The Israeli–Palestinian conflict

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
Smooth said:
Qana_Massacre
"Both the U.S. and Israel accused Hezbollah of "shielding",

Accusations mean jack without evidence.
and Prime Minister Shimon Peres cited the use of human shielding to blame Hezbollah. On April 18 he said, "They used them as a shield, they used the UN as a shield — the UN admitted it.""

Read the UN report ffs:

(b) The pattern of impacts is inconsistent with a normal overshooting of the declared target (the mortar site) by a few rounds, as suggested by the Israeli forces.

(c) During the shelling, there was a perceptible shift in the weight of fire from the mortar site to the United Nations compound


Sabra and Shatila massacre
What are you seriuse? that was between two arab groups, you want to blame Israel of killings whitin the arab comunity too?!...we are not thier policemen/guardian angel, they want to kill eachother, be it! what you want us to do ?! keep then away from eachother?

You're quite comfortable with your army watching as it's allies massacre civilians?

Again, If civilians hurt its becuase terrorists are hiding amoungs them, is that so hard for you to understand that the terrorists have no conscience nor ethic barriers?

Oh puhh-leeze.

'I heard that IDF never target civilians intentionally because some Israeli shill off the internet told me so" :roll:

Aussie, i reponded to you links,

No, you addressed two (with lies and pathetic arguments), ignored the rest, then posted a whole lot of Palestinian attacks against Israeli's as a diversion.

Great way to ghey up the thread.
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
The Gardener said:
Why would anybody defend people who INTENTIONALLY bomb buses and cafes?

Yes, why would they?

Oh I see, you mean me. Resorting to accusations you can't possibly substantiate just makes you look even more ignorant.
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
aussieavodart said:
The Gardener said:
Why would anybody defend people who INTENTIONALLY bomb buses and cafes?

Oh I see, you mean me. Resorting to accusations you can't possibly substantiate just makes you look even more ignorant.

Oh my god, you can't be serious....you think those Palestinian terrorists just sort of accidentally strapped-on bomb vests, walked into pizza parlors and cafes and stepped onto buses and accidentally pushed the switch? :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

monitoradiation

Established Member
Reaction score
4
Bryan, I believe aussie is saying that gardener is putting words in his mouth; aussie is not defending suicide bombers, but gardener's phrasing and choice of words makes him believe that he is inferring that idea.

Just thought a third party should clear that up.
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
monitoradiation said:
Bryan, I believe aussie is saying that gardener is putting words in his mouth; aussie is not defending suicide bombers, but gardener's phrasing and choice of words makes him believe that he is inferring that idea.

Okay, I see what you're saying. But this does remind me of that situation several days ago in which I tried to pin aussie down as to what his specific opinions are about a certain well-known group of radical extremists. But I was never able to pin him down on that! He was evasive about it, and I think deliberately so.
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
By the way, did you mean to say that aussie inferred what he thought Gardener implied? :)
 

monitoradiation

Established Member
Reaction score
4
Err. I can see how my choice of words themselves can be misleading. What I meant to say was that "Aussie inferred that Gardener implied that he was defending suicide bombers without explicitly stating so".

Rawr!
 

The Gardener

Senior Member
Reaction score
25
aussieavodart said:
Smooth said:
Qana_Massacre
"Both the U.S. and Israel accused Hezbollah of "shielding",

Accusations mean jack without evidence.
Okay, how about a speech from a Hamas MP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wJXf2nt4Y

"This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy - We desire death like you desire life."
 

barca FC

New Member
Reaction score
0
The Gardener said:
aussieavodart said:
Smooth said:
Qana_Massacre
"Both the U.S. and Israel accused Hezbollah of "shielding",

Accusations mean jack without evidence.
Okay, how about a speech from a Hamas MP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wJXf2nt4Y

"This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy - We desire death like you desire life."

ok????????????

he said they have formed...he did not say we made them form.

how about u watch this for a change

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjEd4hJN ... re=related
 

The Gardener

Senior Member
Reaction score
25
I don't challenge that, Barca. Like I said above, I have not disagreed that the Israelis have done some grisly things.

