|
|
Post by franko on Jan 25, 2009 15:38:07 GMT -5
Lots of rhetoric coming from both sides of the dividing line between Israel and Palestine.
"You shot our people -- we're justified in shooting back" coming from both sides.
Threats of genocide coming from both sides.
So here is my question for Hamas/Hezbollah/other Arab nations: "yes or no, does Israel have a right to exist -- and to exist in peace, without threat of attack?" If the answer is no, then Israel will not withdraw from Gaza or the Golan Heights, for fear of constant attack. And the war will go on and on and on . . . much loss of life on both sides, and the people on both sides will become even more embittered.
And my question for the Israelis : "yes or no, do the people of Palestine have a right to a homeland/a right to exist -- and to exist in peace, without threat of attack?" If the answer is no, then Hamas/Hezbollah will not withdraw from Gaza or from Lebanon, for fear of constant attack. And the war will go on and on and on . . . much loss of life on both sides etc etc etc.
Get beyond who is at fault *cough*neither side is innocent*cough* -- until the answer to both questions about is "yes", there will be no solution other than the annihilation of both sides. Which [it seems] would suit Hamas/Hezbollah fine, for their intent will have been accomplished, and who cares what it costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jan 25, 2009 15:59:53 GMT -5
And my question for the Israelis : "yes or no, do the people of Palestine have a right to a homeland/a right to exist -- and to exist in peace, without threat of attack?" Quoting Chomsky quoting a Netanyahu spokesman in the 90s: the fragments of territory that we leave to them - they can call it a state if they want, or they can call it fried chicken. Chomsky argues that is still the attitude of the Israeli government. It's not just about living without the threat of attack, it's also about not living in a ghetto. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 25, 2009 16:50:43 GMT -5
It's not just about living without the threat of attack, it's also about not living in a ghetto. I guess I need you to define ghetto. Do you mean the traditional a section of a city, esp. a thickly populated slum area, inhabited predominantly by members of an ethnic or other minority group, often as a result of social or economic restrictions, pressures, or hardships? And do you imply that the land that the Palestinians live on is slum? I guess after the bombardment there isn't much left, but before all this started up again -- when Israelis were participating in the Palestinian economy -- there was economic activity, but when the Israelis withdrew, the farm economy was ignored and land went to wasteland. Is this the fault of the Israelis? The restrictions on Palestinians crossing into Israel and back -- has this not been caused by some using the freedom to smuggle arms back into Palestine to be used against Israel? Some of it appears to be self-inflicted. I note that when there is talk of barriers it is always Israel that is mentioned . . . nothing of Egypt, a country that has also closed themselves off to the Palestinians -- Arabs not helping Arabs. And I also note that there are Arabs -- even Palestinians -- living in Israel, freely "working with the enemy" . . . and some doing very well, too. Chomsky argues from his side: that the Israelis are wrong no matter what. "Israel must cease the hostilities", "Israel must stop targeting civilians" . . . where, might I ask, is any censure of Hamas? And the whole "Israel has a right to defend itself but not by force" is ludicrous. They are [and we'll be honest here] at war with a group [Hamas] whose agenda is the annihilation of the State of Israel. Their means to self-preservation go too far . . . but Chomsky saying that to defend themselves all they need do is leave [leave where -- Israel?] is ridiculous. And for him to say that Israel should have suggested Hamas' ceasefire is equally ridiculous -- how many ceasefires that are merely used to restock munitions should the Israelis accede to? Hamas cares little for the Palestinian population, and in fact executes those who are thought of a "collaborators with the enemy" as it tries to establish an Islamic state in Palestine -- an Islamic state that covers what was known as Palestine before the British got into the act and [re]created Israel [and let's remember that the reason they created the state was that no one wanted the Jews on their shore!]. OK -- that's probably enough of a rant for now. btw, you didn't answer the original question: yes or no, does Israel have a right to exist -- and to exist in peace, without threat of attack? |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 25, 2009 17:13:00 GMT -5
