By the way...this whole thing has turned me into a total Greenie!! I stand beside Jeff now (an odd political alliance despite my immense respect for the guy)...we need alternative fuel sources NOW!!! I pray that we'll push to get away from all dependence on these people for powering our country. Let's see if their Muslim brothers across the world are willing to pay for their then worthless oil reserves to power their backward ass nations.
Francis_Rules, you said: those people are animals like osma ben laden, for them killing an innocent child is the best thing in the world As a Jew you should understand that classifying peope as inhuman or as "animals" is indefensible evil and can be used to justigy such monstrous crimes as genocide. failed.
Actually, you haven't read most of my posts on the subject, then. I've had it out with people that are completely pro-Palestinian, too. Right now, however, I think the Palestinians are getting an unfair rap, largely because of a terrorist incident instigated by an exiled Saudi. I've never condoned terrorism. I've never approved of it. I do believe that it's inevitable if you don't allow a people another mechanism. Both of your examples of successful peace movements are in fact very, very poorly thought out. The example of MLK is in fact very, very poor as an analogy. The black rights movement was to a large extent possible because blacks had political rights in the United States. They had freedom of assembly. They had freedom of speech. Dr. King could say anything he wanted to. Palestine isn't capable of politically energizing itself in such a fashion. Israel is a police state. There is no attempt to politically assimilate the Palestinians. If such had been done originally, we probably wouldn't have these problems. Gandhi... well, you need to look at the politics of the day as well. In the end, Gandhi triumphed because the British empire was waning and no longer could feasibly dominate its colonial possessions to begin with. This trend continued throughout the world, in fact. Gandhi was unique in his commitment to peace, but hardly in achieving independence from colonialialism. The Israelis still have a very obvious stake in dictating the nature of Palestinian-Israeli relations. As such, a peace movement is not analogous to the situation in Gandhi's India. The real problem, is that there are no good choices for these people. We all agree that killing civilians is wrong. However, I do think that guerilla attacks on military targets are legitimate. I mean, I'm sure Palestine would prefer to fight openly... but let's be realistic, if they fought as we do, they'd lose. Guerilla war is their only feasible option. I've heard many of the conservatives on this board claim that if the US were ever invaded, they'd take care of the problem themselves. They'd become freedom fighters, shooting the occupation armies themselves to defend their families and liberty. I don't think this is wrong (even if I don't want them to have guns!). Is it any different for a people that's been oppressed for decades?
glynch -- come on!! give the guy a break. He used a descriptive word to describe the people who make him afraid to leave his home each day. If i sent a member of my family each morning to homes in your neighborhood to hit you in the nose as you left your house, you might have some choice descriptions for me as and mine as well. Their regard for human life is certainly animalistic...but no one is calling for genocide here, so ease up.
Yeah..you're right, Haven...I would shoot the invading armies...no doubt. But I wouldn't then seek to torture their children or their wives. I wouldn't blow up their schoolbuses. I wouldn't send my own children out with machine guns so that I could use the pictures of their dead bodies to acquire sympathy from other nations. This is the difference between terrorism (largely a criminal act by all international measures) and war.
Well, then we're in agreement, right? I mean, I support (well, accept as necessary) guerilla warfare against military targets, but certainly not when they target civilians at all.
By the way guys, why is there no attempt to respond to the charges that Shiron was a terrorist and war criminal when he encouraged the massacres at the refugee camps at Shatila and Sabra? The BBC is hardly a Palestinian front organization, even though Israel responded by calling them "anti-semitic". What does it say about the reasonableness of a country and its moderateness when the majority democratically elect such a person (Sharon) to run their country? Flat out continual assertions are usually repeated that Palestininans and Arabs won't rest till they kill all Jews. Perhaps these assertions are effective for rhetorical reasons, but there is no proof of this, no matter how many times they are repeated. Israel needs to follow UN resoloutions and withdraw from occupied terroritories. Then if there is no peace they would have more of a basis for their assertions that the Palestinians will never rest till they are driven into the sea.
glynch -- the Israeli people are reactionary, no doubt. But can you blame them, seriously?? Everyday they worry about being able to leave their homes without having their children attacked by these guys. That's why they elect a man like Sharon. Because they want to feel safe...and they know that the Palestinians will not be satisfied with the sort of Ivory Tower peace that you espouse as possible. 'Can't we all just get along' isn't possible with these people. haven -- it sounds like we're in agreement now...but when you say, "what some would call terrorists others might call freedom fighters" earlier we stand in stark disagreement.
