"bias" There the Sharonites go again! Got to love the hutzpah. All other beliefs are all due to bias! Why can't they understand that though they might be in the majority ,perhaps even among all their friends even, that others can have opinions that aren't the result of biases. I guess it is just another sort of word they use to stifle other opinions such as "anti-Israel", "anti-semitic" , "self-hating Jews" "bias" etc. As I've said before those tactics might be effective in personal conversations, at the work place and even to intimidate the for profit news media., they just aren't that effective on a bbs. The sad part is that the Jewish people in Israel and the Palestinians also suffer while these defenders of the status quo try to block all discussion of the isssues.
If by "discussion" you mean giving excuses to suicide bombers based on acts taken against them (as you frequently do) then no thanks...I'll pass.
Mango got close, but I'll bottom line it... It would help if all parties inolved <b>respected</b> each other, but they don't. I don't see this ever ending. Neither side will ever gain the others <b>respect.</b>Very sad indeed.
On one hand you have an occupied nation that has been without any real freedom for 30+ years (though this can be said 'bout Israel too) and on whose land new Jewish/Israeli settlements are being erected constantly, even after there was supposedly a truce not to build settlement in said regions. And on the other, a nation whose people really can't stay too long in a public/crowded place for fear of a bomb going off. No one here at the BBS has an answer, or really even knows the entire truth about what's happening there (and no, the American/Jewish media does not relay EVERYTHING that happens from both camps, nevermind what you see on ABC-NBC-CBS-CNN, etc...) But instead of bashing one another's viewpoints or forcing one's opinions onto others, we have to come together and unite under one cause. The destruction of Karla Malone, Los Fakers, and an NBA Championship! Now, who's with me?!
An article from thenation.com on the alternatives for Israel beyond the status quo. comment | Posted November 21, 2002 Israel's Choice by Neve Gordon R eturning to Israel after an extended absence can be a disturbing experience. On the way back from the airport to my Jerusalem apartment, I noticed new posters tacked onto utility poles and bridges along the highway. They read: Transfer= Peace and Security. The meaning was unambiguous: Israel must expel the 3 million Palestinians living in the occupied territories--and perhaps even its own Palestinian citizens--in order to achieve peace and security. While racist slogans have become pervasive in Israel, it was this particular message--the notion of expulsion as a political solution--that unhinged me. One does not need to be a Holocaust survivor to recognize the phrase's lethal implications. The slogan, however, does not merely underscore the moral bankruptcy of certain elements in Israeli society; it also helps uncover some of the inherent contradictions underlying Israel's policies in the occupied territories. From the extreme right (those behind the posters) to the radical left, Israelis agree on at least two points: The current crisis must be dealt with, and land is the major issue around which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict revolves. After more than two years of armed conflict, which has left close to 2,500 people dead--including 300 Palestinian and eighty Israeli children--most Israelis see the situation as hopeless, a view that is, ironically, shared by many Palestinians. Israeli hopelessness does not stem merely from the Sharon government's preference for military action over diplomacy (which despite its ruthlessness has not stabilized the situation), but also from the fact that public discourse has been colonized by military calculations, which undercut the possibility of even envisioning a positive change. The current absence of a political horizon helps explain why no one greeted the government's announcement of early elections with any enthusiasm. Most Israelis appear to understand that the doctrine advanced by former Prime Minister Menachem Begin and adopted by Sharon is no longer tenable, namely that the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty while the Palestinian population would be given some form of autonomy without receiving full citizenship. The Israeli left has rejected this solution for pragmatic and ethical reasons, recognizing that in Israel's effort to maintain control over the territories it has become an apartheid regime. Israel has introduced a segregated road system in the territories, transforming all major arteries into roads for Jews only. Palestinian villages and towns have consequently been turned into islands, hindering the population's access to medical facilities, work and education. (According to UNICEF, close to a quarter-million Palestinian children cannot reach schools.) Not surprisingly, the Palestinian economy has also collapsed--a recent Israeli military report states that between 60 and 80 percent of the population lives on less than $2 a day. Israelis on the left and right now realize that the conflict cannot be resolved under the current conditions, regardless of the amount of military force Israel employs. A new government will be expected to come up with new ideas. Although the situation is complex, there will be only three options from which to choose if we are to break the current impasse. The first is the two-state solution. Even if the Labor Party's new leader, former Gen. Amram Mitzna, ends up forming the next government, which is highly unlikely, it is not clear that he will have the courage to radically alter the Oslo format. This