Ship of Fools: Hell: Saddam and Sharon

Thread: Hell: Saddam and Sharon Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001069

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :

I'm starting this thread at the invitation of Pyx E to provide a forum for discussion on the above two gentlemen. My point is that by and large, the whole Saddam/Iraq issue is viewed by the media and polititions as an isolated issue.

I know that only yesterday, George Bush stated that the removal of Saddam will help create a better climate for the formation of a Palestinian state but this is NOT a committment to forcing Israel out of Palestine and it will be all too easy not to follow up on this after Saddam has been removed.

The fact is that a great many Arabs see Saddam as a hero across the arab world, not because they necessarilly see America as a 'Great Satan' but because they see America as largely responsible for upholding the continued Israeli occupation - it must be remebered that in Islamic theology (for all the Arabs' own in-fighting) all Muslims are seen as brother and sisters.

I oppose any war with Iraq (unless a genuine threat to the west is proven) that does not include the Israel/Palestine issue as part of the same agenda. Also, I cannot think of a better way of attacking Al'Qaida than by forcing Israel out of the occupied territories because this is one of the main causes that OBL draws on for support.

Ariel Sharon is in my opinion just as big a threat to the stability of the region as Saddam Hussein and he HAS weapons of mass destruction.

[ 12. June 2003, 22:37: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :

Ah "The Jewish Question".
What was the European answer?

Posted by coffee jim (# 3510) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Ah "The Jewish Question".
What was the European answer?

This is a prime example of why I hate flip accusations of antisemitism so much. It's worse than 'racist', 'sexist' or 'homophobe'. You're accusing someone of sharing an unfortunate modern (well, C19-20) European tendency to see 'the Jews' as 'a problem', the culmination of which is seen as the 1941-5 genocide. So 'antisemite!' doesn't mean 'hung-up, prejudiced twat' (like, say, 'homophobe!'), it means 'MURDERER!'
(well, okay, LD, you didn't say 'antisemite', but cut to its essence)

But Lifeman is an annoying fool to start this thread in the lower regions to begin with.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Ah "The Jewish Question".
What was the European answer?

It was "when you celebrate the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in you country, or even the 100the of equal rights to all citizens regardless of race, religion or colour, then start lecturing us about freedom, you pompous arsehole"

There probably aren't 3 states in the USA that could elect a Jewish governor even today. And Presdient would be totally off the cards. Over here we had a Prime Minister called Benjamin Disraeli back in Victorian times.

If you want to talk about Nazis, talk about Nazis. Not Europeans in general. Americans have got no right to be lecturing us on anti-semitism and racism. There's a damn sight less of it here than there.

Posted by coffee jim (# 3510) on :

Ken, [Not worthy!]

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :

If you like, I will admit to Europeans being the experts in all matters Jewish.
Please enlighten everyone else as to why Jews are in Israel and what they should be doing there.

Posted by Archimandrite (# 3997) on :

is the correct answer something to do with Revival, Rapture and the Second Coming? 'Cos that's what I heard one of those loud, bouffant preacher types say, so it must be true.

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :

vielleicht

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :

Yeah...all Europeans are closet Hitlers and everybody in the U.S. is a segragationist.

And I'm a lumberjack who eats pemican and sings cour de bois songs.

Nice arguement Ley Druid. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :

Many Europeans have been recognized as "Righteous Gentiles".
Is there something wrong with asking them why there are Jews in Israel and what they think the Jews should be doing there?

Posted by JPF SC (# 4183) on :

I thought this was a thread about Saddam Husein.-

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :

quote:
Orignially posted by Lifeman, a European, in the OP:
I cannot think of a better way of attacking Al'Qaida than by forcing Israel out of the occupied territories because this is one of the main causes that OBL draws on for support.

Ariel Sharon is in my opinion just as big a threat to the stability of the region as Saddam Hussein and he HAS weapons of mass destruction.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

[HORRIBLE HOSTLY SHADOWS CAST OVER THE CROWD]

I see no reason to turn this already-putrid thread idea into another lame pond war. Stop inserting generalizations about what whole countries "know" or "are". Failure to comply will result in thread closure, and probably liberal personal insults being distributed.

This is your only warning.

[HOSTLY SHADOW RECEDES... BUT WATCHES]

[What what?]

[ 28. February 2003, 01:41: Message edited by: RooK ]

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :

Rook,

I'm sorry that you find the nature of this thread putrid but it certainly wasn't my intention to cause a pond war - there have been huge demonstrations against war with Iraq on both sides of the Atlantic and both Europe and America have been have varied middle east interests.

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :

Speaking on behalf of Americans everywhere, I hereby repent of Ley Druid. Therefore, I respectfully request ken to redirect his obnoxious (but provoked) post to Mr. Druid personally, and to leave the rest of us out of it.

Thanks so much.

Americans Everywhere

Posted by BuzzyBee (# 3283) on :

Going back to the OP, my grandmother (who is Jewish) claims that Ariel Sharon makes her want to be anti-semitic.

I agree that he's a seriously nasty piece of work and President Bush going all weepy eyed describing Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses whilst simultaneously funding the human rights abuses in Israel/Palestine makes me sick.

I wish people didn't equate critisism of Israel/Sharon with antisemitism though. If you think I'm wrong and that it is antisemitism, could you tell me this: Is critisism of Robert Mugabe's policies in Zimbabwe tantamount to racism? I think we'd be just as critical whatever the skin colour of the inhabitants of a country where the situation was like that in Zimbabwe. I think we'd be just as critical of a situation like the Israel/Palestine one whatever the creed or colour.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BuzzyBee:
Going back to the OP, my grandmother (who is Jewish) claims that Ariel Sharon makes her want to be anti-semitic. ... I wish people didn't equate critisism of Israel/Sharon with antisemitism though.

Thousands of Israeli workers and youth demonstrate against Sharon’s war

Another article

"There have also been protests in Israel itself. On April 5, over 3,000 Israelis and others, including international activists, staged a march to the Kalandia checkpoint. They were attacked with tear gas and clubs by Israeli cops, but two trucks they had filled with supplies for besieged Palestinians managed to get through."

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :

All of which goes to disprove the "Sharon is the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein" claptrap. Israelis are free to dissent, free to oppose the regime, free to assemble peaceably, free to editorialize against Sharon, free to protest. And guess what? Nobody gets gassed.

Try that in Beautiful Downtown Baghdad, BuzzyBee.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Well, yes, Pres.

Although the same could (just about) be claimed for Iran and Turkey.

I don't think anyone is seriously pretending that Israel is as bad as Iraq in this (& if they are they can stuff themselves) but there are thousands of people in territory controlled by Israel who can't protest, who are in fear of being shot.

Not being as bad as Iraq isn't a very strong recomendation.

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :

As I've said before, Ken, I disagree with how the Israeli government is handling the situation and believe the Bush administration should do more to encourage Sharon to rethink things. But statements such as BuzzyBee's come very close to suggesting that that the policies of Israel are the moral equivalents of the policies of Sadaam Hussein. And to that I object strongly.

And David, Ace Hyperlinker that you are, I note that the sources of the two articles you cited were the World Socialist Web Site of the International Committee of the Fourth International and Revolutionary Worker Online. Not that they'd have an ax to grind 'er anything. [Big Grin]

Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on :

There are a lot of Israelis who don't agree with the occupation. Some of them are even willing to put their lives on the line for this, as in this case where Israelis acted as a human shield to stop settlers murdering their neighbours

Guns among the olives

[Remember to slash.]

[ 28. February 2003, 22:39: Message edited by: sarkycow ]

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :

Presleyterian,

I've got to concede that Sharon is not the moral equivalent to Saddam but considering what he has been responsible for, a man like that should no be a guest at the Whitehouse than Robet Mugabe or Erin (don't forget that he deliberately provoked the current Intafada by walking through a tunnel that goes under Arab Jerusalem, knowing that itm would cause an outrage).

Also, yes I agree that Israel is a democrocy but do you think the large arab minorities in places like Haifa, Nazareth and East Jerusalem feel represented in the Kanesset?

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lifeman:
Presleyterian,

I've got to concede that Sharon is not the moral equivalent to Saddam but considering what he has been responsible for, a man like that should no be a guest at the Whitehouse than Robet Mugabe or Erin (don't forget that he deliberately provoked the current Intafada by walking through a tunnel that goes under Arab Jerusalem, knowing that itm would cause an outrage).

