29 May 10
Originally posted by kmax87I'd like to hedge my bet by softly supporting kmax87's point.
that age old conundrum...which came first, the rockets or the violations.......
.it has an interesting parallel.........the right to exist vs the legitimacy of claiming someone else's land to enjoy that right.
Apparently Israel's biggest sin was that they took their land only 52 years ago. They need to wait at least another (2010-1620) yrs before they can gain the moral high-ground and pontificate to others about the way things should be....
😏
29 May 10
Originally posted by sh76You don't object to a "double standard", you object to ANY STANDARD being applied to judge Israeli conduct toward the Palestinians. Because by long standing principles of IL, Israel's conduct is illegal, immoral and unconscionable. Right wing Israeli apologists like yourself find "hateful" the attempt to apply such standards to Israeli behavior and thus have no choice but to claim even organizations like Amnesty International are unfairly picking on poor ole Israel. Such claims are laughable.
You're missing the point.
I AM in favor of a Palestinian state and I am (in general) against the settlements, here and elsewhere.
What I am NOT for is denying Israel the right to defend itself and the "international community" holding Israel to the ridiculous double standard that it does.
There is no inconsistency between arguing in favor of a peaceful ...[text shortened]... y "pathetic" arguments are more than capable of making mincemeat of your hateful diatribes.
30 May 10
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't object to judging Israel's actions or even condemning them when they deserve it. I do object to double standards and to objections to Israel's conduct that are based on arguments that Israel is wrong by virtue of their existence.
You don't object to a "double standard", you object to ANY STANDARD being applied to judge Israeli conduct toward the Palestinians. Because by long standing principles of IL, Israel's conduct is illegal, immoral and unconscionable. Right wing Israeli apologists like yourself find "hateful" the attempt to apply such standards to Israeli behavior and thus ...[text shortened]... Amnesty International are unfairly picking on poor ole Israel. Such claims are laughable.
The hateful part is your consistent subtle comparisons of Israel to the Nazis. You don't come out and say it outright, but you do it slightly veiled manners all the time. A few days ago you compared Israel trying Adolf Eichmann with the UK asserting jurisdiction over Tzipi Livni and on this thread you threw in a completely gratuitous "So Israel is guilty of Crimes against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity" for the sole purpose of tracking the language of the Nuremberg charges.
That's what hateful; not any attempt to objectively judge or criticize Israeli actions.
30 May 10
Originally posted by sh76I do object to double standards and to objections to Israel's conduct that are based on arguments that Israel is wrong by virtue of their existence.
I don't object to judging Israel's actions or even condemning them when they deserve it. I do object to double standards and to objections to Israel's conduct that are based on arguments that Israel is wrong by virtue of their existence.
The hateful part is your consistent subtle comparisons of Israel to the Nazis. You don't come out and say it outright, but ...[text shortened]...
That's what hateful; not any attempt to objectively judge or criticize Israeli actions.
well, to be fair the way israel came to exist was simply shameful, and this shouldn't be forgotten simply because it happened a long time ago.
30 May 10
Originally posted by sh76That's BS.
I don't object to judging Israel's actions or even condemning them when they deserve it. I do object to double standards and to objections to Israel's conduct that are based on arguments that Israel is wrong by virtue of their existence.
The hateful part is your consistent subtle comparisons of Israel to the Nazis. You don't come out and say it outright, but ...[text shortened]...
That's what hateful; not any attempt to objectively judge or criticize Israeli actions.
In the other thread, you had objected to the UK asserting jurisdiction over crimes that had occurred outside their own territory. I asked whether you objected to Israel exercising jurisdiction over Nazi war criminals even though their crimes occurred outside Israel's territory. Of course you didn't so your original point was merely posturing which was inconsistent with your actual beliefs. What you really objected to is an official of the Israeli government being subjected to the same international law as everyone else is. As far as Israel is concerned, IL doesn't apply according to you. Thus, the comparison was spot on and very relevant to showing your blatant hypocrisy.