MadMax: Really? I'm not necessarily in approval of either position. I'm saying that some people think of the situation in that fashion. I mean, let's face it... the facts may be the same in a perfect world, but most of the time... both sides don't even get the same facts, and they sure as hell don't have the conceptual framework to intepret even the most objective information in the same way. For the US, fascist rebels in South America were freedom fighters. Guerilla warriors who risked their lives for freedom, democracy, and capitalism against the Evil Empire. To many of the people involved, they were terrorists who didn't concern themselves with the distinction between civilians and soldiers. By making that statement, I'm not calling anybody a freedom fighter. I'm saying that interpretation makes up a large part of justice. You and I actually probably share 85% of the same interpretation... but that doesn't mean someone else doesn't believe otherwise. Why do I think it's important? Well, it's harder to think of someone as a diabolical villain if it turns out he's just mistaken about some information, or is interpreting it differently. (incidentally, I'm not including bin Laden in that... I think he's an insane wretch)
don't give me the sad old song of cultural relativism. some things transcend culture. like the evil of targeting civilians..particularly children..to inspire fear in the hearts of others. these strategies of appeasement and cultural relativism in the face of such atrocities lead to more death and more injustice.
Yep. An the UN also condemned Israel's premeditated attack on Iraq's nuclear program. What a most enlightened body. Th UN wants Israel to stop military action, but it offers no solution for how to end PLO suicide bombers. What a balanced approach.
But suicide bombers are predicated upon political oppression. Stop the political oppression, you stop the suicide bombers.
MadMax: Cultural relativism? That wasn't a part of my argument. My argument concerns interpretation of events from a political, not moral, standpoint.
Originally posted by haven Actually, you haven't read most of my posts on the subject, then. All I need to read is that is dounds that you are condoning terrorist actions in this thread; 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. ' There is a CLEAR distinction between the two. One fights for freedom, one kills innocents. Freedom fighters can become terrorists, but they do not have to. I've had it out with people that are completely pro-Palestinian, too. Right now, however, I think the Palestinians are getting an unfair rap, largely because of a terrorist incident instigated by an exiled Saudi. Although their are some close ties between the organizations involved, I do not hold the Palestinians accountable for the WTC. I've never condoned terrorism. I've never approved of it. I do believe that it's inevitable if you don't allow a people another mechanism. Then they will continue to fail. No people will win a struggle by killing another's innocents. Never has happened, never will. It only hardens your enemy. Both of your examples of successful peace movements are in fact very, very poorly thought out. The example of MLK is in fact very, very poor as an analogy. The black rights movement was to a large extent possible because blacks had political rights in the United States. They had freedom of assembly. They had freedom of speech. Dr. King could say anything he wanted to. Palestine isn't capable of politically energizing itself in such a fashion. Israel is a police state. There is no attempt to politically assimilate the Palestinians. If such had been done originally, we probably wouldn't have these problems. Gandhi... well, you need to look at the politics of the day as well. In the end, Gandhi triumphed because the British empire was waning and no longer could feasibly dominate its colonial possessions to begin with. This trend continued throughout the world, in fact. Gandhi was unique in his commitment to peace, but hardly in achieving independence from colonialialism. The Israelis still have a very obvious stake in dictating the nature of Palestinian-Israeli relations. As such, a peace movement is not analogous to the situation in Gandhi's India. Strange, but Gandhi actually had the same, very, very poorly thought-out idea for the Palestinians as I mentioned. Most of your points on this are irrelevant. The question is, what will happen with non-violent resistance? World (and US) opinion would totally sway to the opressed people. They would achieve Statehood quickly. But they do not act like a poor, oppressed people. Their leaders appear to actively support the terrorist activities. They want NO Israel. The real problem, is that there are no good choices for these people. We all agree that killing civilians is wrong. However, I do think that guerilla attacks on military