What the fuck do you mean by this?

Posted by perfecta (# 4085) on :

Oh dear - I can see this going very pear shaped...

Can't we just have a lively discussion without ever referring to the Holocaust or personal insults when it gets to discussing Israel?

Ok - back to the topic - (as Pyx_e asked me to either piss in or piss out of the tent, I'll be pissing in this time)... Is there really a grading system of nasty despotic leaders (I use that word very loosely)? Yeah Saddam definately has the edge when it comes to perverting democracy and murders but Sharon was after all found to be "personally responsible" for what happened in Shatila.

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :

Perfecta,

Your're right to point out the difficulty in grading bad and/or despotic leaders but there must be some point at which leaders are graded otherwise Saddam would still be on the international invite list - Fidel Castro gets invited to all sorts of world summit events in spite of American opposition to him.

You mention the holocaust but that is not a current issue - China had vast amounts of her people killed by the Japanese in the 1930's but you never hear this used as an argument to counter any critism of China. Sharon certainly cannot claim fear of anti-semitism to justify any of his actions.

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

LIFEMAN

Did you or did you not compare me to Robert Mugabe in your previous post but one? Trot out some facts or retract it, you piece of shit.

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :

Erin,

The reason why I listed yourself as an unsuitable person to be invited to the Whitehouse is because of inability to express yourself without using foul language (look at your last post on this thread or your OP on your recent Police ordeal).

If you were to meet Dubya, I would expect it go on the lines of 'Holy fucking shit, Mr President, this a fucking, big ass house you live - why the fuck do you keep coming out with such crap and why do have so many fucking turds working for you - fuck me, it's one big shit fucking administration you've got - Holy fucking bleed'in, bloody shit (and so on, and so on).

Meanwhile, back at the debate on Israel.....

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

Wow, in your world "foul language" and homicidal dictatorship are moral equivalents.

You are a disgrace to humanity.

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :

Lifeman, you are even more clueless than I thought before. You would be offensive if you didn't appear to be so downright stupid.

On the topic of the thread, I can't tell you how tired I am of hearing people say, with wringing hands and heaving breast, "It's not fair to attack Saddam and not do something about North Korea/Zimbabwe/Iran/China/Palestine/[insert your favorite bogeyman here]." International policy based on that reasoning would not only be silly, it would be suicidal.

[Clueless coding.]

[ 02. March 2003, 00:46: Message edited by: sarkycow ]

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :

quote:
Originally posted by perfecta:
Can't we just have a lively discussion without ever referring to the Holocaust or personal insults when it gets to discussing Israel?

What do you think the role of the Holocaust is in the past, present and future of Israel? Why not refer to it? Somebody got a guilty conscience?

quote:
Originally posted by Lifeman:
You mention the holocaust but that is not a current issue - China had vast amounts of her people killed by the Japanese in the 1930's but you never hear this used as an argument to counter any critism of China. Sharon certainly cannot claim fear of anti-semitism to justify any of his actions.(italics mine)

10 points:
What are the similarities and differences between Chinese-Japanese relations in the 1930's and the Holocaust?

Multiple choice:
a) Does anti-semitism no longer exist?
b) Is there no need to fear the anti-semitism that still exists?
c) Does the reasonable fear of anti-semitism justify any actions against it? (eg. public awareness campaigns, maintaining an army and arsenal capable of national self-defense, freedom of movement and democratic self-determination)
d) To whom should the Jews justify their actions? Who shall decide the criteria?

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :

Bonus question:
What is the role of capitalization in the english language, that is, the language spoken by the elizabeth ii, the queen of england? Was ist der Unterschied zwischen Englisch und Deutsch? (auf Deutsch schreibt man alle Substantive immer mit großen Anfangsbuchstaben, z.B. der Holocaust)

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :

quote:
(don't forget that he deliberately provoked the current Intafada by walking through a tunnel that goes under Arab Jerusalem, knowing that itm would cause an outrage).

In keeping with the lingusitic tone of the thread, WHY for F**Ks SAKE!??!?!

Why should some guy walking through a tunnel piss off some people so much they have to go kill other people?

This is the unspoken "given" in all this. News reporters will say things like "The Muslim's outraged by claims mohammed had haletosis blew up 20 people today".

Isn't it obvious that when you have people who are this short tempered they'd use Sharon looking at them a funny way to have an "intafada"??

They are bad tempered, intolerant, anti-semetic and looking for a fight at every and any opportunity, so cut the crap about being "provoked".

Do you really think the palestinian's who blow themselves up, do so because they want a less oppressive government?

No! They are fundamentalist muslims. They LOVE oppressive governments! Just so long as it's the Islamic brand of oppression!(Women know your place...stone people to death etc etc)

The suicide bombers, if they could have the palestinian government of their choice, would make palestine one of the most oppressive states in the world.

Bottom line? Arab fundamentalist Muslims hate Jews and want to destroy israel.

If you recreate a nice moderate palestinian state, which is prepared to live side by side with Israel, will the violence stop? NO! because the nutters who are willing to blow themselves up will whinge that this new palestine is "America's poodle" and they will start a civil war to create a full blooded islamic fundamentalist palestinian state.

And what exactly is Sharon supposed to do in all this? What on earth can you do when you run a country which is an jewish island surrounded by a sea of anti-semetic arabs?

matt

Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on :

Ley Druid's Questions

a) No, it still exists

b) No, there's still a need to fear it. But while fear may explain certain actions, it doesn't justify them

c) No, it justifies some actions against it. There's a difference between a public awareness campaign and shooting Palestinian children.

d) The people without whom their army would not be able to occupy Palestine would be a start (the U.S and its allies). Most posters on this board are citizens of countries that support Israel.

Matt,

Not all Palestinians (or, as you would say, palestinian's) are Islamic Fundamentalists. In fact, not all 'palestinian's' are Muslims (or Muslim's). Of course, the number of Christians in Palestine has dropped since 1948 (which makes me wonder if the foundation of Israel was really God's will) but there are still some hanging on. Including Mrs Arafat, apparently.

Historically, the various ethnic/faith communities in Palestine have lived together in relative peace and harmony. Islamic Fundamentalism in the region is not the cause of the occupation of Palestine and the resistance against it. It is the result of it.

Lifeman's description of the cause of the intifada was unfortunate. If my parents had been kicked out of their homes, causing me to grow up in a refugee camp, if my brother had been killed by soldiers who claimed he was a terrorist when he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, I'd be pissed off without someone walking through a tunnel.

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :

Lurker,

Everything you have said is perfectly valid but do not diminish the Sharon's walk thorugh the tunnel - he knew exactly what he was doing and it was a calculated move to get Palestinians to revolt to give himself an excuse to use draconian measures against them.

Posted by perfecta (# 4085) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
What do you think the role of the Holocaust is in the past, present and future of Israel? Why not refer to it? Somebody got a guilty conscience?

I don't have a guilty conscience in the slightest but as a person of Jewish extraction I find the accustations of nazism or anti-semitism whenever Israel's policies are criticised offensive.

The guilty conscience is evident in the theology that had been developed by some to justify the
"everything that Israel does is good" school of thought. To some Christians, there seems to be no Christian community amongst Palestinians and we help the Jewish people reclaim their land from the current squatters (a minority view I concede)...

[You should feel guilty about your coding.]

[ 02. March 2003, 19:15: Message edited by: RooK ]

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :

Perfecta,

Re. your comments on Christianity amongst Palestinians, it's often forgetten how much Christianity exists in the Arab world generally. I was very surprised when I visited the home of an Arab Christian family in Damascus to be told that about 17% of all Syrians are Christian AND they are protected by the same kind of legislation that makes it illegal in the US and UK to use racist language.

Yasser Arafat prays anually in the church of the Nativity in Bethlehem (that is, when the Israelis don't prevent him from doing so) and a Palestinian state would have a place for Christians, Muslims and, I dare to believe, Jews.
If that sounds too much to hope for, don't forget that today, Germany has some of the fastest growing Jewish communities in the world.