And the fact that Nazi Germany committed immense levels of atrocious crimes, does not excuse all countries afterward from their commission of War Crimes, Crimes against Peace and Crimes against Humanity. You consider it "hateful" that Israel is judged by the same IL standards as every other nation is but that's TFB IMO.
30 May 10
Originally posted by generalissimoTake the case of Menachem Begin (6th Prime Minister of Israel).
well, to be fair the way israel came to exist was simply shameful, and this shouldn't be forgotten simply because it happened a long time ago.
He was born in Brest-Litovsk on the Russian-Polish border, studied in Poland and became involved in Zionism in the 1930's. He was imprisoned in Russia, but released after the Nazi invasion was and joined 'Anders Army' of Poles who were used by the Allies to occupy Iran, Iraq, and finally Palestine.
In Palestine, Begin and other Jewish soldiers deserted/were discharged and joined the Zionist settler movement.
Wiki: "The soldiers who deserted the Anders Army, thanks to their army expertise, contributed to the defense of the Jewish settlement in Palestine, and later on also fulfilled the important role of laying down the foundations of the Israel Defense Forces."
We've all heard the allegation that Begin was himself a terrorist. Here is Wiki again:
"Begin quickly made a name for himself, both as a fierce critic of dominant Zionist leadership for being too cooperative with British ‘colonialism’, and as a proponent of guerrilla tactics against the British, which he saw as a necessary means to achieve independence. In 1942 he joined the Irgun (Etzel), an underground Zionist group which had split from the main Jewish military organization, the Haganah, in 1931.[8] In 1944 Begin assumed the organization's leadership, determined to force the British government to remove its troops entirely from Palestine. Giving as reasons that the British had reneged on the promises given in the Balfour Declaration and that the White Paper of 1939 restricting Jewish immigration was an escalation of their pro-Arab policy, he decided to break with the Haganah. Soon after he assumed command, a formal 'Declaration of Revolt' was publicized, and armed attacks against British forces were initiated.
...
For several months in 1945–46, the Irgun’s activities were coordinated within the framework of the Hebrew Resistance Movement, but this fragile partnership collapsed following the Irgun’s bombing of the British administrative and military headquarters at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which was conducted as part of a joint response to the British Operation Agatha, during which many Jews were arrested, weapons were seized and the Jewish Agency, from which many documents were removed, was raided. 91 people, British, Arab and Jewish, were killed. Contrary to instructions, the bombing was carried out during the busiest part of the day at the hotel. Warnings to evacuate had been sent, but were ineffective.
Under Begin’s leadership, the Irgun continued to carry out operations such as breaking into Acre Prison, and the kidnapping and hanging of two British sergeants in order to prevent and then in retaliation to the execution of several Irgun members by the British. Growing numbers of British soldiers and policemen were deployed to quell the Jewish uprising, yet Begin managed to elude captivity, at times disguised as a rabbi. MI5 placed a 'dead-or-alive' bounty of £10,000 on his head after Irgun threatened 'a campaign of terror against British officials', saying they would kill Sir John Shaw, Britain's Chief Secretary in Palestine."
So Menachem Begin and many other Jewish Settlers in Palestine came from Eastern Europe as soldiers and fought to establish a new state. They used violence -- and terror as needed -- to win control of the territory.
The problem is that by 1948, the world no longer viewed taking territory by force as acceptable. If the outcome of WWII established anything, it was that.
The other world-wide movement gathering steam was that of colonies declaring independence from their masters -- from Indonesia to Kenya. So whether Palestine was a province of the decrepit Ottoman Empire or under British Mandate -- the people of Palestine should have been allowed to determine their own destiny. They definitely did NOT want all these Jews from Eastern Europe to come barging into their lands! However, the Arabs were unable to prevent it at the time.
So, sh76, the notion that anyone has anything against Jews in these forums is completely wrong. There is no double standard for Israel. It is simply NEVER legitimate to create a state by conquest and displacement of the native people. Israel has done that. There is no debate about it.