option, however, will be viable only if Israel implements a full withdrawal to the 1967 borders and dismantles all Jewish settlements, which now contain almost 400,000 people. While this may appear to be an impossible endeavor, one should keep in mind that when France finally ceded control of Algeria, it managed to evacuate a much larger number of French citizens. The second option is the one proffered by the extreme right: the expulsion of all the Palestinians from their lands, forcefully transferring them to Jordan, Lebanon, Syria or Egypt. This idea, which until recently had been marginalized, is gaining broader support among the powers that be. Polls indicate that the National Union, a right-wing party advocating expulsion, is expected to receive 10 percent of the vote in the upcoming elections, and its members are not the only ones who are promoting this solution. The third option is for Israel to annex the West Bank and Gaza Strip, bestowing full citizenship on the Palestinian population, and thus turning itself into a binational state rather than a Jewish one. This solution, which had been perceived by Palestinians as a betrayal of the struggle for self-determination, has recently gained legitimacy within the Palestinian establishment. While the binational option is, in a sense, the most democratic of the three, within Israel it is still considered an abomination not only by the right but also by Labor and the liberal Meretz. If Israel's next leader is to overcome the current crisis, he will have to decide whether to abandon the notion of a Jewish state, employ a policy used by the darkest regimes (not least the Third Reich) or dismantle the settlements and bring the Jewish settlers back home. Each of these options negates certain elements of the Zionist project, suggesting that the settlements constitute a contradiction; they are now destroying the very project that initiated and upheld them. They have come back to turn the Zionist dream into a nightmare.
Guys, my next-door neighbor's nephew was badly burned and injured on this bus this morning I just found out. He actually visited here with his family 3 summers ago and I remember seeing him as a little 9-10 yr old boy. Everyone please send your prayers that he recovers well - Thanks.
glynch-- Just when I thought you couldn't sink any lower... While I in NO way condone the message this is referring to...explain to me how this is in any way comparable to the Holocaust. How many Jews were bombing busses full of German children? Oh yeah...NONE!!! That is not the only reference the author of that "piece" made to Nazi Germany. It is not even comparable. For it to be comparable, the Israelis would have to: a) be building ovens to burn Palestinians; b) build gas chambers disguised as a shower in order to kill as many as possible; c) force them into hard labor and then execute them when they could work no longer; and d) force them to dig long trenches and then shoot them all so they'd fall into it and force their neighbors to fill the hole with dirt. The Israeli government has behaved in a way I strongly disagree with...but to liken this to the Holocaust is disgusting. Your excuses and rationalization for the attacks is disgusting. You and I have disagreed on many things, and until now I thought it was just that we viewed the world differently. Now I wonder if you are simply a morally bereft human being.
I find FD Khan's are generally moderate and very thoughtful. FB is more emotional at times, but still makes efforts to assure a good and balanced discussion. Could you be more specific about the issues you take with their posts? I must be missing something.
I wanted to say the same thing ... I'd like to see where it says that. I'm a Muslim and I side with the Palestinians, but damn, they have got to stop ... give it a chance. I will also say that there isn't much the PA can do except condemn the attacks. They have no structure left. There is virtually no lawkeeping forces left intact. I like what the new leader of the Israeli Labor Party had to say ... I hope he wins the election in January. Everyone is saying 'there is no excuse for x' 'there is no excuse for y' ... there isn't any excuse for ANY of it - on both sides. I wish instead of pointing fingers at the other, they both would point to themselves and see what's gotta change, stop blaming the other to justify any crime. This also goes back to the '3 wishes' thread ... I wish all these folks would realize the importance and sacredness of life ... theirs, and everyone elses!
None of them can accept the fact that Israel has a right to defend itself when it takes action against Palestinians (i.e. kicking them out of their homes). Rather, they casually acknowledge that, while, yes, the Palestinians are wrong for suicide bombing, that Israel is just as wrong for retaliating and trying to push the Palestinians out of Israel etc etc etc. Then they make a case for subsequent suicide bombings because now that Israel has retaliated by killing Palestinians, the second round of suicide bombings are somewhat justified. I'm not condoning the violence, I wish it would stop. However, the bottom line is that if it weren't for the Palestinians trying to blow up every Israeli in sight, there wouldn't be all of this violence. I'm not saying that there would be NO violence, but it certainly, IMO, wouldn't be anywhere enar the level that it is today. So retaliation for a suicide bombing plants seeds for more bombing? There are no "buts" about it. Should Israelis just continue to be killed in masses and hope that they are not the next victim? Also...I'd like someone who opposes my view to answer the excellent question that was posed by Mango...I think its a very valid question, one that deserves an answer.