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :

quote:
Not all Palestinians (or, as you would say, palestinian's) are Islamic Fundamentalists. In fact, not all 'palestinian's' are Muslims (or Muslim's). Of course, the number of Christians in Palestine has dropped since 1948 (which makes me wonder if the foundation of Israel was really God's will) but there are still some hanging on. Including Mrs Arafat, apparently.

Lurker, I am WELL aware that not all Palestinians are Islamic Fundamentalists..I'm well aware that there is a sizable Christian Palestinian population (some known personally to me..and most of whom are fairly apathetic about a palestinian state)

My point was that the ones who are blowing themselves up are Islamic fundamentalists. The one's creating all the fuss and drawing the attention of the world's media to Israel are Islamic Fundamentalists.

My point was, THEY are the ones with the problem..and THEY are the ones creating the problem for Israel.

If a palestinian state is created which is moderate, or representative, then the fundies still won't be happy and will continue to blow themselves up...claiming this new state is merely a poodle of Israel/USA.

The only Palestinian state they will be happy with would be an islamic fundamentalist one. Which would be FAR more oppressive for say..Palestinian Christian women than current Israeli rule.

The people blowing themselves up are not libertarians. They are fighting not for liberty, but for the oppression of Allah.

They will only stop bombing when liberty is surrended to make way for yet another vile oppressive fundamentalist islamic state.

Personally, I'm all for Sharon's tough line. I don't really see he has a whole lot of options. You can not reason or negotiate with those who hate you on principle, and who will never settle for anything less than 100% of their demands.

The islamic fundamentalists bring an "all or nothing" attitude in their "negotiation" with Israel. Until they realise they are not going to get "all" they will continue to get "nothing".

matt

Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
My point was that the ones who are blowing themselves up are Islamic fundamentalists. The one's creating all the fuss and drawing the attention of the world's media to Israel are Islamic Fundamentalists.

My point was that not all of the people the Israelis are shooting and blowing up are Islamic Fundamentalists.

Posted by perfecta (# 4085) on :

To start with, I'm not sure if all the people blowing themselves up are Islamic Fundamentalists... There'll be a large proportion amongst them who are but I'm quite unsure about that assertion. Do you have any references re: that?

Secondly, it's ironic that most of the Palestinian Christians I've been given to know would rather not be under Israeli rule - are your Palestinian friends "apathetic" about their treatment by Israel?

Re: Sharon not having any choice - I'd have to disagree... I'm not sure that constantly oppressing and attacking a people will make them any more likely to come to a peaceful settlement... I assume you would have solved the NI problem by invading the Republic?

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :

quote:
Lurker,

Everything you have said is perfectly valid but do not diminish the Sharon's walk thorugh the tunnel - he knew exactly what he was doing and it was a calculated move to get Palestinians to revolt to give himself an excuse to use draconian measures against them.

Lurker...whether it was or not, I refuse to accept that someone walking through a freakin' tunnel constitutes "reasonable provocation" for warfare!

It seems patronising in the extreme to Muslims to claim that this is "understandable" on their part.

It's understandable that if I accidently tread on my dogs tail it might turn round and nip me. It's only a dog. I tolerate it.

However, if I accidently trod on a friend's foot, it would NOT be understandable for him to turn round and hit me. I would not tolerate it.

The way you excuse Palestinian violence on the grounds it was "prevoked" sounds like you treat them with the kind of patronising tolerance I give to my Dog!

quote:
a Palestinian state would have a place for Christians, Muslims and, I dare to believe, Jews.

I'd love to agree with you. BUT if that is the Palestinian state that is formed, then the same groups of people who are blowing themselves up now will not be satisfied. It may pacify them for a while.....maybe a few years...but sooner or later they will start up bombing shooting and killing again until they get what they really want......islamic fundamentalist rule.

matt

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lifeman:
Lurker,

Everything you have said is perfectly valid but do not diminish the Sharon's walk thorugh the tunnel - he knew exactly what he was doing and it was a calculated move to get Palestinians to revolt to give himself an excuse to use draconian measures against them.

Fucking bollocks.

If you ask Palestinians what happened they say it was because of armed Jewish settlers on their lands, and because they were prevented from moving freely around even the divided part of the country left to them, or from seeking work in Israel, or from exporting or importing goods to the rest of the world other than through Israel, and stuff like that - no-body mentions tunnels.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Matt,

most people talk out of the other end of their bodies.

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :

quote:
My point was that not all of the people the Israelis are shooting and blowing up are Islamic Fundamentalists.

If they aren't then clearly Sharon is getting the wrong people. I'm willing to accept Israel might do better at surgically removing legitimate targets with less collateral damage. The fact is, Israel is fighting a war, and civilians will die in war. But that's a question of on the ground military tactics rather than policy as such.

quote:
To start with, I'm not sure if all the people blowing themselves up are Islamic Fundamentalists... There'll be a large proportion amongst them who are but I'm quite unsure about that assertion.

At the very least, the organisations that are providing them with training and explosives are Islamic fundamentalist in nature. And it is highly unlikely such organisations would trust anyone other than those committed to the cause into their organisations.

I suppose there may be a small element who are not committed Islamic fundamentalists. Some of the amature Palestinian rioters throwing rocks and bottles in the streets for example. However, the "professional" trouble makers who are the centre of it all...the terrorists and suicide bombers is pure islamic fudamentalisim

quote:
Secondly, it's ironic that most of the Palestinian Christians I've been given to know would rather not be under Israeli rule - are your Palestinian friends "apathetic" about their treatment by Israel?

I think they are apathetic in that no option really seems good for them:

1. Live under israeli rule (not great)

2. live in a democratic Palestine...but this state would almost certianly collapse into civil war within a few years of it's founding as the Islamic fundies try and grab power in it...(again..not great)

3. Live in an Islamic fundamentalist Palestine. (Worst option of all)

quote:
Re: Sharon not having any choice - I'd have to disagree... I'm not sure that constantly oppressing and attacking a people will make them any more likely to come to a peaceful settlement... I assume you would have solved the NI problem by invading the Republic?

The Ireland situation does not bring England's sovreignty under direct threat. We have a lot more options.

On the other hand, Israel, while militarialy powerful, is geographically a sitting duck to attack on all sides. It is fighting for it's very existence. The Palestinian problem represents a threat to it's very existence.

Yes, Israel is a nuclear power, but it is a tiny country surrounded on all sides by enemies. The occupied security zones are crucial to the integrity of it's borders.

matt

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :

quote:
Fucking bollocks.

If you ask Palestinians what happened they say it was because of armed Jewish settlers on their lands, and because they were prevented from moving freely around even the divided part of the country left to them, or from seeking work in Israel, or from exporting or importing goods to the rest of the world other than through Israel, and stuff like that - no-body mentions tunnels.

If that's the case, then the person you should be addressing your comments to about fucking Bollocks" is lifeman..for bringing the tunnel into it in the first place.

My comments were based on the assumption that Lifeman's reasoning was correct.

Posted by perfecta (# 4085) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

1. Live under israeli rule (not great)

2. live in a democratic Palestine...but this state would almost certianly collapse into civil war within a few years of it's founding as the Islamic fundies try and grab power in it...(again..not great)

3. Live in an Islamic fundamentalist Palestine. (Worst option of all)

Mmm... So by that rationale Sharon is in fact doing all Palestinian's a massive favour as without his generous intervention they'd all be in an Islamic state? If only those pesky Palestinian kids would learn to not sit in school's that are about to be shelled, Sharon would be able to get everything sorted in no time whatsover [Wink]

To assume that a democratic Palestine is on par with living under Israeli rule is rather silly - of course there'll be the risk of it collapsing but at least it's a step in the right direction, no?

Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

Lurker...whether it was or not, I refuse to accept that someone walking through a freakin' tunnel constitutes "reasonable provocation" for warfare!

It seems patronising in the extreme to Muslims to claim that this is "understandable" on their part.

It's understandable that if I accidently tread on my dogs tail it might turn round and nip me. It's only a dog. I tolerate it.

However, if I accidently trod on a friend's foot, it would NOT be understandable for him to turn round and hit me. I would not tolerate it.

The way you excuse Palestinian violence on the grounds it was "prevoked" sounds like you treat them with the kind of patronising tolerance I give to my Dog!