So here is my question for Hamas/Hezbollah/other Arab nations: "yes or no, does Israel have a right to exist... And my question for the Israelis : "yes or no, do the people of Palestine have a right to a homeland/a right to exist ...until the answer to both questions about is "yes" Unfortunately you can't really have a "yes" to both questions, as they both want the same place. Its like saying both Canada and the US have the right to Montreal. There can be, as the Highlander said, only one. Unless the Palestinians and/or Israelis suddenly give up and decide it would be much easier to set up a nation in the Peruvian jungle (assuming the Peruvians themselves give it up) they're both going to be fighting over the same land... |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jan 25, 2009 19:20:22 GMT -5
It's not just about living without the threat of attack, it's also about not living in a ghetto. I guess I need you to define ghetto. Do you mean the traditional a section of a city, esp. a thickly populated slum area, inhabited predominantly by members of an ethnic or other minority group, often as a result of social or economic restrictions, pressures, or hardships? And do you imply that the land that the Palestinians live on is slum? I guess after the bombardment there isn't much left, but before all this started up again -- when Israelis were participating in the Palestinian economy -- there was economic activity, but when the Israelis withdrew, the farm economy was ignored and land went to wasteland. Is this the fault of the Israelis? The restrictions on Palestinians crossing into Israel and back -- has this not been caused by some using the freedom to smuggle arms back into Palestine to be used against Israel? Some of it appears to be self-inflicted. Does it matter whose fault it is? As long as they are living under the conditions they live under, which are to a large degree imposed by Israel and the rest of the international community, there's going to be violence. This isn't to imply that economic disparity is the only issue, but it is an issue. Yes, of course, but you said that was a question "for Hamas/Hezbollah/other Arab nations," not for me. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 25, 2009 20:25:47 GMT -5
So here is my question for Hamas/Hezbollah/other Arab nations: "yes or no, does Israel have a right to exist... And my question for the Israelis : "yes or no, do the people of Palestine have a right to a homeland/a right to exist ...until the answer to both questions about is "yes" Unfortunately you can't really have a "yes" to both questions, as they both want the same place. Its like saying both Canada and the US have the right to Montreal. There can be, as the Highlander said, only one. Unless the Palestinians and/or Israelis suddenly give up and decide it would be much easier to set up a nation in the Peruvian jungle (assuming the Peruvians themselves give it up) they're both going to be fighting over the same land... I thought that Israel was willing to cede some land and recognize a Palestinian nation in return for . . . something . . .just not all they want, and definitely not Jerusalem. And I thought at one time that the PL leadership was willing to acknowledge an Israeli state/nation as well -- it was the Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran that was not. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 25, 2009 20:34:53 GMT -5
Does it matter whose fault it is? As long as they are living under the conditions they live under, which are to a large degree imposed by Israel and the rest of the international community, there's going to be violence. This isn't to imply that economic disparity is the only issue, but it is an issue. Unfortunately, neither side will accept fault or blame for being idiotic. And that fault/blame does extend to the international community -- Western and Arabic. I read somewhere that part of the problem is that the Palestinians are somewhat like the pre-1948 Israelis -- they don't have a homeland or a place to go to. Arabic countries don't want the Palestinians on their soil. Perhaps it is just to keep Israel on the defensive [don't know].
Deep deep issues. Fundamentalist Christians would say this is a harbinger of the end times, and that peace will only come at/after the rapture [in fact Jack van Idiot Impe and others almost say "bring it on".
ah, but when you quote Chomsky to answer/defend one, you must answer the other.
I do think it works both ways, too, but that peace will not come as long as militants [on both sides] hold sway. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jan 25, 2009 21:25:22 GMT -5
How Israel Helped to Spawn HamasSurveying the wreckage of a neighbor's bungalow hit by a Palestinian rocket, retired Israeli official Avner Cohen traces the missile's trajectory back to an "enormous, stupid mistake" made 30 years ago.
"Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation," says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel's destruction.