If Israel manages to make peace with her neighbors -- gets them to accept her illegitimate birth -- then fine. But until then, rational, moral people can only support the cause of those whom Israel has devastated.
31 May 10
Originally posted by spruce112358The problem is that by 1948, the world no longer viewed taking territory by force as acceptable. If the outcome of WWII established anything, it was that.
Take the case of Menachem Begin (6th Prime Minister of Israel).
He was born in Brest-Litovsk on the Russian-Polish border, studied in Poland and became involved in Zionism in the 1930's. He was imprisoned in Russia, but released after the Nazi invasion was and joined 'Anders Army' of Poles who were used by the Allies to occupy Iran, Iraq, and finall ...[text shortened]... al, moral people can only support the cause of those whom Israel has devastated.
That's an arbitrary line in the sand. The Jews have been driven from almost every land they've lived in. To differentiate between what was done before the late 1940s and what was done during the late 1940s makes no sense. In any case, the UN voted to authorize the creation of the state of Israel. How does that square with Israel being so illegitimate?
The other world-wide movement gathering steam was that of colonies declaring independence from their masters -- from Indonesia to Kenya. So whether Palestine was a province of the decrepit Ottoman Empire or under British Mandate -- the people of Palestine should have been allowed to determine their own destiny. They definitely did NOT want all these Jews from Eastern Europe to come barging into their lands! However, the Arabs were unable to prevent it at the time.
When Jews living in every other country, including the European ones who killed them and the Arab ones to merely expelled them grants Jewish communities self-autonomy, then we'll talk. Until then, I'm not overly impressed by the poor plight of a couple of million Palestinians who were forced to accept Israeli sovereignty.
In any case, at the time of its creation, Jews accounted for more than 50% of what is currently Israel). Who cares where they came from or where they were driven out of at gunpoint previously? Are you against freedom of movement for other peoples of the World?
So, sh76, the notion that anyone has anything against Jews in these forums is completely wrong.
With one exception, I never accused anyone here of being against Jews. Holding Israel to an irrational double standard does not mean one is against Jews. They could be simply ignorant of the situation or obsessed with supporting the underdog or figure it more convenient to sacrifice a few million Israelis at the alter of a billion Arabs/Muslims.
There is no double standard for Israel. It is simply NEVER legitimate to create a state by conquest and displacement of the native people. Israel has done that. There is no debate about it.
Oh, please. No one else is trying to undo any other state in the World. Israel exists. It's existed for 60 years. It's built the most successful economy or any post WWII country on Earth with no natural resources and an immense defense burden. This whole idea that the only way to deal with Israel is to deny the legitimacy of its existence is completely ridiculous. Even assuming, arguendo, that Israel was formed illegitimately in the 1940s, none of its current people were involved in the formation of the state, save for the very old. Israel needs to be treated as it is, just as the Arab countries who expelled their Jews and the European countries who killed theirs need to be treated as they are.
If Israel manages to make peace with her neighbors -- gets them to accept her illegitimate birth -- then fine. But until then, rational, moral people can only support the cause of those whom Israel has devastated.
So, if they won't accept Israel, what will you advocate? The defeat of Israel? Expulsion of its people? What?
Should Jews get the choice of whether to accept the legitimacy of modern day German, France, Poland, Spain Portugal, Hungary, Austria, Morocco, Iran, Egypt, etc. etc. etc., all of whom brutally oppressed, expelled or murdered its Jewish population at one point in the past?
31 May 10
Originally posted by sh76That's an arbitrary line in the sand. The Jews have been driven from almost every land they've lived in. To differentiate between what was done before the late 1940s and what was done during the late 1940s makes no sense. In any case, the UN voted to authorize the creation of the state of Israel. How does that square with Israel being so illegitimate?
[b]The problem is that by 1948, the world no longer viewed taking territory by force as acceptable. If the outcome of WWII established anything, it was that.