Actually, it was Lifeman who said that Sharon's walking through the tunnel provoked the intifada. Why, then were your comments directed at me? Given that you've just accused Ken of wrongly attributing a point of view that lifeman holds to you, I would recommend getting your own house in order first!

quote:
If they aren't then clearly Sharon is getting the wrong people. I'm willing to accept Israel might do better at surgically removing legitimate targets with less collateral damage. The fact is, Israel is fighting a war, and civilians will die in war. But that's a question of on the ground military tactics rather than policy as such.

The phrase 'collateral damage' assumes that every Palestinain who wasn't a terrorist who has been killed by the Israeli soldiers and settlers has been killed by accident. I believe some of these killings have been deliberate.

And policy should dictate military tactics on the ground. It's the duty of governments to control their armies. What's the point of supporting Israel because it's one of the few democracies in the area if there's no accountability.

quote:
live in a democratic Palestine...but this state would almost certianly collapse into civil war within a few years of it's founding as the Islamic fundies try and grab power in it...(again..not great)

That's a big assumption. The Palestininans are a race of savages who cannot govern themselves so they need to live under Israeli rule to stop the inevitable carnage. And you call me patronising!

quote:
On the other hand, Israel, while militarialy powerful, is geographically a sitting duck to attack on all sides. It is fighting for it's very existence. The Palestinian problem represents a threat to it's very existence.

Yes, Israel is a nuclear power, but it is a tiny country surrounded on all sides by enemies. The occupied security zones are crucial to the integrity of it's borders.

The PLO has already said it supports Israel's 'right to exist'. Israel is not fighting for its very existence, it is fighting to hold onto seized land.

As for the 'security' zones, Israel wouldn't be the first to say that it was occupying surrounding land to protect itself. I know that mention of a certain dictator with a wee moustache when discussing Israel will leave me open to accusations of being inflammatory, but I just don't care, that was just the argument that he used to justify the annexing of large chunks of Europe. That, and 'the land used to belong to us'.

I think a peaceful settlement in Palestine would be beneficial to Israeli-Arab relations.

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

quote:
Originally posted by perfecta:
To start with, I'm not sure if all the people blowing themselves up are Islamic Fundamentalists... There'll be a large proportion amongst them who are but I'm quite unsure about that assertion.

I'd be interested in hearing the mindset of someone who blows themselves up but does NOT consider him/herself a fundamentalist. "Well, sure, I'll strap a hundred sticks of dynamite to my body and detonate it in the middle of a shopping mall but that doesn't make me a fundamentalist". WTF? What does it make you, then, a stupid sheep?

Posted by perfecta (# 4085) on :

Erin, I said _Islamic_ fundamentalist - Of course, you've got to be pretty radical to want to die for a cause you see as true...

The Buddhist monk who set fire to himself in vietnam (I think?) or Jan Pallat had strong enough beliefs to do so but i'm unsure if that makes them a fundamentalist (and it certainly doesn't make either of them muslims!)

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :

quote:
To assume that a democratic Palestine is on par with living under Israeli rule is rather silly - of course there'll be the risk of it collapsing but at least it's a step in the right direction, no?

Israel has a powerful law and order keeping force. A newly formed palestine state would not. I do not see such a state will exactly be a model of stability and tranquility, do you? I anticipate that one group who would suffer greatly would be the Palestinian Christians.

quote:
Actually, it was Lifeman who said that Sharon's walking through the tunnel provoked the intifada. Why, then were your comments directed at me? Given that you've just accused Ken of wrongly attributing a point of view that lifeman holds to you, I would recommend getting your own house in order first!

Apologies to you lurker

quote:
That's a big assumption. The Palestininans are a race of savages who cannot govern themselves so they need to live under Israeli rule to stop the inevitable carnage. And you call me patronising!

No, the majority of Palestinians aren't. But the Islamic Fundamentalists who are ready to blow themselves up because of Jewish rule will probably be ready to blow themselves up because of a democratic government. Remember democracy = American philosophy in the eyes of the fundies.

quote:
The PLO has already said it supports Israel's 'right to exist'. Israel is not fighting for its very existence, it is fighting to hold onto seized land.

First, I don't believe the PLO. Second, even if I did, they are the most liberal of the organisations Israel has to deal with.

quote:
As for the 'security' zones, Israel wouldn't be the first to say that it was occupying surrounding land to protect itself. I know that mention of a certain dictator with a wee moustache

Oh please...look at a freakin map. The idea you can compare Germany with Israel in this matter is crazy. Israel is a tiny dot surrounded by nations who hate it. It has been invaded by it's neighbours at every opportunity given to them.

Just because Hitler used it as a bad excuse doesn't mean it doesn't qualify as a good reason for Sharon in a different place at a different time.

quote:
I think a peaceful settlement in Palestine would be beneficial to Israeli-Arab relations.

Well..err.yeah. That sounds like a "The earth is round" kind of statement. I agree. The question is whether "A peaceful settlement" is a genuine possiblity. Frankly...I doubt it.

quote:
I'd be interested in hearing the mindset of someone who blows themselves up but does NOT consider him/herself a fundamentalist. "Well, sure, I'll strap a hundred sticks of dynamite to my body and detonate it in the middle of a shopping mall but that doesn't make me a fundamentalist". WTF? What does it make you, then, a stupid sheep?

Erin, while I agree with where your coming from, I think you are confusing "fundamentalist" with "Extremist". All fundamentalists are extremists, but not all extremists are fundamentalists.

matt

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

I refuse to accept that someone walking through a freakin' tunnel constitutes "reasonable provocation" for warfare!

Refuse all you like, Matt. That doesn't change what happened, or how it happened, or what it meant at the time.

If you had been observing media coverage before and after the incident in question, you would be aware that Sharon took his walk as a deliberate act of provocation, aimed (as he was then in opposition to the Israeli government) at bringing the peace process to a halt and bringing down the Israeli government. The peace process at the time was moving along and looked as if it might well produce results for both sides. Sharon's walk in a tunnel killed it.

Should the walk have been viewed by the Palestinians as a provocation? I confess to forgetting the specific circumstances, but the walk certainly involved Sharon crossing boundaries of behaviour that had been observed for many years. My memory is that the tunnel in question, which led under some of the Muslim sacred places on the Temple Mount, had been controversial since the Israeli government started to drill it.

In any case, Sharon was clearly warned before he took the walk that it would be viewed as provocative. He has never claimed to be surprized at the Palestinnian reaction -- indeed, at the time, it seemed that evoking exactly this reaction was the point.

John Holding

[Preview post is there to be used. Do so.]

[ 03. March 2003, 20:57: Message edited by: sarkycow ]

Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on :

I'm not sure about this. A Palestinian terrorist could be more of a nationalist than a religious terrorist, someone who just wants not to live under Israeli rule and would rather die than do so.

Although the act of suicide bombing would be easier if you believed in life after death (and a god who didn't mind you blowing up civilians) plenty of non-religious people kill themselves.

Posted by perfecta (# 4085) on :

I'm still mesmerised at what you're implying Matt (or am I understanding you wrong?)...

Basically you seem to be saying that Palestinians are currently under the best possible government because you can't trust them to govern themselves? Coming back to the NI situation it should be legitmate (i.e. by Israeli standards) for Dublin to invade NI (and some parts of Scotland and England) as the UK once laid a claim to Ireland and denied its right to exist independently? ("You can't trust those Paddys to rule themselves!")

Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on :

Cross posted there. I was of course replying to Erin's question.

As for Matt the Mad Medic:

quote:
Israel has a powerful law and order keeping force. A newly formed palestine state would not.

Doesn't mean that they are right to occupy the land. Was the fall of Communism bad because it led to war in Yugoslavia?

quote:
Apologies to you lurker

Apology accepted.

quote:
But the Islamic Fundamentalists who are ready to blow themselves up because of Jewish rule will probably be ready to blow themselves up because of a democratic government.

Not all of them. Most suicide bombers believe they are fighting a war against the Israelis and may not be so keen to destroy their own government.

quote:
First, I don't believe the PLO. Second, even if I did, they are the most liberal of the organisations Israel has to deal with.

And the longer the fighting goes on, the more people will be attracted to the more hardline groups.

quote:
Oh please...look at a freakin map. The idea you can compare Germany with Israel in this matter is crazy. Israel is a tiny dot surrounded by nations who hate it.