Instead of trying to curb Gaza's Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat's Fatah. Israel cooperated with a crippled, half-blind cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even as he was laying the foundations for what would become Hamas. Sheikh Yassin continues to inspire militants today; during the recent war in Gaza, Hamas fighters confronted Israeli troops with "Yassins," primitive rocket-propelled grenades named in honor of the cleric.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jan 25, 2009 21:30:38 GMT -5
I read somewhere that part of the problem is that the Palestinians are somewhat like the pre-1948 Israelis -- they don't have a homeland or a place to go to. Arabic countries don't want the Palestinians on their soil. Perhaps it is just to keep Israel on the defensive [don't know]. It always amazes me how much Israeli treatment of Palestinians resembles the treatment of Jews in the lead up to WWII. The human race seems almost incapable of learning from it's own history. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 25, 2009 22:37:54 GMT -5
Unfortunately you can't really have a "yes" to both questions, as they both want the same place. Its like saying both Canada and the US have the right to Montreal. There can be, as the Highlander said, only one. Unless the Palestinians and/or Israelis suddenly give up and decide it would be much easier to set up a nation in the Peruvian jungle (assuming the Peruvians themselves give it up) they're both going to be fighting over the same land... I thought that Israel was willing to cede some land and recognize a Palestinian nation in return for . . . something . . .just not all they want, and definitely not Jerusalem. And I thought at one time that the PL leadership was willing to acknowledge an Israeli state/nation as well -- it was the Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran that was not. The Palestinian are getting exploited once again. Hamas may be "mostly" about the Palestinian people but Iran is about regional hegemony. The Iranian mullahs see Palestinains as nothing more then cannon fodder for displacing Americans from the region. |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Jan 25, 2009 23:37:54 GMT -5
It always amazes me how much Israeli treatment of Palestinians resembles the treatment of Jews in the lead up to WWII. The human race seems almost incapable of learning from it's own history. I presume you mean Europe's pre-war treatment of the Jews trying to escape Nazi Germany. If anyone is behaving that way towards the Palestinians, it's their fellow Arabs. The Arab street may be sympathetic but most Arab governments of late are not. Arab nations who have accepted Palestinian refugees have often done so at their own peril. The PLO did try to murder and, failing that, attempted a coup d'etat against King Hussein of Jordan. After being expelled from Jordan, the Palestinians tried to create a state within a state in South Lebanon - much like Hezbollah is doing right now - and were directly responsible for the devastating Israeli interventions and eventual Syrian occupation during the Lebanese Civil War. It's clear Egypt has no desire to administer Gaza again and is openly against Hamas. To my knowledge, very few if any Arab countries allow Palestinian refugees despite the brotherly rhetoric. Ironically, the EU, as far as I know, still remains the largest official aid donor to Gaza and the West Bank. The Israelis, right or wrong, simply view most Palestinians as enemies who advocate genocide. If anything, the relationship is more akin to a much more sanguine Northern Ireland, imo. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jan 26, 2009 0:17:30 GMT -5
It always amazes me how much Israeli treatment of Palestinians resembles the treatment of Jews in the lead up to WWII. The human race seems almost incapable of learning from it's own history. I presume you mean Europe's pre-war treatment of the Jews trying to escape Nazi Germany. No, actually, although that parallel exists too, as you described. What I find amazing are the occasions in which Israelis demonstrate attitudes that mirror the treatment of Jews within Germany, such as forcibly taking the homes and possessions of Palestinian families who they see as intruders, despite their having lived there for decades. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jan 26, 2009 0:22:11 GMT -5
Chomsky argues from his side: that the Israelis are wrong no matter what. "Israel must cease the hostilities", "Israel must stop targeting civilians" . . . where, might I ask, is any censure of Hamas? If someone in a downtown apartment building fires a gun out their window, killing someone in the building across the street, and in response, the owner of that building bombs the first building, killing all 1000 residents, who would you spend more time criticizing? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 26, 2009 6:55:05 GMT -5
If someone in a downtown apartment building fires a gun out their window 10-20 times a day then moves to another building, and then another, firing indiscriminately, killing people and saying "I want to kill everyone", at what point do you ask the police to come and do something about it? And when the police do not, what do you do? And when you do eventually strike back to try to protect yourself, why are you the one censured? 6000 mortar shells in the past couple of years into Israeli territory from Palestine. More weapons being smuggled in, to keep up the barrage. But resolution after resolution in the UN condemns Israel and says nothing about Hamas, and Israel is told to cease its hostilites while Hamas and Hezbollah continue. Look -- I'm not pro-Israel -- I think they went far to far in "defending their homeland" . . . but protest after protest in Europe and Canada talks about the "poor Palestinians" and "evil Israel". Israel is not trying to exterminate the Arab population -- the goal of Hamas and Hezbollah is to exterminate the Israeli population, using Palestine and Lebanon as their base. The natural result in Israel's attempt at self-preservation is that the land areas used as the base will be attacked in return.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jan 26, 2009 9:38:42 GMT -5
