Wishing for genocide is not the measure for racism. For instance, if someone said 'I like [enter race of your choice here]s, but they're idiots'. That's racist, is it not?
He's got a point about the compensation part. Holocaust survivors are going after Swiss Banks, Mercedes Benz and Insurance Companies. Who is to say that Palestinians can't sue Israel for throwing them off their land and stealing their land and homes. Of course its all b.s. because Might Makes Right. You simply do what you want if you're the strongest and then use whatever you need to do to rationalize it or justify it. The settlements we being built WAAAAAAAAAAAAY before the Palestinians began suicide bombings in the 1980's. That would point me to believe they don't want to give those areas back. And if you don't agree with Israel?? Who cares. They'll send a group of US Made F-16's and Apache helicopters to take you out. And if they want to know something they'll send the Mossad or Spies paid by US Handouts to Israel. The sad state of affairs is that he who holds the money has all the power and can buy their justification. It just pisses me off that my tax dollars are wasted on this crap and it pisses me off that many "Americans" are more worried about Israel's livelihood rather than that of the USA.
Updated info.: Israel won't rule out another attack in Syria http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/06/mideast/index.html JERUSALEM (CNN) -- The Israeli government is not ruling out another attack in Syria, a spokesman said Monday, adding that although Iran "is not a target," the strike over the weekend was aimed at putting pressure on both countries to cut their ties with Palestinian militants. The attack on Syria followed a suicide bombing that killed 19 people Saturday in the Israeli city of Haifa. Asked if Israel might stage another air strike like the one Sunday that targeted an alleged training camp for Palestinian militants in Syria, Israeli government spokesman Ranaan Gissin said in a telephone interview, "There could be more, there could be not." "Iran is not a target," Gissin said, but added Iranians should stop supporting militants in Lebanon. He called for economic and diplomatic pressure on Tehran. But he said Syria is the "critical part" of what he called an "axis of terror" among Iran, Syria and Palestinian militants. Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat is "living on borrowed time," said Gissin, who shrugged off Arafat's declaration of a state of emergency, approval of an emergency Cabinet and his prime minister's call for a truce. The move was seen as aimed at heading off Israel's calls for the Palestinian leader's exile. (Full story) "The noose is tight around his neck," Gissin said, adding that Israel "wants to make certain he is removed," either physically or by isolation. Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qorei's call for a truce was met coldly by the Israelis. "He wants a truce, he should make a truce," Gissin said, calling on the Palestinian Authority to dismantle the militants. If not, he said, Israel will continue attacking the militants. President Bush was careful Monday in his first public comments on the Israeli airstrike in Syria. The president, speaking before Gissin's remarks, said he had made clear to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that "Israel's got a right to defend herself, that Israel must not feel constrained in terms of defense of the homeland." But he added that he had told Sharon "it is very important that any action Israel take should avoid escalation, creating higher tensions." Much of Israel closed down Monday to observe Yom Kippur -- the holiest day on the Jewish calendar -- and to recall the 30th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War. In 1973, Syria and Egypt, backed by other Arab countries -- attacked Israel in an effort to force it to return territories it captured in the 1967 Six Day War. Israel was the victor. The holiday came amid heightened Israeli-Palestinian tensions due to a string of Palestinian terror attacks against Israelis and deadly Israeli strikes on Palestinian extremist group members that also have killed and wounded Palestinian bystanders. Syria has called on the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israel's airstrike overnight Saturday on an alleged terrorist training camp in Syria. The Arab League was meeting in Cairo, Egypt, Monday to condemn the raid, which came hours after the terrorist bombing in Haifa that also injured 50 people. (Full story) On Monday, the Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, Fayssal Mekdad, told CNN his nation has worked with the United States to fight terrorism, and deserves support. Amr Moussa, Arab League secretary-general, agreed. "This is a situation that doesn't conform to the international law. The right of self-defense applies when a state is attacked," Moussa said. "When a country occupies the land of other countries and practices violence ... it's not possible to consider this self-defense." On Sunday, Syria, which holds a rotating seat on the U.N. Security Council, requested a special session of the council and asked it to strongly condemn Israel's weekend attack. Israel Defense Forces said the camp targeted in the Syria strike was used to train members of Islamic Jihad -- a militant group that has claimed responsibility for terror attacks against Israelis in the past, including the suicide bombing Saturday in Haifa. But the Syrian Foreign Ministry insisted the Israeli target, near Damascus, was a civilian site, without elaborating. A spokesman for the Islamic Jihad denied Sunday there were any Islamic Jihad training bases in Syria. Mekdad called the air raid an act of "unwarranted aggression" that violated the U.N. Charter and the 1974 disengagement agreement that followed the 1973 Yom Kippur War. (Full story) The United States "believes Syria is on the wrong side of the war on terrorism," said John Negroponte, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. "We have been clear of the need for Syria to cease harboring terrorist groups."