NJRocket, I don't necessarily agree with your views, but Mango's question was very valid, and it got the same reaction out of me, my friends and family. When word first got out that these families were getting paid by the governments, and the fact that the governments would feel obligated to support the families of these nuts is beyond me. Ok, yeah, the breadwinner might have been the crazed freak, so help out the remaining family which hasn't done anything ... why should they suffer. But in doing so, the governments are sending out the wrong vibes to the rest of the world, that maybe they do support this (I can't say if they do or not). Doesn't really answer his question ... but I guess it's like 'why should they suffer?' If they don't have money to support themselves, they suffer, bomb them, they suffer ... maybe thats why?
Its no different than this... The "breadwinner" of a very upper class family in the US is indicted for tax evasion, bank fraud, etc etc etc. The family has a 5 million dollar house, 2 million dollars worth of real estate, and 10 million in the bank in liquid funds. The breadwinner is found guilty on all counts and is ordered to pay fines of 20 million and back taxes of 10 million. Now all of a sudden, the "breadwinner's" family has to leave their affluent neighborhood, affluent friends that they have had for years, the kids are throw for a loop in the process because now instead of having their own bathroom and bedrooms along with a plasma tv and an xbox in every room in the house, they are all sharing a one bedroom hotel room that rents by the week. The family didn't know anything about what the "breadwinner" was doing. They knew he worked on wall street and his face graced the cover of Fortune magazine a few times so thigns must be good. Should that family suffer? I don't think so, but those are the breaks.
But they aren't convicted along with the corrupt breadwinner either. (I don't know if you're condoning this, or just asking for a reason for the handing out of the money) And again, I don't agree with it ... just trying to see if I can think of any reason. Sooo ... new theory ... maybe they don't have the resources to make it through without that one person? Think of it as welfare, and since the PA can't hand out the money, other countries do?!?
It is. In your example, the transgression dealth with money, so returning the money (now converted to assets) is the remedy. A closer 'criminal' analogy is if the home of a murderer's family was torn down. But the 'criminal' analogy may fail before its starts. The 'laws' regarding war is very different. Are these criminal acts, or acts of war? (Sounds familiar, no?) If any enemy were to target their adversaries' civilians and civilian installations, is it 'right' to then respond by attacking their civilian installations (e.g. homes)? I don't know. If the families did not support the suicide bomber's action, I still find it difficult to support destroying their home. Then again, if they accepted payment for the action, sounds like they are cohorts. Round-and-round.
Mango, As always you present a good point. For a family to accept funds for an attack by their family member is a deplorable action. The tactic of destroying homes of the families of suicide bombers is an old Israeli tactic and has been used for years. The payments from Iraq, Saudi groups etc. were actually in response to the Israeli's destroying houses of family members. So the payments started as a way to help families whose homes were destroyed by Israelis. NJRocket, We both are looking for a solution for peace. I simply feel that the settlements in the occupied territories will never allow the Palestinians to have autonomy or their own state. My point is that if a settlement is created today, then many Palestinians are thrown from their homes, then their homes are demolished to make room for a Jewish family from Russia or America. I'm sure if this happened to our city we would hold resentment and we would fight. Because of their lack of weapons, they kill themselves and try to take as many Israeli's as possible. It is a horrible action, but leveling individual's homes will create a scenario ripe for future violence. This has been happening years and years before any suicide bombings ever occured and has not stopped to this day. I ask you a question, if bulldozers came into your ancestoral home and destroyed it with not even a days notice to make an Israeli settlement and then destroyed your crops and your only means to feed your family would you fight? And these are not terrorists or family members of terrorists, these are farmers whose land happens to be the next placed settlement. I hope the answer is yes. Until Israel completely dismantles the settlements, brings the 400,000 settlers back to Israel and get out of the occupied territories then there will not be peace.
Again with the justification and reasoning. The payments were advertised as REWARDS to the family of anyone who would execute a suicide bombing. Don't be ridiculous.