Chomsky argues from his side: that the Israelis are wrong no matter what. "Israel must cease the hostilities", "Israel must stop targeting civilians" . . . where, might I ask, is any censure of Hamas? If someone in a downtown apartment building fires a gun out their window, killing someone in the building across the street, and in response, the owner of that building bombs the first building, killing all 1000 residents, who would you spend more time criticizing? If only it were that simple. You see we're not talking about individuals, we're talking about an organization with much power and influence in the Gaza strip. We're not talking about a building with 1000 residents. We're talking about a building with 500 residents, and the other residential areas used to store weapons. And we're not talking about individual, isolated acts. We're talking about systemic attacks on civilian populations. Yes, Israel does the same thing, but out of necessity - you can hardly fault them for the fact that Hamas and other militant Mid-East groups hide in civilian populations. Yes, the Israeli army returns with a heavy handed response, but in truth what choice do they have? Should they simply stand by while their civilians are attacked? Should they allow shipments of Iran-built (or Iran-purchased) weapons through the border so that Hamas can threaten even more people? Should they simply pick up and leave the Mid-East altogether? It's all about choices, and neither side has a palatable one other than a continuation of the conflict. So it will continue for the rest of my days. And neither side is at fault, and neither side is innocent. And anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 26, 2009 12:21:14 GMT -5
If someone in a downtown apartment building fires a gun out their window 10-20 times a day then moves to another building, and then another, firing indiscriminately, killing people and saying "I want to kill everyone", at what point do you ask the police to come and do something about it? And when the police do not, what do you do? And when you do eventually strike back to try to protect yourself, why are you the one censured? 6000 mortar shells in the past couple of years into Israeli territory from Palestine. More weapons being smuggled in, to keep up the barrage. But resolution after resolution in the UN condemns Israel and says nothing about Hamas, and Israel is told to cease its hostilites while Hamas and Hezbollah continue. Look -- I'm not pro-Israel -- I think they went far to far in "defending their homeland" . . . but protest after protest in Europe and Canada talks about the "poor Palestinians" and "evil Israel". Israel is not trying to exterminate the Arab population -- the goal of Hamas and Hezbollah is to exterminate the Israeli population, using Palestine and Lebanon as their base. The natural result in Israel's attempt at self-preservation is that the land areas used as the base will be attacked in return.
If you are elected by the people of your apartment building to protect them, that is your first priority. You were not elected to protect the other apartment building. If you tried for years to get the owner of the other building to stop the shooting and he has not shown any effort or inclination to stop, you must protect yourself and your electorate. If someone is shooting at my family, and I have concluded that I can neither get him to stop of rehabilitate him, I must eliminate him and all those who surround him and protect him. Although I am not a big supporter of Israel, if I lived there, my patience would be exhausted and I would favor leveling the Gaza strip and eliminating that safe haven for terrorists. I am very concerned that Islam is a cespool that will continue to fester and breed radical terrorists who are more interested in spending to bomb the west than to feed and improve themselves. We will be forced to conclude, as they already have, that we cannot coexist. Send them to their virgins and martyrdom, god willing. Peace for the rest of us. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 26, 2009 12:42:45 GMT -5
If someone in a downtown apartment building fires a gun out their window 10-20 times a day then moves to another building, and then another, firing indiscriminately, killing people and saying "I want to kill everyone", at what point do you ask the police to come and do something about it? And when the police do not, what do you do? And when you do eventually strike back to try to protect yourself, why are you the one censured? 6000 mortar shells in the past couple of years into Israeli territory from Palestine. More weapons being smuggled in, to keep up the barrage. But resolution after resolution in the UN condemns Israel and says nothing about Hamas, and Israel is told to cease its hostilites while Hamas and Hezbollah continue. Look -- I'm not pro-Israel -- I think they went far to far in "defending their homeland" . . . but protest after protest in Europe and Canada talks about the "poor Palestinians" and "evil Israel". Israel is not trying to exterminate the Arab population -- the goal of Hamas and Hezbollah is to exterminate the Israeli population, using Palestine and Lebanon as their base. The natural result in Israel's attempt at self-preservation is that the land areas used as the base will be attacked in return.