Did you read the other thread? Do you really think his comments came during a heated discussion, or did they start that way? Did his later comments just provide some further illumination?
by the way, you guys, thanks for the support. if you want to examine the thread in question, feel free. there's only been one incident and it's the thread buck listed. i believe the opinion i expressed in there have been echoed by other jewish academics (see http://www.indexonline.org/news/303_20030912_roy.shtml ), though i do admit to being careless with my language and to making one stereotype which was improper for which i apologised. i do have many close jewish friends and colleagues. for example, my first college roommate was jewish, one of the finest people i've ever met, and we're still great friends today. even when discussing the topic of israel, we always got on along fine. (he was against many israeli policies anyway). and i've certainly never hated anyone for their race nor given anyone else that impression. i'm neither muslim nor do i have any close arab friends, but maybe it's because i get my news from the BBC, the Times, and the Guardian (i.e. the british perspective), which i find to be in general a bit more introspective and receptive to the muslim perspective, that's why i see things the way i do. but really i don't think i'm that extreme either. there are places in europe where opinions against israel are far more extreme and pro-palestinian. maybe i've simply become out of touch with american public opinion...
From all the news reports I've seen, this camp has not been used in years,. It was merely a political move to follow up the suicide attacks, there is no danger to Israel of Syria counterattacking, and Israel has no effective solution to the suicide attacks - they've killed almost every one at the top of the ladder. In some ways it's more similar to our invasion and occupation of Iraq, rather than Afghanistan, if one was to make a comparison, but that's a whole other can of worms.
Originally posted by MacBeth Serious question: Suppose that, in order to stop what they saw as the terroristic victimization of Arab civilians, Egypt or Syria had launched a military strike into Israel...offering no subtantiation for thei claim that the target of their attack...in another nation...was the source of terrorist attacks against their citizens other than that they said so... Well, there's several ways to respond. Since Palestinians are a separate people (right?)... Should Australia have gotten involved in the Falklands? Moreover, to ignore Syria's support for terrorist groups that attack Israel is just plain blind. If Syria elects to do that, they are lucky that only the terrorist training camp is atacked, IMO. Its grounds for war. And let's clear up this misconception about 'alleged' base. I asked it before, now I'll ask again...why haven't we seen images of either the deserted terrorist camp or the refuge camp as some parties allege? Because Syrian police won't allow media close to the site. Kindly explain that. Does anyone else see a familiar philosophy at work here? ... The philosophy is self-defense. As for Lil being a racist...unless I've missed some significant dialogue ( quite possible), I'd say that that's a ridiculous claim. He might be, although I haven't seen any signs of it, but just because his position on this is to take the Palestinian side does not make him racist, any more than those ( like you, Cohen, as much as I like you) who almost automatically take the Israeli side. I myself often take the Palestinian side in here simply because the other side is the more common toAmericans, and I am usually prone to playing Devil's advocate...in other circumstances I often take the Israeli side... You apparently are missing quite a bit. I've been in a number of debates here where I am criticizing Israeli policy. I've started threads that criticizes Israeli actions that I find deplorable. I've mentioned several in this thread, yet somehow some here believe I 'almost automatically' take the Israeli side. On what issues, exactly, am I biased and unreasonable when it comes to Israel? This one? They're defending themselves. Name some for me, or back off of the characterization. But from Lil's perspective, he reflects the global opionion a lot more than the US, and unless we are to conclude that everyone else is racist against Jews whereas we are the enlightened ones, it might be food for thought about who is and who isn't objective about this subject. When one party only espouses the views of one side, I doubt that they are the 'enlightened' one.
Those are the claims made by the Syrians, yet Syrian police will not let the media approach. Don't you think they'd be publicizing images of the detroyed, abandoned camp?