I just think that both sides need to stop acting "holier than thou" than the other side. I think its preventing the possibility of peace.
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
Bryan said:
........But I was never able to pin him down on that! He was evasive about it, and I think deliberately so.

McCarthyism 2.0



Double the dose Bryan, I don't think they're working :)
 

ali777

Senior Member
Reaction score
4
I'm actually fed up with this subject.... I hope they reach some sort of peace deal, and it could be all forgotten for the time being...

One thing I've read today.... Have you noticed the lack of pictures of hamas fighters putting up a resistance against the Israeli army? They went into hiding, running scared. Then, they have the cheek to claim victory. There is no winner in this conflict, only losers... I hope the Palestinians get rid off hamas sooner than later, but I can't really see this happening.

I also read how the Israeli army uprooted olive and orange trees, etc. Why would you do that? It's not like those people have any income.
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
Old Baldy said:
But Aussie, if just once you criticized the the anti-Israel bunch!! :)


Why should I feel obligated to calm other people's neurotic suspicions?



I wonder if the chaps on here who are pro self defence with a firearm would extend that right to Palestinians? :woot:
 

Old Baldy

Senior Member
Reaction score
1
Of course I extend it. ANYONE and EVERYONE has the right to self-defense, I've said that a guzillion times.

If the Palestinians feel threatened they have the right to self-defense.

So do the people in Israel.

How could you possibly think I would say differently??!! :freaked:
 

Hammy070

Established Member
Reaction score
0
tembo said:
Hammy, what about Muslims who are currently "invading" Sudan and western Pakistan? Do they need to apologize to anyone?

As I understand, Pakistan is Muslim and Sudan is mostly Muslim too. I don't see why you brought in a religious group though. I am talking about basic HUMAN rights, which are inherent by default, they are neither awarded nor are they a privelege. If any person in Pakistan or Sudan, of whatever religion, attempts to take away basic rights of anyone, then they are as equally guilty as Zionists are, whether they are Muslims or not.

Note: In Palestinian refugee camps, there's almost half a million Christian Palestinians. Israel would have people in the West believe that it's a battle of ideologies, and that seizing lands, expelling thousands of people because they're not Jews and prioritizing ethnic immigration (Jews only) on to their land has nothing to do with it, and just an excuse. :roll:

I don't need to be brainwashed or indoctrinated by anyone to know that any scum bag stealing my land isn't getting it without a fight. I presume were you born in Palestine you'd leave your home willingly for a foreigner?
 

Hammy070

Established Member
Reaction score
0
Old Baldy said:
Of course I extend it. ANYONE and EVERYONE has the right to self-defense, I've said that a guzillion times.

If the Palestinians feel threatened they have the right to self-defense.

So do the people in Israel.

How could you possibly think I would say differently??!! :freaked:

You're a big second amendment fan, what do you think of Americas blocking of any weapons to Palestinians, and vigorous delivery of hi-tech arms to Israel?

Everyone has the right to defend themselves after all. But a bank robber isn't entitled to defend himself, the initiator/attacker should be distinguished from the victim/recipient, and support given to the people entitled to it. The mid-east conflict is a reversal of that ethos, and what you see on TV is the result.
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
Hammy070 said:
I don't need to be brainwashed or indoctrinated by anyone to know that any scum bag stealing my land isn't getting it without a fight.

But would you deliberately kill women and children in that fight?
 

Old Baldy

Senior Member
Reaction score
1
Hammy070 said:
Old Baldy said:
Of course I extend it. ANYONE and EVERYONE has the right to self-defense, I've said that a guzillion times.

If the Palestinians feel threatened they have the right to self-defense.

So do the people in Israel.

How could you possibly think I would say differently??!! :freaked:


You're a big second amendment fan, what do you think of Americas blocking of any weapons to Palestinians, and vigorous delivery of hi-tech arms to Israel?