A map of the Middle East does not show the USA. When you've got the backing of the biggest military power on Earth, your own nukes, superior weaponry, and highly-trained soldiers, acting all little and vulnerable doesn't work. Do you think that, if Israel didn't have these advantages, a little piece of land over the Jordan would save it?

quote:
The question is whether "A peaceful settlement" is a genuine possiblity. Frankly...I doubt it.

I think it is. But not too likely with Sharon in power.

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :

Firing tank shell's at a crowd whilst withdrawing!

I this going to reduce the amount of suicide bobmers? [Frown]

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :

Before anyone else comments, yes I know I've mis-spelt 'bombers'.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Not, strictly speaking, shells, AFAIK.

Fragmentation munitions of some sort, with little flechettes.

Illegal under some international treaties I think, though probably ones Israel didn't sign.

Posted by Toby (# 3522) on :

Regarding the comparison of the two:
Saddam has better dress sense, and looks healthier at the moment, than Sharon.

...and he hasn't tried to grab any extra land/invade anyone since 1990.

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :

Matt; if you are relly interested in the views of the Palestinian Christians, then can I suggest you make contact with Sabeel this is their website and the Rev Stephen Sizer (this is his written work on Christian Zionism)

Stephen is a Reformed Evangelical and on most issues we couldn't be further away from each other, theologically. But on this one he talks a lot of sense, and I think you would find him interesting to talk to.

Posted by netgeek (# 4232) on :

There is no Palestine. The territory formerly known as Palestine was divided up. Part of it became Israel, while other sections went to Jordan, Lebenon, Syria and Egypt. Israel is the birthplace of the jewish peoples.I have no problem with them reclaiming it, just as I have no problem with Native Americans establishing thier own lands and governments.

Netgeek

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Netgeek, you are a wanker.

There is no such thing as the USA either, no such thing as the UK, or Germany, or any other nation.

Just people. Nations are abstractions, ideas in people's heads. If there are a large number of people who think they are members of a nation, than that nation exists.

Arguably there was no nation of Palestine 50 years ago. There bloody well is now though. The Israelis have brought it into being.

Posted by Royal Peculiar (# 3159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by netgeek:
. Israel is the birthplace of the jewish peoples.

No, it isn't. Or at least not according to the OT.
The Jewish people arrived there and were commanded by God to commit ethnic cleansing of the native populations before occupying the land. An incident which doesn't reflect particularly well either on the Israelites or on God, although doubtless at the time it was common practice to massacre indegenous peoples and claim divine sanction.

BTW welcome Netgeek

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :

Netgeek, welcome to Hell, and to the Ship in general. Please take a few moments to familiarise yourself with both the Ship's 10 Commandments, and the guidelines for each board before jumping into the fray. Other than that, have fun wandering round the boards and posting appropriately on each.

Everyone else, remember newbies get cut some slack.

Viki, hellhost

Posted by perfecta (# 4085) on :

Thanks for those most excellent links Mike - spent most of the afternoon reading them.

P

Posted by netgeek (# 4232) on :

Vicki:
I did read the commandments before joining. Forgive my ignorance, but I don't see where I have broken one - if that is the implication of your post. Upon review however, I am wondering if Ken calling me a "wanker" because I have a differing opinion is a violation of the first commandment.

I am not thin-skinned or sensitive enough to let such juvenility bother me however, anddo look forward to thoughtful debate in the future.

Ken:
Not arguably, but in fact there was never a "nation" known as Palestine. In fact, the Palestinians were not known as such until around 50 years ago. Until then individuals identified themselves based on their families country of origin. The territory identified as Palestine has never in history known self rule except when itwas ruled by Israelites prior to occupation by the Romans. Indeed, it was the Romans who named the area Palestine, who did so after killing and enslaving the jews.

Royal:
Technical correction: Jews are the descendents of the house of Judah. Abraham moved into the region called Canaan and "begat" Heber, for whom the Hebrews are named. They migrated to Egypt, then back to Canaan. The Hebrews slaughtered the inhabitants and established Israel, which was then divided into the various houses. The jews sprang from the house of Judah. Most of the other houses were "lost" during successive invasions and occupations by other nations and governments such as Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, Byzantia, then the arabic muslims.

Of more importance to the debate, I believe, is the fact that that the non-jewish inhabitantsof the region formerly known as Palestinewere given the opportunity to become voting members of the nation of Israel. The force of their voting power alone could have made all the tension afterwards moot. However, they chose to flee the Islamic armies that invaded from the north, east and south, and to my mind that denies them any claim to any land they fled from. If the jews had been massacred in 1948 (which I'm convinced was the secret hope of many nations and peoples) the Palestinians still would not have a nation of their own or any form of self rule. No group of people have ever tried to create a state there except the Israelis.

Netgeek

Posted by perfecta (# 4085) on :

quote:
However, they chose to flee the Islamic armies that invaded from the north, east and south, and to my mind that denies them any claim to any land they fled from

Mmmm - which means that the Jews lost all claim to live in Poland, Germany and France because many of them fled the country... Oh and we'd better give most of Western Europe to Germany (or should that be France under Napoleon?)...

Posted by netgeek (# 4232) on :

quote:
Originally posted by perfecta:
Mmmm - which means that the Jews lost all claim to live in Poland, Germany and France because many of them fled the country... Oh and we'd better give most of Western Europe to Germany (or should that be France under Napoleon?)...

I'm sorry, I missed something. Is there a movement by the jews to establish a homeland in Poland? I hadn't heard anything about it. Please supply a link.

The jews were allowed to establish a homeland in the region formerly known as Palestine precisely because of two reasons:
(1)Their racial history and identity with the area.
(2) The fact that the area was an occupied territory (by UK at the time) that had no internal governing body.

Netgeek

Posted by perfecta (# 4085) on :

I think you perfectly got my point (or are rather dense) - fleeing an area makes you lose any claims to it as a homeland? So to take another example, native Americans fleeing their homeland made them lose it? - well that is a rather convenient way of gaining territory...

Posted by netgeek (# 4232) on :

quote:
Originally posted by perfecta:
I think you perfectly got my point (or are rather dense) - fleeing an area makes you lose any claims to it as a homeland? So to take another example, native Americans fleeing their homeland made them lose it? - well that is a rather convenient way of gaining territory...

Perhaps it is you that is dense? Out of the entirety of my original post, this is the only point you can up with? The people who call themselves Palestinians are themselves the product of occupying invaders from foreign lands. There has been a jewish prescence in Israel since the time of King David. The movement to creat a new state of Israel is something the jews have been working on-peacefully I might add- since at least the 19th century. They did not go in slashing and killing and forcing people out in 1948. They simply received proper acknowledgement from world authorities whom recognized them as an independent state, then sounded the shofar. From that point on they have, for the most part, been defending themselves from their neighbors and internal terrorists.
The Palestinians could have stayed and participated in the emerging democracy and had much say in the direction of government as they outnumbered jews 2 or 3 to 1. They chose, however, to walk away. This is a far cry from what happened to native americans. The native americans were destroyed by disease and cruelty. They were savagely murdered and forced from their lands by an occupying government not native to the territory. Native Americans have far more right to engage in domestic terrorism than Palestinians.
Perhaps it would be best if agreed to disagree?

Netgeek

Posted by Toby (# 3522) on :

Netgeek:
Even if (and I would have some (many) questions as to whether this is the case) Palestinians have no claim to Palestine, does that make the removal of their civil rights and the constant bombing and invasions of their living places by Israeli troops, and the concomitant psychological and physical damage (to put it mildly) to Palestinian children and adults, justified? Or the violation of agreements about settlements? For that seems to be what Sharon wishes to perpetuate.

Posted by netgeek (# 4232) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Toby:
Netgeek:
Even if (and I would have some (many) questions as to whether this is the case) Palestinians have no claim to Palestine, does that make the removal of their civil rights and the constant bombing and invasions of their living places by Israeli troops, and the concomitant psychological and physical damage (to put it mildly) to Palestinian children and adults, justified? Or the violation of agreements about settlements? For that seems to be what Sharon wishes to perpetuate.