A) Agreed about the secondary national interest, but of course that question ( Australia/Falklands is at the very heart of the Arabs resentment of US intervention in the area. But the example was a hypothetical...alter it if you will, my point was that if the exact reverse were true, we would be up in arms, Israel would be declaring war, and we would be supporting them, partly by automatically vetoing any UN resolution agains t them...do you disagree? International law either is or is not applicable: If it is, we need to condemn Israel here...if it isn't, why did we get involved in the 1st Gule War? Either nations can or cannot use military force against other nations for their own reason...either they are or are not subject to international judgement. B) Here we get into the whole terrorist/freedom fighter debate. We chose to look at this conflict with one sided perspective, but history shows that the lines are blurrier than we care to admit. C) About the proof that they weren't terrorist bases; I don't think that the opposition proving a negative can be the standard to which we hold the basis for military strikes, do you? D) About Lil...Frankly I had even missed the thread wherein he made the generalizations that he admis to, so obviously I did miss stuff. I still say we owe him the benefit of the doubt, as he has owned up to the comments, their wrongess, and apologized. In stark contrast, say, to bama who has called the Arabs ' the Arab horde', Islam " that infernal religion', etc...and yet, strangely, I don't see nearly the backlash against him as against Lil. D) Re you: and automatic support, I apologize...it was too quick, I was painting you with a brush better reserved for others. I do seem to have the impression that you come down on that side of the fence most of the time, but have enough respect for you as a poster to credit you if you say otherwise, and apologize as warrented. I do think that we, as a nation, are incredibly one-sided on this issue, though, and it's in stark opposition of the majority of the planet. E) When one party only espouses the views of one side, I doubt that they are the 'enlightened' one. Kind of my point exactly; the world at large, and the UN have come down on both sides of the fence; they have condemned Israel and the Palestinians...not to mention formulating Israel in the 1st place. The US, on the other hand, has repeatedly and automatically vetoed any resolution against Israel, has repeatedly supported Israel, and according to polls, our population is by far the most one sided on this issue of any nation not directly involved ( ie in the Middle East). That's what I mean...the world in general opposes us on this BY being two0sided. The opposition stems from our one sidedness, as your statement asserts.
It is is a little more complicated than holocaust survivors and their families trying to recover their own bank accounts and life insurance policies, or even to be reimbursed for their slave labor. Regardless, many of the Palestinians do deserve compensation. Just like all of the Jews that were forcibly deported from Arab countries. I just cannot imagine who could ever unravel the mess and design a equitable solution.
A) International Law gives each country the right to defend itself. Simply, thats what Israel did. My intent was to show the weakness in your hypothetical. Palestinians may be Arab, but that really doesn't give other Arabs any more right in this issue than Australia/Falklands. What special right do they have? Israel defended itself. B) Here we get into the whole terrorist/freedom fighter debate. We chose to look at this conflict with one sided perspective, but history shows that the lines are blurrier than we care to admit. B) I'm sorry you're so one-sided about this. But let's discuss this anyway. I have no problem with Palestinians attacking military or infrastructure. When they target innocent civilians, it is no longer 'freedom fighting' it is war crime, it is terrorism. C) About the proof that they weren't terrorist bases; I don't think that the opposition proving a negative can be the standard to which we hold the basis for military strikes, do you? Are you actually going to argue that Syrian police keeping reporters away doesn't, in all reasonable likelihood, prove the Israeli's claim? If you disaagree, provide some other explanation please. D) About Lil...Frankly I had even missed the thread wherein he made the generalizations that he admis to, so obviously I did miss stuff. I still say we owe him the benefit of the doubt, as he has owned up to the comments, their wrongess, and apologized. In stark contrast, say, to bama who has called the Arabs ' the Arab horde', Islam " that infernal religion', etc...and yet, strangely, I don't see nearly the backlash against him as against Lil. Oddly, I tried to accept his apology, (for myself, not for all of the others that he slandered and offended), and he threw it back in my face. I'm done discussing lilly anyway. He's ignored. As for bama, I did not read any of those comments, but they sound pretty offensive to me. How about you? D) Re you: and automatic support, I apologize...it was too quick, I was painting you with a brush better reserved for others. I do seem to have the impression that you come down on that side of the fence most of the time, but have enough respect for you as a poster to credit you if you say otherwise, and apologize as warrented. I do think that we, as a nation, are incredibly one-sided on this issue, though, and it's in stark opposition of the majority of the planet. I understand and agree with you. I've even sent several e-mails to the White House urging pressure on Israel (at least I can be a tick on some report somewhere). I have a strong desire that Powell will assess a serious financial penalty for continued settlement construction and also for construction of the wall on Palestinian territory. I say all of these things and much much more which are critical of Israel's actions, but when I show-up on Israel's side when she's trying to defend herself, people will always claim that I am severely biased. Interestingly, it is often people who refuse to condemn suicide bombings. Again, who're the biased parties? Kind of my point exactly; the world at large, and the UN have come down on both sides of the fence; they have condemned Israel and the Palestinians...not to mention formulating Israel in the 1st place. The US, on the other hand, has repeatedly and automatically vetoed any resolution against Israel, has repeatedly supported Israel, and according to polls, our population is by far the most one sided on this issue of any nation not directly involved ( ie in the Middle East). That's what I mean...the world in general opposes us on this BY being two0sided. The opposition stems from our one sidedness, as your statement asserts. Let's take the recent events for instance. Palestinians have terrorist organizations which target civilians. Israel respond with an attack on a terrorist camp. As the last resolution that we vetoed, we'd like to see a condemnation of terrorist actions if Israel's response is to be condemned. Why, I ask, is that such an unreasonable stance for the US to take?