Everyone has the right to defend themselves after all. But a bank robber isn't entitled to defend himself, the initiator/attacker should be distinguished from the victim/recipient, and support given to the people entitled to it. The mid-east conflict is a reversal of that ethos, and what you see on TV is the result.

I don't like it.

However, the authorities in America, for quite some time now, are worried Arab nations would wipe Israel off the map if arms weren't provided. They also provide America with deterence against radical elements, (i.e., so they say).

Is that true? I don't know. Do you know? If so, how do you know Arab nations would not wipe Israel off of the map?

I mean, the leader of Iran has said he wants to destroy Israel.

Now I'm trying to get away from cheap shots here after inappropriately insulting president Carter, but I get the feeling some members here would favor Israel being wiped off the face of the earth.

I don't agree with that philosophy. And if that is what our authorities feel would happen, I would provide arms to Israel and not those Arab populations who want to destroy Israel.

I do not like Israel constantly appearing to adhere to the "expansion" philosophy however.
 

mulder

Established Member
Reaction score
1
Very intereting article from an 'average' American reporter on how he came to have a deeper understanding of the Israel-Palestine issue:

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2 ... d-aft.html

I still remember the day I realized that two of my friends were anti-Semitic. It was in the summer of 2006, a hot weekend afternoon in July. Both of them, one from an Indian background, the other Egyptian, were sitting on adjoining couches in the living room of my apartment. When I walked downstairs to join them, they were in the midst of an intense discussion.

At first, I just sat down and listened, trying to discern the subject matter. Before I could, one of them turned to me, looking for support. “They control the whole foreign policy, don’t they?â€￾ he asked.

“Who?â€￾ I replied.

“AIPAC. The Israel lobby.â€￾

I was secretly glad he’d added that second part, because I was only vaguely familiar with AIPAC – even though I reported on politics for a living. In part because I like to argue but mostly because the term “Israel lobbyâ€￾ smacked of the kind of conspiratorial anti-Semitic thinking that I’d been conditioned to reject, I threw him a disapprovingly skeptical look.

He persisted, telling me that the reason we’d gone to war with Iraq was because AIPAC wanted it. (At this point I surmised that AIPAC was a political action committee or a lobbying organization.) Suddenly, I realized what I was dealing with: my friend was just like my crazy great-uncle, the old coot who would rail against “the Jewsâ€￾ at family functions and with whom my liberal-minded mother would get in heated arguments. And here was my friend, spouting the same kind of blame-the-Jews conspiracy nonsense.

My other friend chimed in. He was less exercised and absolute, more willing to see nuance and gray, but the heart of his argument was no different: He didn’t like “the Jewsâ€￾ either.

I pushed back intensely. We’d gone to war because of oil, I said, and most Jews I knew hadn’t even supported it. And anyway, it’s not like there are that many Jews in the Senate or House. Back and forth we then went for at least an hour, and not just about Iraq. They brought up a host of issues relating to the lobby and Israel itself. They had a deep grasp of names, dates, history and geography. Most of it meant little to me. But I wouldn’t give an inch. When they mentioned the Palestinians, I mentioned suicide bombers. It felt right to me: I was the liberal Westerner standing up for tolerance and multicultural values to these two guys who came from places where anti-Semitism was the norm. Good for me.

We resolved nothing, obviously, and somehow remained friends, never bringing it up again. This was actually pretty easy for me, since I generally devoted zero minutes and zero seconds of every day to thinking about Israel and the Middle East. (In fact, it was only in hindsight that I realized why they were having that discussion on that July day in the first place: Israel had just launched its war on Lebanon, and it was on their minds; at the time, I only knew that Israel was engaged in some kind of war with Lebanon, but it’s not like I’d been following it at all.) So we just went back to talking about sports and domestic politics. But I still believed their instincts were anti-Semitic.