One needs ask why the Israelis are doing what they do. Is it because they got bored drinking British tea and lacked anything else batter to do, or is it because they have run out of options for protecting their citizens? Did they finish reading "The Collected Works of Emily Dickenson" and say "I've got an idea, lets invade the West Bank"? Or was it perhaps that they sought some relief from the daily bombings by creating a buffer zone? If there was a nest of rattle snakes in your back yard, wouldn't you want to root them out before letting your children play there? Or would you simply move to a new house and hope it was rattlesnake free?
The killing of unarmed civilians is never justified, but I've got news for you: We don't live in a "just and charitable" world, nor will we ever. The jews have been on the defensive and homeless for 2000 years, yet they have managed to survive and keep their traditions and ethnic identity. Where is your empathy for their struggle against annihilation?
Another point: The only thing some of you seem to have in common with Palestinians is a dislike of jews. Other than that, very little of your/my personal ideologies and beloved freedoms would be welcome in muslim controlled countries. I am hard pressed to understand why women, homosexuals, liberal thinkers, and free thinking radicals would want to support a system of government/religion that would not allow them to exist.

Netgeek

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :

To paraphrase Toby:

quote:
Even if . . . [Israelis] have no claim to Israel, does that make the removal of their civil rights and the constant bombing and invasions of their living places** by [Palestinian terrorists], and the concomitant psychological and physical damage (to put it mildly) to [Israeli] children and adults, justified?

** And by "living places," are you referring to Sbarro's Pizza Restaurant, the Mahane Yehuda Market, the Ben-Yehuda Pedestrian Malls, the Mifgash Hashalom Gas Station, the Hasharon Shopping Mall, the Wall Street Cafe, the Nahariya Train Station, the Moment Cafe, the Great Synagogue of Tel Aviv, the Park Hotel, the Efrat Emergency Medical Center, the Sonol Gas Station, the Rothschild Street Pedestrian Mall, the Haifa University student bus, the Rishon Lezion Game Club, the ice cream parlor in Petah Tikva, the falafel stand on Hanevi'im Street, the Tel Aviv Central Bus Station, and the Frank Sinatra Student Center at the Hebrew University -- to name just a few of the suicide bombings for which Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or the Fatah Martyrs Brigade gleefully took credit.

This is a debate that we've had on this board for years and what a surprise: We haven't come to a resolution yet. But as I said on one of Lifeman's threads last week, among the institutions I look for in a society are a free press, free exercise of religion, tolerance of dissent, fair elections, an economic system that honors private property, and equal rights for women. Israel is far, far, far from perfect, but it honors those democratic institutions vastly more than its neighbors.

P.S. to Netgeek: As much as I agree with the substance of your post, I don't think that it's fair to read into peoples' comments "a dislike of [J]ews."

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by netgeek:
I did read the commandments before joining. Forgive my ignorance, but I don't see where I have broken one - if that is the implication of your post. Upon review however, I am wondering if Ken calling me a "wanker" because I have a differing opinion is a violation of the first commandment.

No, netgeek, sarkycow was just giving you some advance warning. I think that you will find that we Hellhosts generally clearly indicate when we have something official to state.

On the subject of Ken's behaviour, I think that you will find Hell has some some slightly different rules than the rest of the Ship-of-Fools.

As far as commenting that:

quote:
The only thing some of you seem to have in common with Palestinians is a dislike of jews.

...you might want consider just how big you want that metaphorical bullseye you painted on yourself. From where I'm browsing, it's a clear enough marking for orbital bombardment.

Posted by Toby (# 3522) on :

I think (or perhaps hope) that most of us can agree that both sides do very nasty things to one another.
What I was trying to say is that the 'defensive' measures adopted by the IDF will only incite more violence and more hatred. Likewise, suicide bombings will do the same. Both forms of attack are completely unconstructive. Neither side can claim the moral high ground in this issue (as I once saw it put: "The moral high ground seems to be entirely unoccupied at this time").
Israel is supposedly a democratic, educated, developed nation. For that, under extraordinarily difficult circumstances, I congratulate them. But to oppress the Palestinians as they do today they are destroying the future of both groups.
But most of all, I am personally angry because the Israeli military and government does all it can to trivialise or deny the real suffering of most Palestinians. Of course, Israeli people suffer too, but as a supposedly civilised country (and with Palestine being in a state of relative chaos with regard to politics and infrastructure - in a large part due to the wilfull destruction of that infrastructure by Israel) they should know better than to strike back in the way that they do, knowing that they destroy not only innocent lives but also any chance of reconciliation or hope. They have the power in this situation, they have the gunships and the organised military and the money. And what do they do with it? Traumatise little children and kill the occasional terrorist - taking his whole family and part of the neighbourhood with him.
By the way, I do rather resent netgeek's implication that I am an anti-semite (implication, as it came at the end of a post replying to me, although it was general and not specific). I would suggest that it takes a lot more than a disapproval of Israeli policy and skepticism about many aspects of Zionism to make a Jew-hater.

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :

Toby wrote:

quote:
Of course, Israeli people suffer too, but as a supposedly civilised country (and with Palestine being in a state of relative chaos with regard to politics and infrastructure - in a large part due to the wilfull destruction of that infrastructure by Israel) they should know better than to strike back in the way that they do, knowing that they destroy not only innocent lives but also any chance of reconciliation or hope.

Just as Palestinians know that every suicide bombing destroys not only innocent lives, but also any chance of reconciliation or hope. If anything, I think it's insulting to suggest that Palestinians lack the capacity to do the right thing under the circumstances and therefore should be held to a lower standard than the Israelis.

quote:
They have the power in this situation, they have the gunships and the organised military and the money. And what do they do with it? Traumatise little children and kill the occasional terrorist - taking his whole family and part of the neighbourhood with him.

They may have the materiel, but they're surrounded on all sides by enemies who, in many cases, have vowed to stop at nothing short of their total annihilation off the face of the earth. Of course, we're all guessing here, but if the suicide bombings stopped, I think Israel could live with a Palestinian state in a way that Palestine may not be able to live with a safe, secure Israel.

And as for "traumatising little children," I left off my list the dozen or so instances of suicide bombers attacking military caravans escorting school buses. I guess you must be suggesting that little Israeli children don't find that tramatizing.

But I can absolutely agree with you that the moral high ground is indeed unoccupied.

Posted by netgeek (# 4232) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

quote:
The only thing some of you seem to have in common with Palestinians is a dislike of jews.
...you might want consider just how big you want that metaphorical bullseye you painted on yourself. From where I'm browsing, it's a clear enough marking for orbital bombardment.

Okay, perhaps that comment was a bit of a foul ball. However, one must admit that continual bashing and accusing of A while overlooking or excusing the sins of B could very easily lead onlookers into believing there was some prejudice involved.
I am pro-Israel, though I don't agree with every action they take in trying to make the area safe for Israelis. Both sides share the blame for the ongoing violence, but Israel has every right to be exactly where it is. There is a large section of the territory formerly known as Palestine that could be used to establish a Palestinian state and if the PLO leaders wanted it to be so, and pursued it in a legal manner, I'm sure they would have no problem getting it established. They choose, however, to continue to kill Israeli civilians. There is a quote, I'm not sure as to its origin, but it goes something like this: "When you fight against monsters long enough, you become one." Israel has been fighting for 50 years. Perhaps they are getting to the point where they figure fighting terror with terror is the only option. As I've said before, if the Palestinians were going after military target, or harrassing supply lines, it would be a different ball game. But they are murdering students and children, and no matter what Israel does today, it was done to them yesterday by Palestinians.

Netgeek

Posted by netgeek (# 4232) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Toby:
I I do rather resent netgeek's implication that I am an anti-semite (implication, as it came at the end of a post replying to me, although it was general and not specific). I would suggest that it takes a lot more than a disapproval of Israeli policy and skepticism about many aspects of Zionism to make a Jew-hater.

Point taken and I apologize for the offense.

FYI:I have a problem with the term anti-semitic. Semite does not refer to just jews:

Main Entry: Sem·ite
Pronunciation: 'se-"mIt, esp British 'sE-"mIt
Function: noun
Etymology: French sémite, from Semitic Shem, from Late Latin, from Greek SEm, from Hebrew ShEm
Date: 1848
1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language

Posted by netgeek (# 4232) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Of course, we're all guessing here, but if the suicide bombings stopped, I think Israel could live with a Palestinian state in a way that Palestine may not be able to live with a safe, secure Israel.