Some in our society seem to think that there has to be some form of "fairness" and "proportinality" in war. I'm sure we would have an oh so slightly different opinion if we were all typing our dribble from the comfort of our bomb shelters.  Oh wait, who is in favor of supplying the Taliban with advance weapons? It's simple NOT fair or proportional. Nope..... |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jan 26, 2009 15:32:45 GMT -5
6000 mortar shells in the past couple of years into Israeli territory from Palestine. More weapons being smuggled in, to keep up the barrage. If 13 dead Israelis is a barrage, what's 1300 dead and many thousands more homeless Palestinians? And we all know how effective UN resolutions are. I'd much rather have Israel's nearly unconditional US military, financial, and rhetorical support. There are protests by both sides. The difference is that one side has a significant influence on the US government. How nice of them. Still, it seems that they embrace the same failed strategy that the US used in Iraq under Clinton - make the people suffer enough and they'll turn on their leaders. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jan 26, 2009 15:39:20 GMT -5
If someone in a downtown apartment building fires a gun out their window, killing someone in the building across the street, and in response, the owner of that building bombs the first building, killing all 1000 residents, who would you spend more time criticizing? If only it were that simple. You see we're not talking about individuals, we're talking about an organization with much power and influence in the Gaza strip. We're not talking about a building with 1000 residents. We're talking about a building with 500 residents, and the other residential areas used to store weapons. And we're not talking about individual, isolated acts. We're talking about systemic attacks on civilian populations. Yes, Israel does the same thing, but out of necessity - you can hardly fault them for the fact that Hamas and other militant Mid-East groups hide in civilian populations. Yes, the Israeli army returns with a heavy handed response, but in truth what choice do they have? Should they simply stand by while their civilians are attacked? Should they allow shipments of Iran-built (or Iran-purchased) weapons through the border so that Hamas can threaten even more people? Should they simply pick up and leave the Mid-East altogether? It's all about choices, and neither side has a palatable one other than a continuation of the conflict. So it will continue for the rest of my days. And neither side is at fault, and neither side is innocent. And anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. I think both sides are at fault. Both sides do have choices and they both choose more conflict over peace. While I'm not optimistic, other entrenched conflicts have ended, so I don't think it's impossible in the Middle East. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 26, 2009 16:08:42 GMT -5
6000 mortar shells in the past couple of years into Israeli territory from Palestine. More weapons being smuggled in, to keep up the barrage. If 13 dead Israelis is a barrage, what's 1300 dead and many thousands more homeless Palestinians? Overkill, for lack of a better term. Retribution, for sure. An attempt to end the attacks. Didn't work, won't work. Israel wants to put an end to Hamas. Hamas wants to put an end to Israel. Negotiations mean acceptance of the other side. I don't see it happening. Unfortunately. Hamas/Hezbollah have Iran's unconditional support. Detente. [?] And the other has the significant influence of all things non-US. Europe support is pro-Palestinian. The protests in Canada that are covered positively, even, are pro-Palestinian -- even to the pictures in the papers of banners that say "death to the Israelis" -- and MPs walking with and supporting a group the Canadian government has labeled terrorists. Unfortunately, we never learn, do we?  |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Jan 27, 2009 16:48:41 GMT -5
I think both sides are at fault. Both sides do have choices and they both choose more conflict over peace. While I'm not optimistic, other entrenched conflicts have ended, so I don't think it's impossible in the Middle East. Agreed. I lived in Britain during the worse of the IRA bombing campaign and it was the consensus at the time that there was no solution beyond keeping both sides apart as much as possible. Things have changed since then. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Feb 2, 2009 20:33:37 GMT -5
If someone in a downtown apartment building fires a gun out their window 10-20 times a day then moves to another building, and then another, firing indiscriminately, killing people and saying "I want to kill everyone", at what point do you ask the police to come and do something about it? And when the police do not, what do you do? And when you do eventually strike back to try to protect yourself, why are you the one censured? 6000 mortar shells in the past couple of years into Israeli territory from Palestine. More weapons being smuggled in, to keep up the barrage. But resolution after resolution in the UN condemns Israel and says nothing about Hamas, and Israel is told to cease its hostilites while Hamas and Hezbollah continue. Look -- I'm not pro-Israel -- I think they went far to far in "defending their homeland" . . . but protest after protest in Europe and Canada talks about the "poor Palestinians" and "evil Israel". Israel is not trying to exterminate the Arab population -- the goal of Hamas and Hezbollah is to exterminate the Israeli population, using Palestine and Lebanon as their base. The natural result in Israel's attempt at self-preservation is that the land areas used as the base will be attacked in return.
Some in our society seem to think that there has to be some form of "fairness" and "proportinality" in war. I'm sure we would have an oh so slightly different opinion if we were all typing our dribble from the comfort of our bomb shelters. Oh wait, who is in favor of supplying the Taliban with advance weapons? It's simple NOT fair or proportional. Nope..... THERE IS PROPORTIONALITY! Dateline Gaza: 5:25pm. Isreali warplanes bomb and flatten twenty five city blocks of Gaza City. Over $25 in total damage. ($20cdn.) (5:55pm Nfld.) Not one lawn was damaged. Not one XXX theatre/bookstore was damaged. (Destruction of corrupt UN offices is a bonus) Not much sympathy here. |
|