targets are legitimate. I mean, I'm sure Palestine would prefer to fight openly... but let's be realistic, if they fought as we do, they'd lose. Guerilla war is their only feasible option. Guerrilla war OR non-violent resistance. I've heard many of the conservatives on this board claim that if the US were ever invaded, they'd take care of the problem themselves. They'd become freedom fighters, shooting the occupation armies themselves to defend their families and liberty. I don't think this is wrong (even if I don't want them to have guns!). Is it any different for a people that's been oppressed for decades? You are now guilty of a very poor analogy. It did not start as an 'armed invasion' of an existing country. Jewish immigrants started arriving to the British colony in the 19th century. Over 50 years later, after they had just been recognized in a UN resolution as country (from small portion of the terrirtory), they were attacked from within and from existing Arab nations. Who was the underdog then?
That's a complete tautology. If one accepts your interpretation of hte facts, then you're correct in your conclusion. Well, duh. That's always true logically. Even if your correct on the facts, freedom fighters can be terrorists. If one fights for freedom and kills civilians... well, that fits both of your definitions. However, you're going to run into problems with your underlying assumptions. Is a settler who violated international law by acting as a tool of the Israeli state in implementing a colonial policy in Palestine still complete a civilian. Or what about a policeman? Or a politician that advocates political repression? Or a corporate owner that gave millions to the conservative Israeli party that took a hardline stance on the issue of Palestinian state-hood. There just aren't clear demarcations. Please don't read a personal opinion there, that all those targets would be acceptable in my estimation. I'm merely pointing out the room for understandable disagreement. When did I ever argue for the efficacy of terrorism? I argued that more legitimate channels are unavailable. And you can directly apply my assertion that Gandhi's success came as a result of the distinct international political implications of the end of the colonial era. Gandhi's success didn't necessarily derive itself from methodology. His methods were, of course, laudable. Israel was an imposed state by Western powers. Why on earth should they want an israel? Incidentally, there are plenty of peaceful demonstrations across the world. It doesn't lead to much. The Western Saharans are probably the closest analogy. Morocco was an important cold war ally of the US. Morocco illegimiately occupied the Western Sahara. The UN has condemned Morocco for this. But the US hasn't backed off in support. The Western Saharans have been, by and large, quite peaceful. They're still being oppressed. I don't think you're really clashing with my arguments. You have these preconceived notions, and you're reasserting the same notions, after indictment, regardless of my response. This makes no sense. To prove your argument, one has to assume that the creation of Israel was justified, which is a very, very difficult claim to make.
Madmax, I agree that the Israeli actions to deny a people who they displaced a homeland transcends the cultural. It is just plain wrong! We can't just afford to say any longer: "They are poor Jews who were slaughtered by the Nazis. It is understandably now their culture to be intransigient." The religion of some of their more extreme members believes that God gave them Jerusalem and the Holy Land; all non Jews should be driven out. Many Jews call the Arabs "animals" and viceversa. You say give the Jews a break, it is just their culture. When it comes to civil rights of minorities it is their culture and they should be held to a different standards than we, Americans accept in our own country. To me the behavior of the Jewish people in Palestine is one of the greatest arguments for non-violence that exists. A peaceful civilized people have been brought to the point through the unbelievable brutality of the Holocaust to where many act with little disregard for another oppressed group. Just as the sexually molested grow up to be molesters, so it appears whole groups of pople can grow up to victimize others if they have been victimized. This is as true in Israel as it is in Palestine. As I have said in other posts, it is up to Americans, particularly those of us who are not Muslims or Jews to make our will known as the two combatants can't think stright. Both sides are willing to fight a never ending war over a few old buildings or a few square miles of territory. To quote Jesse Jackson they are "caught in a death grip" and it is up to us to pull them apart. The more moderate Palestinian Jews and Arabs don't seem to be able to do it themselves.