If the bombings stopped for a year, Israel would have no choice but to live with a Palestinian state. Even America would support the formation of said state. Any American president would love to be associated with bringing peace to the middle east. Said formation would be the quickest action the UN has ever agreed upon. However, the only way I see this ending is with an almost total destruction of one or the other. Palestinians and Israelis both want Jerusalem, andI don't think either will give up an inch of territory there.

Netgeek

Posted by perfecta (# 4085) on :

quote:
Originally posted by netgeek:
Out of the entirety of my original post, this is the only point you can up with?

nope - but I really can't be arsed with having to pull you up on every single point - you've shown your true colours with the usual drivel about anyone disagreeing with your interpretation being an anti-semite so what's the point discussing w/ someone who resorts to such tactics?

I'd really avoid saying that here in the future - it's oft waved about but it can only damage your standing rather than further any debate...

Posted by perfecta (# 4085) on :

Pres' - I think that many of us agree that two wrongs never make a right but I think that there is a major difference between a state sponsered repression of a people and individual-based terrorism...

If the UK were to act like that it would have invaded part of Ireland to provide the "buffer" to stop the IRA. Would it make it right? or would it make the chances of it being repeated even greater?
(and it's best we leave out the issue of the funding of the IRA)

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :

Grabs hostly toasting fork

quote:
Okay, perhaps that comment was a bit of a foul ball. However, one must admit that continual bashing and accusing of A while overlooking or excusing the sins of B could very easily lead onlookers into believing there was some prejudice involved.

The Ship of Fools website (both halves - magazine and boards) is neither pro- nor anti- either A or B. There is no prejudice towards topics, opinions, beliefs etc from the Ship.

Viki, hellhost

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by netgeek:
If the bombings stopped for a year, Israel would have no choice but to live with a Palestinian state.

Which is precisely why that minority of Israeli opinion that wants to get rid of the Palestinians entirely, but which controls the poresent government, is never going to allow the terrorism to stop. They will, and have in the past, step up provocation whenver things get quiet.

Posted by James M (# 3414) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by netgeek:
If the bombings stopped for a year, Israel would have no choice but to live with a Palestinian state.
Which is precisely why that minority of Israeli opinion that wants to get rid of the Palestinians entirely, but which controls the poresent government, is never going to allow the terrorism to stop. They will, and have in the past, step up provocation whenver things get quiet.

And, of course, one could transpose teh words "Israeli" and "Palestinian" in your statement, Ken.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Except that the minority of Palestinians who want to keep up the bombing aren't running the excuse for a government laughingly called the "Palestianian Authority". Not that it stops them from bombing anyway.

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :

Perfecta wrote:

quote:
I think that many of us agree that two wrongs never make a right but I think that there is a major difference between a state sponsered repression of a people and individual-based terrorism...

I think it would be naive to assume that groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Fatah Brigade act utterly without state sponsorship.

Posted by James M (# 3414) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Except that the minority of Palestinians who want to keep up the bombing aren't running the excuse for a government laughingly called the "Palestianian Authority". Not that it stops them from bombing anyway.

Aren't the Al Aqsa (spelling?) Martyrs' Brigade part of Arafat's very own Fatah faction?

Posted by netgeek (# 4232) on :

quote:
Originally posted by perfecta:
you've shown your true colours with the usual drivel about anyone disagreeing with your interpretation being an anti-semite so what's the point discussing w/ someone who resorts to such tactics?

and once again, in more detail:

I do hearby, with full sincerity and without compulsion formally apologize to Perfecta and any others who may have been offended by the general statement I made earlier. While I disagree with the notion that anyone is totally free of some bias, it was wrong of me to imply that some of the people here may actually be racist or otherwise filled with hatred for jews or other semites. I humbly ask the forgiveness of all and present my back for 40 lashes.

Can we move on now?

Netgeek

Posted by netgeek (# 4232) on :

quote:
Originally posted by James M:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Except that the minority of Palestinians who want to keep up the bombing aren't running the excuse for a government laughingly called the "Palestianian Authority". Not that it stops them from bombing anyway.
Aren't the Al Aqsa (spelling?) Martyrs' Brigade part of Arafat's very own Fatah faction?

The problem is that Arafat either doesn't want peace or really isn't the person that should be leading the PLO. He has made many public statements that the bombings should stop, but they haven't. He is either not in control or he is being deceptive. Either way, we shouldn't be trying to broker a peace deal through him.

Netgeek

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by netgeek:
He has made many public statements that the bombings should stop, but they haven't. He is either not in control or he is being deceptive.

Obviously he's not in control. How can you be in control when the other side will take over the streets outside your building at the drop of a hat?

It's partly for that very reason that Israel government banned recent Palestinian elections. The last thing they want is to get rid of Arafat. If they did want rid of him they could do it in 20 minutes in the usual way they have of getting rid of Palestinians they don't like.

Posted by perfecta (# 4085) on :

quote:
Originally posted by netgeek:
I do hearby, with full sincerity and without compulsion formally apologize to Perfecta and any others who may have been offended by the general statement I made earlier. While I disagree with the notion that anyone is totally free of some bias, it was wrong of me to imply that some of the people here may actually be racist or otherwise filled with hatred for jews or other semites. I humbly ask the forgiveness of all and present my back for 40 lashes.
Can we move on now?

Wasn't looking for apologies (sincere or not) - just stating that I'm not interested in continuing a debate with someone who's that full of shit. Same goes for the other thread.

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

Bygones and all that, but perfecta, really, imagine if we'd taken the same attitude with you? A verse for today, from Matthew, chapter 18...

quote:
21Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
22Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.[6]
23"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents[7] was brought to him. 25Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
26"The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' 27The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
28"But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii.[8] He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.
29"His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'
30"But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.
32"Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
35"This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."

Your debut was not exactly stellar, I should think you'd be a little more forgiving.

Posted by perfecta (# 4085) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I should think you'd be a little more forgiving.

Oh it's not that I don't forgive him/her. I honestly do - s/he didn't need to ask for forgiveness for that. I was just stating the fact that I felt there was no point debating the issue further with him/her as I felt we wouldn't get anywhere - agreeing to disagree (Hell style)...

Honestly I hold no grudge against them (nor against you for that matter)...

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

The point of my post was more about the fact that newbies can put their foot in it, as you learned the hard way. So it might be a good idea to cut them some slack.

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Perfecta wrote:
quote:
I think that many of us agree that two wrongs never make a right but I think that there is a major difference between a state sponsered repression of a people and individual-based terrorism...
I think it would be naive to assume that groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Fatah Brigade act utterly without state sponsorship.

Presleyterian,

Every post I read, and thought of a response, I had but to scroll down and I saw you making it, much more cogently than I felt able to. Thanks everso. Really. I think it's especially important to ask about the sort of society Islamic militants are looking to create. Women's rights? Ha! Democracy? Ha!

As to handling of the current crisis, and to Sharon and Arafat (and Hamas), I'd say a plague on all of their houses.

[ 11. March 2003, 03:54: Message edited by: Laura ]

Posted by perfecta (# 4085) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Perfecta wrote:
quote:
I think that many of us agree that two wrongs never make a right but I think that there is a major difference between a state sponsered repression of a people and individual-based terrorism...
I think it would be naive to assume that groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Fatah Brigade act utterly without state sponsorship.

But not explicit support from a government that claims to be a democracy - major difference in my book.

Posted by perfecta (# 4085) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
The point of my post was more about the fact that newbies can put their foot in it, as you learned the hard way. So it might be a good idea to cut them some slack.

Well I didn't ask him "why don't you f--- off" or "get your head out of your ass" or wish s/he has been aborted (not sure about the verbatim nature of them as the thread seems to have been deleted...)

Anyway, I am departing from the boards - so rejoice and farewell...

Posted by James M (# 3414) on :

quote:
Originally posted by perfecta:
Anyway, I am departing from the boards - so rejoice and farewell...

Is that (holding breath) forever?

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

Oh for the love of Christ, get off the damn cross, perfecta.

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :

Ummmm.....since when does Hamas take its orders or get its money from Arafat?

It's not like he can call up all the organizations and say, "Hey, quit it for 5 years and we will see what happens." The "radicals" are past listening or dealing with. These people who pathologically hate Israel will, with support from somewhere, go on bombing until the supply of money is cut off. The question is how to stop that money. Consistantly treat the Palestinians significantly better, stop the settlements etc. and the money will eventually stop flowing. Treat the Palestinians with contempt, and with less regard then anybody would want to be treated, and the money will never stop.