That's an arbitrary line in the sand. The Jews have been driven from almost every land they've lived in. To differentiate between what was done before the late 1940s and what was done during the lat ...[text shortened]... brutally oppressed, expelled or murdered its Jewish population at one point in the past?[/b]
As we become more civilized, the "good old days" come to an end. Good riddance. All sorts of time-honored traditions are ending: slavery, rape, pillage -- and now conquest. I'm sorry that it happened before Israel was ready, but it did.
The UN took a stab at making peace which didn't work. Is Israel in compliance with UN resolutions? You and I both know the answer to that.
When Jews living in every other country, including the European ones who killed them and the Arab ones to merely expelled them grants Jewish communities self-autonomy, then we'll talk. Until then, I'm not overly impressed by the poor plight of a couple of million Palestinians who were forced to accept Israeli sovereignty.
Autonomy for Jews in nations where they live? What's this all about? Does the US offer autonomy to enclaves of blacks or hispanics or those of the Greek Orthodox faith?
You say "too bad" that Palestinians are forced to accept Israeli sovereignty -- is it also "too bad" that the Palestinians can't vote? What national election can they vote in? They can't vote in Israel and there is no Palestinian state -- so where do their voices get heard? You can't seriously believe that denying people the right to vote is OK?
In any case, at the time of its creation, Jews accounted for more than 50% of what is currently Israel). Who cares where they came from or where they were driven out of at gunpoint previously? Are you against freedom of movement for other peoples of the World?
The Jewish invasion was large -- whether they reached 50% is debatable. But it was wrong to wrench Arab lands out of Arab control. If the Jews had invaded Kenya, I would be arguing the same thing.
With one exception, I never accused anyone here of being against Jews. Holding Israel to an irrational double standard does not mean one is against Jews. They could be simply ignorant of the situation or obsessed with supporting the underdog or figure it more convenient to sacrifice a few million Israelis at the alter of a billion Arabs/Muslims.
No one is holding Israel to any sort of a double standard. There is just one standard -- don't conquer territory by displacing the current inhabitants.
Oh, please. No one else is trying to undo any other state in the World. Israel exists. It's existed for 60 years. It's built the most successful economy or any post WWII country on Earth with no natural resources and an immense defense burden. This whole idea that the only way to deal with Israel is to deny the legitimacy of its existence is completely ridiculous. Even assuming, arguendo, that Israel was formed illegitimately in the 1940s, none of its current people were involved in the formation of the state, save for the very old. Israel needs to be treated as it is, just as the Arab countries who expelled their Jews and the European countries who killed theirs need to be treated as they are.
States which have been undone since the formation of Israel: East Germany. South Vietnam. Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia.
"States" waiting to be undone/created/merged: Sudan (southern part), North Korea, Puerto Rico.
It is not a question of legitimacy, it is a question of what is right. Israel currently denies the right to vote to all those in the occupied territories. That can be solved with a one-state or two-state solution -- but it MUST be solved and NOW. Even if that did risk the destruction of Israel at the hands of howling bands of crazed Arab fiends -- those fiends MUST be allowed the chance to prove that they are NOT going to attack. You can't assume they would attack and then punish them for your assumption!!!
So, if they won't accept Israel, what will you advocate? The defeat of Israel? Expulsion of its people? What?
I think if Israel had been concilliatory, the Arabs would already be learning to live with the Israeli presence in their midst. Peace, reconcilliation, and pay-offs was the way. Establishing a neighboring state and funneling US money into it was the way. Once the Arabs were used to sipping cafe lattes and eating Ben and Jerry's ice cream, it would be very hard to get them to volunteer for suicide bombing missions. But Arabs living in bombed-out squalor? Oh yeah, that produces thousands ready to die for the cause.
Should Jews get the choice of whether to accept the legitimacy of modern day German, France, Poland, Spain Portugal, Hungary, Austria, Morocco, Iran, Egypt, etc. etc. etc., all of whom brutally oppressed, expelled or murdered its Jewish population at one point in the past?
No. As I said at the beginning, the "good old days" of expelling the Jewish population are over. No more genocides. No more religious persecution leading to wars. To quote from Unforgiven: We "...ain't like that no more."