Cohen, I asked for a link, which Buck kindly provided, and I'd suggest that MacBeth take a look at it again. I can see where you could easily go ballistic from some of the comments. Others did as well. I can also see some posters in the thread giving the other perspective... but how can Lil post some of this stuff?? put in another way. if you found out today that Mother Teresa was a Nazi youth and serial murderer in her youth, would you forgive her? i know our hate for Osama is quite fresh. But after some thought, I'd say yes, I forgive both of them. I admittedly, don't hate Osama very much to begin with. I, like many around the world, simply don't find his actions so terribly shocking or evil. And yes, I am an American. or: what do i think of Osama? Take your typical Palestinian suicide bomber. Give him 100 times his intelligence. 1 million times his money. and 1000 times his capabilities. Trace his grievance to its source. And you have Osama bombing America. ================= Frightening? Yes. Destructive? Yes. Cruel? Yes. But shocking? No. It is simply cause and effect. With America's screwed-up foreign policy, it was only a matter of time. If you find the Twin Towers shocking, wait until N. Korea or the next big terrorist drops a nuke on American cities... Are you going to be "shocked" every time? To me, evil is unprovoked malice. There is nothing unprovoked here. The same ignorance, ethnocentrism and hate blinded the Western world for centuries. And yet while you guys are facing the very same demons that created Hitler and Osama, you appear to be no wiser. I don't claim to be a saint. I just call 'em like I see 'em. Read the above... Hitler and Bin Laden, put together by Lil, are/were not evil because their "malice" was provoked. I could say a lot more, and found the thread very good reading with contributions from several that were excellent, including johnheath (give credit where credit is due). I would suggest reading it to any who haven't. Gotta go right now. Lil, I'm surprised by some of what I read, frankly. And I'm one of those who have already said what I think of the current governments that are in play. I just want to end right now with a definition from I got from Dictionary.com: Sho·ah ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sh) n. The mass murder of European Jews by the Nazis during World War II. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Hebrew ô’â, calamity. See w in Semitic Roots.]
Deckard, Thank you for taking the time for reviewing. Nice not too have another 'I don't know about what was said before...' It's also interesting to watch how some people will go out of their way to seem most reasonable after showing their colors.
Interesting. You say this means the mighty can do whatever they want without any justification. Strange then, don't you think, that MacBeth then says: It must be an enthraling intellectual exercise to be able to say BOTH 'there was NO PROOF of their position' and 'I have NO IDEA whether there was proof of their position' at the same time. Gee, you sure are smart. Wrong. No one has ever said that a country must appeal to the international community before defending themselves. That is simply false. I would hope that people will remember this passage. We are so lucky to have MacBeth playing 'devil's advocate' to edjumacate us stupid Americans. It is so nice that he can come down from his perch in the Great White North and teach us some really neat stuff. Keep in mind, people, that MacBeth is telling you straight up that he often makes arguments he DOES NOT believe himself. That should do wonders for your credibility, slick. Interesting that you claim at the end of your post to be objective. When one considers you've said you had no idea whether Israel had proof or not, but condemn them anyway, when you've said you often make an argument for the arguments sake, rather than because you believe it, I find it hard to stomach your claim of 'objectivity.'