Believe it or not, I’m not (and I wasn’t) as intentionally ignorant as this makes me sound. My upbringing was fairly typical for an upper middle-class American. I grew up in a quiet suburb, the kind of town where everyone was proud of their tolerance, even though there were basically no blacks, Hispanics, Asians or Jews around. My public school curriculum heavily emphasized diversity and multiculturalism; I took it very seriously, and at home my parents reinforced it. There was no uglier sin, I was raised to understand, than being a racist or an anti-Semite (something my mother would try to demonstrate when she’d argue with racist and anti-Semitic older generation members of my father’s family).

My grades in school were good, I was never in trouble, and teachers told me I’d go far in life. In high school and college, I developed an interest in politics, mainly in its personality and campaign aspects – not policy. I considered myself more of a Democrat, mainly on cultural grounds; the Republican Party was for intolerant people, and I wasn’t one of them. I was forced to take a basic international relations course in college, but only skimmed the required reading. I remember one chapter was about the Iranian revolution of 1979; I was surprised to learn how much the U.S.’s support of the Shah had led it. For the next few years, this became my default observation if foreign policy ever came up in conversation and I needed to say something.

After school, I found my way into journalism, covering politics – again, campaigns and strategy, not policy. Except for once instance, the significance of which I didn’t appreciate or understand at the time, Middle East issues never intruded on my work, and I never thought or read about them. Other than following the run-up to the Iraq war (which I told people I opposed), I simply tuned out news stories about foreign policy.

I did know that it was fashionable among some on the left, particularly in academic circles, to criticize Israel from a human rights perspective – mainly because one of my best friends from high school had become one of those left-wing academics. I listened to her once, sensed there was something to what she was saying, but ended up mostly dismissing it – every message I heard in the media told me that hers was a fringe view. Whatever Israel might have done wrong, I figured, there had to be a reason. They were the good guys over there, the ones who were most “like us.â€￾ Then I went back to not thinking about it.

If at any time prior to my 27th birthday you’d asked me to tell you the difference between the West Bank and Israel, I wouldn’t have been able to answer. I’d occasionally hear the term “right of returnâ€￾ in the news; had no clue what it meant. Ditto for “settlements.â€￾ I had no idea when the Six Day war had been, or what it had accomplished. If someone mentioned Yasser Arafat, I’d repeat the only thing I’d heard in the media: Why the hell did he turn down the offer for his own state – it’s the best deal he’ll ever get! When I saw Benjamin Netanyahu on television, my instinct was to like him, because he looked and sounded so “American.â€￾ If compelled to discuss it, my position on Israel was this: They are our ally and they are surrounded by crazy backward fanatics who hate Jews and like to blow themselves up.

That was the attitude I carried with me into the living room on that summer day when I found my two friends fuming about “the Israel lobby.â€￾ I conceded nothing that day, and raised my voice often. But something bothered me in the weeks that followed: From a factual standpoint, I really had had no idea what I was talking about. I had faked it well, bringing their detailed arguments back to my basic points (Israel is threatened by terrorists and talking about the “Israel lobbyâ€￾ is for quacks who subscribe to Lyndon LaRouche newsletters) and still believed I’d been on the right side, but I wanted to know more. There was no excuse for being 27 and not being able to find Lebanon on a map.

So finally, some time late in 2006, I found myself in Barnes and Noble, seeking a not-too-intimidating-looking book that could serve as an introductory course in Middle East issues. I found a copy of Tom Friedman’s “From Beirut to Jerusalem.â€￾ I picked up the New York Times every day, but had probably read his column three or four times – ever. But I’d seen him on television and heard him described as an authority, and the book was billed as an excellent Middle East primer. It was a little dated, but history is history, so I picked it up.

It really was an extraordinary volume: thorough, personal, balanced, comprehensive. Nowadays I’m stunned that the Friedman I read on the NYT op-ed page is the same guy who wrote that book. For the first time, I understood the basic contours of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I no longer wondered what the right of return was, or what the term “West Bankâ€￾ referred to. I found myself stunned at the basic injustice that the Palestinians had experienced; their story was not quite what I’d imagined.

