible for the well-being of theirs. We have no moral obligation, as the victims of their assault, to make sure that we don't harm any innocents that might exist on their side," as long as people believe that "My family has more moral worth then your family," then this type of conflict will continue to exist, and end only in either ethnic cleansing or genocide.
Ethnic cleansing is what both Lisa, and Hamas advocate... the removal of the other group from land they are currently living on, based on ethnic grouping.
Lisa responded to my above post, and then deleted it. One of the things she said in the post was that the section of talmud I referenced refers only to Israelites. This is true. What is also true is that any "moral" system that puts greater inherent moral worth on one person then on another is an evil moral system, and promotes exactly the kind of thinking Lisa demonstrates. The Talmud is frozen in time, but our understanding of it is not, and all sane people recognize that as long as one group believes they are worth more then all other groups, their group will be at war with all other groups.
I suspect if you asked rabbi's "I can either save the life of one jew, or 100 non-jews, but I can't do both. Which should I do?" the, possibly vast, majority would not say to save the jew because the jew has greater inherent worth.
Moral thinking in Judaism continues to evolve past what is laid out in the Talmud... and this is a good thing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thank you, Paul. That was an excellent post.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: In the end, you've already claimed that you would drop the nuclear bombs again, but you would feel "bad" about it. From the POV of those that died, does it really make a huge difference whether the person making the decision is someone that feels "very" sorry about it or someone that "kinda" sorry about it?
Well, the difference is between feeling bad about it, feeling it was horrible but necesssary, and feeling like it was just "fine and dandy." That's a much bigger difference than degrees of badness. And it might not matter to them, but it makes all the difference to me.
quote:Consider that with only a 9/11 incident which killed only a small fraction of the American population, we have already started two invasions, compromised freedoms with approval of wiretapping and military prisons of a dubious nature. How much further would be go if a 9/11 incident killed 10% of the American population? How about 60%?
And millions upon millions of people think that the consequences of those attacks are a grave error. We aren't all lockstep together on that one.
Our humanity, the morality of things, these sort of philosophical debates, as often as not are about why we do things rather than the thing itself. Killing isn't black and white obviously. Killing in self defense, killing for fun, these things aren't the same on the moral scale, they aren't the same in the eyes of the law either. Why we do something has always mattered and it always will matter, and how we feel about doing it matters too.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: I suspect if you asked rabbi's "I can either save the life of one jew, or 100 non-jews, but I can't do both. Which should I do?" the, possibly vast, majority would not say to save the jew because the jew has greater inherent worth.
I suspect that if you had to save either your child or 100 skinheads, you wouldn't think twice about letting the skinheads twist in the wind. Bloody hypocrite.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You're assuming how he'd react and calling him a hypocrite based on your assumption?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
She's also changing the scenario. There's two major fallacies in that post.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I interpreted it as attacking the general proposition with an obvious exception. It's clear that factors other than numbers should be taken into account when making life and death decisions. Relationship to the actor and moral standing of the potential decedent are both factors that most people would consider. The difference is where the lines are drawn on all three factors (numbers, relationship, and moral standing).
I think it's inaccurate to call someone a hypocrite because they draw the lines differently. And reading Paul's original statement on the subject as a denial that such lines exist is a lot like what others have been doing to Lisa throughout this thread.
There's a lot of miscommunication going on here.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There is also, I think, often a gap between how we behave and how we believe we should behave.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I interpreted it as attacking the general proposition with an obvious exception"
I think if you look back to my first post on this topic, its clear I'm talking about innocent people. I'm not going to argue that skinheads fall into the "innocent" category. I suppose I should have qualified my second post with an "all else being equal," to avoid that confusion though.
"Relationship to the actor and moral standing of the potential decedent are both factors that most people would consider."
Consider, yes, as in these will influence our actions. But I think when we consider someone closer to us to have more moral worth then someone who is further away, and say that it is more moral to save one life then another (disregarding moral standing) we fall into exactly the trap that has consumed israel/palestine for the last 100 years.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There is also, I think, often a gap between how we behave and how we believe we should behave.
That also too often is called hypocrisy.
Acting differently than how one professes people should act can be a sign of hypocrisy, but it's not necessarily. The frequency and extent to which one's actions differ from one's professed beliefs are important in evaluating that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think if you look back to my first post on this topic, its clear I'm talking about innocent people. I'm not going to argue that skinheads fall into the "innocent" category. I suppose I should have qualified my second post with an "all else being equal," to avoid that confusion though.
I think if you look at my next paragraph it's clear I see that.
In case it's not, the failure to read the implicit limitation of your post to innocent people led to you being unfairly called a hypocrite and to the misunderstanding of your intent. I think the same thing has been done to Lisa. This does not excuse the wrongdoing done to either party.
quote:Consider, yes, as in these will influence our actions. But I think when we consider someone closer to us to have more moral worth then someone who is further away, and say that it is more moral to save one life then another (disregarding moral standing) we fall into exactly the trap that has consumed israel/palestine for the last 100 years.
I think that the closeness to oneself can affect the extent of the moral duty to act to save the life; it does not affect the worth of the person to be saved or not.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:There is also, I think, often a gap between how we behave and how we believe we should behave.
That also too often is called hypocrisy.
Acting differently than how one professes people should act can be a sign of hypocrisy, but it's not necessarily. The frequency and extent to which one's actions differ from one's professed beliefs are important in evaluating that.