this line has been misrepresented enough. let me restate it for your benefit: ignorance, ethnocentrism and hate created the likes of hitler and osama. these monsters lurked for DECADES, rising to power and prominence, spreading their vile beliefs and feeding on the discontent of the masses. and THEN they struck. people should have seen both hitler and osama coming from a mile away. they were both utterly explicit in their publicly stated goals, and certainly neither were madmen, but methodical planners who gathered their cohorts and violated their first victims while the world turned a blind eye. both hitler and osama stated very clearly why they did what they did. their acts were not acts of passion, but direct responses to perceived injustices, again formed (or should we say misinformed) by ignorance, ethnocentrism and hate. these very same demons, ignorance, ethnocentrism and hate, is at work today. america's public opinion towards the middle east. israel's policy towards arabs. both have suffered from the same malaise for decades. and we see their consequences - in a unilateral, aggressive foreign policy which forsakes the international order for dubious short-term national objectives, which does nothing but promote a cycle of violence and hatred which in the end consumes both the unfortunate victims but also the original states as well. in this environment, it is a matter of time before despair leads to extremism. and the likes of osama becomes not the exception but the rule. as to the definition of evil as unprovoked malice, i stand by it. again, we see hitler and osama as acting unprovoked, just as the middle east sees america and israel as acting unprovoked. yet the rationale behind both the actions of the monsters and ourselves are as clear and explicit as can be. hitler wrote books, made thousands of public speechs. osama had websites, newspapers. israeli and american officials give daily explanations for each action. instead of trying to address and change these tragically misinformed rationale, the people of the world seem to prefer just turning a blind eye and call each other madmen, insisting on the existence of evil. and of course, they are "shocked" by the results. it's that simple. and tragic. (what i've said about osama applies equally to suicide bombers). ----------------- my education about the holocaust is about as complete as you can possibly imagine. let me begin by saying that it is horribly vile and uncondonable. the holocaust was the product of millenia of religious and social antisemitic persecution. it was merely the application of modern state machinery and science to the same vile act which had been done countless times from roman times through catholic europe to the 20th century pograms in russia. to emphasize the holocaust as a self-contained, definitive act of evil distracts its students from examining its true underlying causes and cripples the purpose of history. my main point is that the lessons that americans should have taken from holocaust education is not "we can't trust anyone to defend ourselves", but rather that ignorance, ethnocentrism and hate leads to horrifying consequences. yet when i see israel's national policy, or the policy of jewish organisations (particularly nazi-hunters) today, i do not detect a hint of tolerance, compassion, understanding, or forgiveness which should have been the proper responses to having emerged from and learned frorm the holocaust. all i see is an administration led by war criminals themselves, abusing human rights, persecuting and butchering civilians, violating nations and peoples alike, meanwhile supported by the same organisations who teach americans to remember the holocaust. at the same time, these organisations spitefully hunt down and ruin pathetic, often INNOCENT, 80yr olds, just to vent to their own venom. by their own examples, they don't teach us to try to understand history or the world around us, but to take sides, make enemies, and blindly strike out at them in hatred, to hell with morality and benevolence, to hell with world opinion, to hell with the international order. i may live in a world where values have been turned upside-down, but i can still smell hypocrisy in its highest form when i encounter it. as an american, i'd rather teach my children to recognise evil in its original form. in the ignorance of people, in the self-righteousness of ethnocentrism, in the mindless hatred of others. herein lies the roots to unprovoked malice. all subsequent tragedies are merely cause and effect. in our current mode, we americans have been trained to respond to evil with more evil, and in the end the cycle of violence and hatred consumes us all.
So, if I am to understand correctly, you are foreshadowing the United States to be the next Nazi Germany because we go after terrorists that are responsible for 9/11 and various other atrocities. Interesting. If that is indeed your belief, what would you have the U.S. do? Shall we follow the path of appeasement then? It seems to me that road also led to the makings of Hitler. But maybe you can enlighten the rest of us who are so ignorant, self-righteous in our ethnocentrism, and filled with mindless hatred.
no. i'm saying americans need to think before they act. instead of hating osama, labeling him a madman or the incarnation of evil, we've got to understand him first. only by understanding him will we be able to root out the circumstances which created him in the first place. Many of Osama's demands are based on ignorance, ethnocentrism and hate. But many of his grievances are based the consequences of our own ignorance, ethnocentrism and hate. The answer is not to answer him with appeasement. But it certainly isn't to answer him with more ignorance, ethnocentrism and hate of our own. What we need is a concrete plan to understanding him, and to remove block by block the foundations of middle east discontent on which he feeds. as for the foreshadowing of the US as the next Nazi Germany, it's not something i believe, but trust me when i tell you that plenty of people around the world already think the US IS the next Nazi Germany. and the more we go down our current path of taking sides and making enemies without consideration for the big picture or the long run, without thinking about right and wrong, crushing discontent without questioning why, the closer we're edging towards that reality.