I wanted to know more, and I went back to B&N again and again. Gradually, the various titles and jacket descriptions started to make sense to me. I went from not knowing what the settlements were to wanting to know all about the British Mandate period. I read from different perspectives: Bernard Lewis’ “The Crisis of Islamâ€￾ one day, a collection of essays by Edward Said the next; Alan Dershowitz’s “The Case for Israelâ€￾ before going to bed, Karl Sabbagh’s “Palestine: A Personal History,â€￾ on the subway the next morning. And so on. I sought out more objective voices, too: Margaret MacMillan’s “Paris 1919,â€￾ for instance, vividly brought to life the arrogance and ignorance that ruled the Paris Peace Conference and set the Palestinians on a three-decade course to lose their land for good.

The essential tragedy of the Palestinian narrative became undeniable. So did the utter phoniness of the American media’s coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The cliché about converts making the best preachers began to make sense. How could I have ignored all of this for so long? How could so many Americans do the same thing?

In late 2007, I read John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s “The Israel Lobby.â€￾ The old me would have heard of the controversy surrounding the book and dismissed it as a collection of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. The new me read it. It resonated deeply with me, helping me to connect every practical lesson I’d learned about the campaign side of politics with the Israel/Palestine issue. Yes, there most certainly was an Israel lobby; it was hard to define precisely and my friend had painted it in too simplistic terms that day back in 2006, but it was certainly there – and that it had been the whole time I’d been reporting on politics.

I knew I was a full-fledged believer in the Palestinian cause when, a year or so ago, I heard someone casually mention that Arafat had turned down his own state in 2001 and then turned around and launched the second intifada. The old me would have just nodded and agreed, or made some benign observation about how “tragicâ€￾ the whole situation was. The new me pointed out that Arafat was actually offered a state in name only and that second intifada was triggered by Ariel Sharon’s intentionally provocative appearance at the Temple Mount.

I continue to read all I can about the Middle East, and not just Israel and Palestine. Recently, I finished Ali Ansari’s “Confronting Iran,â€￾ an eye opener about the frustrating history and missed opportunities that have plagued America’s relationship with Iran. I’m perfectly comfortable with my new perspective; it’s a natural fit with my upbringing, which stressed tolerance and compassion for the least fortunate among us.

That said, it can be awkward. I worry that articulating these views could hurt my career, a concern that some of my media-savvy friends have impressed on me. There have been times, too, when it’s complicated friendships. One of my best friends is Jewish, raised in a predominantly Jewish town. He has one of the quickest and funniest minds I’ve ever known, and he shares my love of contrarian thinking.

One day, I brought up my new thinking on Israel to him. I probably shouldn’t have. It didn’t get ugly and I backed off quickly and apologetically, but he clearly regarded my words the same way I’d regarded my Indian and Egyptian friends’ words in 2006. He still gives me a hard time about it – jokingly, I think – from time to time. Recently, when I received some good career news, he relayed a touching email to me from his mother, who had written to tell him how proud she was of me and the fact that I was friends with her son. In forwarding the message to me, he (jokingly, I think) wrote that “This is from the woman whose people you hate.â€￾ I was so touched by his mother’s note, and felt terrible that my friend might ever think that I’m anti-Semitic in any way.

It bothers me, as well, that my position is shared by some people who are truly anti-Semitics – who actually embody the Larouche-ish stereotype I used to associate with Israel lobby talk. I don’t want anything to do with these people and the fact that we share a common viewpoint has given me pause – many times. Then again, I’ve heard many vile and hateful words directed at Arabs and Muslims from Jews and Israelis (and their supporters). And it helps to remember this: For all of his whining about “the Jews,â€￾ I’ve never met a more fervent supporter of Israel than my great-uncle. The world is a lot more complicated than I used to think it was.
 
Top