glynch -- 1. every peace treaty the two sides reach is ultimately breached by the palestinians. the jews do not respond to every terrorist attack with revenge (or justice). they have tried peace. they've simply said, they're not leaving the region entirely. 2. it seems clear from the actions of the palestinians actions that they do not seek a "we can live together side by side" sort of peace. they seek the entire eradiction of israelis from the entire region...please understand, the israelis have already given up a ton of territory. if they give up the west bank you're talking about a nation that will be a sum total of 9 miles long, now. 3. your attack was reserved for the poster in particular who called the palestinians animals. i did not say give the jews a break...i said give the poster you vaguely insulted a break. while i agree with his assessment that those who target civilians for death are animals, i find your criticism of that to be absolutely worthless as you are not forced to fear being a target throughout your entire life of a people who live amongst you. whatever feelings he may have, that you may criticize from your ivory tower, are derived from his experience as an Israeli living in Israel. next time he cares what you think about his thoughts of those who target his life daily, he might ask you!
1. thats purely unfactual. the israelis build settlements in arab land. there are cities with 100,000 arabs and 200 jews in a settlement. thats against all treaties and illogical. and anyway every israeli thats killed over 5-6 arabs are killed so yes you might not respond to every single one but most surely you more then make up for it 2. what territory did you give up? all the 'terroritory' is raided by israel every other day and the deeper ones are threatened by f-16s bombing villages. plus all that was given back was a fraction of what israel took over form jordan and egypt. give back all the land that was promised at least. they only were willing to give back about 40% of it.
I have read through this entire topic and find it fascinating that the same arguments we are having here on a smaller level are what is driving Israel and Palestine from Making any forms of progress. I love hearing my sides of stories and most often find very intelligent ideas that are documented well. Yet if intelligent people cannot speak with respect to all human life on a BBS about Basketball, how do we sit here and criticize both parties for not doing so? The words "swine" and "animals" in regards to Arabs and Jews have no place here. All words like that do is show ones frustration, ignorance and lack of an ability to explain their point correctly. Jews and Arabs?? Why would one call each other names of this nature? They are two fighting brothers and pride edges them on. The father of Arabs and Jews (According to Monotheistic Faith) is Abraham. Abraham could not have a child with his wife so he had one with a servant girl named Hagar. This son was Ishmael, the first "Arab", but later Abraham had a son with his wife named Isaac, the first "Jew." Now I find it strange that an Arab or Jew would call each other a "Animal" or "Swine" seeing how they all have the same father if they truly believe in what their religion states.
I have read through this entire topic and find it fascinating that the same arguments we are having here on a smaller level are what is driving Israel and Palestine from Making any forms of progress. I love hearing my sides of stories and most often find very intelligent ideas that are documented well. Yet if intelligent people cannot speak with respect to all human life on a BBS about Basketball, how do we sit here and criticize both parties for not doing so? The words "swine" and "animals" in regards to Arabs and Jews have no place here. All words like that do is show ones frustration, ignorance and lack of an ability to explain their point correctly. Jews and Arabs?? Why would one call each other names of this nature? They are two fighting brothers and pride edges them on. The father of Arabs and Jews (According to Monotheistic Faith) is Abraham. Abraham could not have a child with his wife so he had one with a servant girl named Hagar. This son was Ishmael, the first "Arab", but later Abraham had a son with his wife named Isaac, the first "Jew." Now I find it strange that an Arab or Jew would call each other a "Animal" or "Swine" seeing how they all have the same father if they truly believe in what their religion states.