Sometimes it is weakness. One believes that one should do something (save 100 innocent strangers at the cost of someone closer for example) but is not capable of doing it.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I think that the closeness to oneself can affect the extent of the moral duty to act to save the life; it does not affect the worth of the person to be saved or not"
Sure. The more ability to save the life, the stronger the duty to do so. It is also possible to be in a position of gaurdianship over another person, in which case one has a strong moral duty to protect.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In case it's not, the failure to read the implicit limitation of your post to innocent people led to you being unfairly called a hypocrite and to the misunderstanding of your intent. I think the same thing has been done to Lisa.
Lisa has previously defined "innocent" in a way that excludes almost all Palestinians alive from innocence.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"The same thing" did not refer only to confusions about innocence.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: You're assuming how he'd react and calling him a hypocrite based on your assumption?
Just giving him the benefit of the doubt. If he'd let his own child die to save 100 skinheads, he isn't worth the dirt on the bottom of my shoe.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: She's also changing the scenario. There's two major fallacies in that post.
No, there aren't. Is your life currently at immediate risk from a random 100 skinheads? Unlikely.
And just because you draw the line of who constitutes you and yours tighter than I do doesn't excuse your behavior here.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:In case it's not, the failure to read the implicit limitation of your post to innocent people led to you being unfairly called a hypocrite and to the misunderstanding of your intent. I think the same thing has been done to Lisa.
Lisa has previously defined "innocent" in a way that excludes almost all Palestinians alive from innocence.
Are you really this stupid, Tom? I've been rather explicit about not seeing the world in a black-white innocent-guilty way. There are levels of culpability. But I'm not going to waste my time repeating what I have to say about that. You can go back a few pages and read it for yourself.
I will note, however, that the fact that you intentionally obscured this and tried to set up this kind of false dichotomy is simply one more example of your dishonesty.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Levels of culpability? You repeatedly say that all Palestinians not actively protesting those who do direct violence against Israel are "just as guilty". Did you mean "guilty, but not quite as guilty"?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "I think that the closeness to oneself can affect the extent of the moral duty to act to save the life; it does not affect the worth of the person to be saved or not"
Sure. The more ability to save the life, the stronger the duty to do so. It is also possible to be in a position of gaurdianship over another person, in which case one has a strong moral duty to protect.
Fine. Your sister. Who you have no position of guardianship over. She dies or 100 skinheads you've never met die. You have to choose.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, lets make the 100 skinheads include a good number of the very young children of skinheads, to at least be a little closer to a decent analogy.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Okay, fair enough. There are 100 skinheads, 10 of whom are under the age of 6. They'll die if you save your sister's life. Your sister, incidentally, isn't in danger because she's attacking the skinheads or anything. On the contrary, she's being threatened by more skinheads. You can let her die and save the 90 adult skinheads and their 10 children, or you can save her, and the skinheads die.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"No, there aren't. Is your life currently at immediate risk from a random 100 skinheads? Unlikely. "
Yes, there are two major fallacies.
The first is that we'e talking about one innocent jewish life vs the life of innocent palestinians (numerous). By changing it to one innocent compared to 100 guilties (life threatened by), you've changed the scenario. You've also changed the scenario to one in which I have legal gaurdianship of one potential victim.
Then, based on my assumed reaction, you call me a hypocrite... but by changing the scenario, we're not discussing a situation where I say one thing and do another, so you're making a straw man argument, and then assuming my answer to your straw man is the same as my answer to the argument I present in order to make an ad hominem attack.
There might actually be more then two major fallacies in there, but I'm not going to try to deconstruct your post any further.
"doesn't excuse your behavior here."
And which behavior, EXACTLY, are we talking about that is not excuseable? I don't see anything in my post that isn't something you weren't doing with far fewer modifiers for the entirety of this thread before I made my first post in it.
Let me put in that qualifier that you've apparently missed.
If you put more moral value on the life of 1 jew then on 100 palestinians (all else being equal) then your moral system is evil.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Levels of culpability? You repeatedly say that all Palestinians not actively protesting those who do direct violence against Israel are "just as guilty". Did you mean "guilty, but not quite as guilty"?
You know, just for the hell of it, I went and did a search for "just as guilty" in any post of mine. You know how many hits I got?
None.
On the other hand, I did find this, from earlier in this very thread.
So, yeah, shut up.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "No, there aren't. Is your life currently at immediate risk from a random 100 skinheads? Unlikely."
Yes, there are two major fallacies.
The first is that we'e talking about one innocent jewish life vs the life of innocent palestinians (numerous). By changing it to one innocent compared to 100 guilties (life threatened by), you've changed the scenario.
Nope. Not unless you can demonstrate that people are automatically "guilty" of something, like being a threat to your life, simply because they are skinheads. I'll stick with the analogy, thanks very much.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: You've also changed the scenario to one in which I have legal gaurdianship of one potential victim.
Good, so make it your sister. I don't care. Are you really so obtuse that you can't generalize?
That said, kol Yisrael areivim zeh la-zeh, so I don't accept your distinction anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: If you put more moral value on the life of 1 jew then on 100 palestinians (all else being equal) then your moral system is evil.
I don't do that because they are Palestinian Arabs. I do it because they are perpetrating war against me and mine. Whatever value their lives have is of no interest to me while they do that. Nor should it be.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The search sucks. But I apologize, you didn't use the term 'just'. Feel free to strike that from my post.
quote: Screw them. They are as guilty as the ones who commit the acts.
when talking about ". . . Palestinian Arabs who are against the terror, but are afraid to say so."
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Okay, I know for a fact that this thread has been whistled at least once--why is this discussion still operating? It's gone way beyond any sort of bounds for civilized discussion.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Sorry, folks. Interpret that whichever way makes whoever you want to look bad look bad, so everyone can be happy.
[Edit to include: The topic is done. I will likely delete any further threads on this topic without warning. Take it elsewhere.]
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
).![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)