All just too [Frown]

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Lifeman et al: Having followed this thread and today re-read it all I would like to enter the thread by asking one question. Do you acknowledge the possibility that the war that was started against the state of Israel (and the founding of the state of Israel) after WWII is being progressed by other means?

To briefly explain. I think that Israel’s enemies, after being defeated in all wars and battles that were fought with conventional weapons are now using, promulgating and funding organizations that will continue to attack to the very heart of the state whilst hiding behind the legitimacy of that old devil “freedom fighters.” That Israel’s enemies are the same ones they have always been and that THEY are using the Palestinian people both as a manufactured hotbed of raw recruits and as human shields for their cowardly and hateful tactics.

For me this is not about Israel and Palestine but Israel’s enemies using ANY method to progress their war of hatred. Due to this opinion whilst I am able to feel angry with Sharon, Arafat or whoever is caught up in trying to do the right thing (or wrong thing) in this difficult situation. My absolute and complete lack of compassion, forgiveness or hope for any peace is pointed directly at the old enemies of Israel who having failed in the past now pay poor benighted souls to do their bloody and wicked work for them.

Everybody is swift to bang on about American support for Israel. Do you really consider the Palestinian terrorist groups to be poorly funded, ill thought out gangs? I am utterly stunned by the sheer naivety of some of the thinking on this thread.

Lifeman how about asking a host to change the thread title? You poor attempt at humour (?) borders on the sick.

Perfecta, WTF is your problem, why in by the withered balls of St Paul are you sulking this time ?

P

Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by netgeek:
If there was a nest of rattle snakes in your back yard, wouldn't you want to root them out before letting your children play there? Or would you simply move to a new house and hope it was rattlesnake free?

Are you comparing the entire Palestinian people to a bunch of poisonous snakes? Here's a better analogy:

If there is a nest of rattlesnakes next door, wouldn't you want to invade your neighbour's house, and try to destroy the nest, killing some of your neighbour's kids on the way?

Of course, in this analogy, the greiving relatives of those unjustly killed don't become rattlesnakes themselves, while Israeli intervention in Palestine breeds resentmrnt and creates more terrorists.

Here's a radical proposal: Why doesn't the west, rather than give Israel military aid, offer it to the Palestinian Authority to help stamp out terrorists like Hamas in the same way we worked with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban?

Posted by James M (# 3414) on :

What Pyx_E said.

quote:
Originally posted by Lurker:

Here's a radical proposal: Why doesn't the west, rather than give Israel military aid, offer it to the Palestinian Authority to help stamp out terrorists like Hamas in the same way we worked with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban?

Errmm, Possibly because the last time the Palestinian authority was given weapons and cash (by Israel and the international community) to help set up government, Israel found itself under fire from those same weapons in the hands of the very people who were meant to be enforcing the supression of the militant groups.

Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on :

I don't suggest we just hand over weapons and let them get on with it. The UN should take military control of the region, financing it with the cash that currently goes to Israel.

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lurker:
The UN should take military control of the region, financing it with the cash that currently goes to Israel.

Excellent - another invasion! For those of you who are afraid that the upcoming Iraq adventure will be bloody, just wait until you see the UN in Palestine.

Of course the US/UK won't be welcome there, so it will have to be the French and Germans. Oh wait, I forgot that they don't do invasions. I guess it will be up to Libya and Turkey to get the job done.

Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on :

I'm not suggesting an invasion, I'm suggesting co-operation, the UN forces working with the two governments to stop terrorism, which they seem unable to do on their own.

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :

You really think that a UN "peacekeeping force" is better prepared to control terrorism than the Israeli military? Really? Methinks I smell an ulterior motive.

Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Or perhaps a distrust of the Israeli military?

Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
You really think that a UN "peacekeeping force" is better prepared to control terrorism than the Israeli military? Really? Methinks I smell an ulterior motive.

It would seem more logical for the UN to do this than Israel, as one country sending troops into a neighbouring country is not a good recipe for making a tense situation better.

Yes, I don't trust the Israeli military to police Palestine without killing innocent people. Many Israelis don't trust their military to do this.

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

But the UN was set up as a diametrical opposite to military force. How incredibly ironic that some of us, anyway, want a DIPLOMATIC body to engage in MILITARY action.

WTF?

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :

You are right about the irony of the UN being used to justify war but surely that's better than a superpower going in alone, all guns blazing, without reference to what the rest of the world thinks? If nothing else, more measured action is likely.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Lifeman I try not to make my posts over long or pose to many arguments because it all gets a bit complicated. BUT I did ask you a simple question:

quote:
Do you acknowledge the possibility that the war that was started against the state of Israel (and the founding of the state of Israel) after WWII is being progressed by other means?

May I have your considered answer, please.

P

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :

Dear Pyx E,

It's an interesting question you ask and I must say that I do not agree with the assertion you make.

If anything, the situation has been deliberately confused by certain Israeli elements to make it seem that if you are opposed to the Israeli occuation of the West Bank and Gaza, that that somehow makes you anti-sematic (and people like Sharon just love it when this connection is mistakenly made).

For me, the situation was superbly clarified in a TV documentary on UK TV last year called 'The end of an affair' - it was presented by the Manchester Jewish MP, Gerald Kuafman, and was about his own changing view of the state of Israel. He has been regularly visiting Israel since the 60's but is sickened at what the Israeli govenment and the so-called 'settlers' have been doing in recent years BUT he is a committed Jew and supports the continuance of the state of Israel.

That the Arabs have a long standing feud with the Jews I have to agree and yes, anti-semitism has been alive in Europe for centuries but let's not make the mistake of calling the situation in Israel a mere continuation of this - that will send a message to all peoples where there are ancient feuds that if you can 'dress it up as something ancient and ongoing', you can get away with murder.

BTW, what did you mean about my 'sick humour'? - I was'nt aware of such an attempt.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Lifeman sorry for the delay in replying. In regard to the substance of my question and your reply I think we have to accept that we disagree. I am unhappy that you have paid such scant attention to my point but I find it inevitable. If you took onboard the truth of what I am trying to say your position on the means and reasons behind the Palestinian continuing to struggle in such a violent way become so much less justified.

In regard to your sick humour in choosing “Saddam and Sharon” as a thread title. I regard it to be sick because whilst you (and to a degree I) strongly disagree with the way in which Sharon is defending his country he is elected. In fact has been recently re-elected. Whereas Saddam is a vicious dictator who has caused the death of hundreds of thousands of people form his own country never mind in the Iran war. He has kept himself and his junta fat on pirated monies while his people starve and he has acquired and used the most despicable weapons man has created.

I fail to see what you are trying to do by falsely attempting to create some sort of “poll of the nasty guy”. By trying to compare the two which you seem to be able to do in your OP by suggesting that Arabs like Saddam (maybe they are as wrong as you) but don’t like Sharon or America is both puerile and naïve. I really do not pay much attention to the likes and dislikes of those who have been lied to manipulated and encouraged to hate by a shady collection of people whose only tenants are Islamic fundamentalism (as they see it) and a hatred for the “West” (as they see it). That you buy that line also is obvious and saddening, it smacks of the spoilt brat western quasi politics that always supports the underdog, always belittles the establishment and actually has no real idea of the realities.

Further to suggest that all Arabs are seen by each other as “brothers and sisters” (unless you are not from the same caste as Saddam, Iranian, Kurdish or Kuwaiti) is fucking nonsense. That elected Sharon who (by whatever means) is simply defending his country from the continuing aggression of every country around him and the poor benighted Palestinians on his doorstep who have no home with their “brothers and sisters.” Whilst Saddam who you purport to be more worthy of my support is a ruthless murdering tyrant seems to obvious to me.

That you seek to compare the two I put down to “sick humour” because I can see no other justification for the comparison. I think you should ask to have the Title changed and you should be ashamed to be trying to make such dubious comparisons.

I really can not comprehend how you see any comparison. Before you reply I suggest you think about it all a bit more carefully. In my opinion you are (willfully) ignorant about many of the deeper issues surrounding the Israel / Palestine situation which makes you wrong in all your subsequent thinking. Not least in that your thinking produces (in your head) a comparison between Sharon and Saddam. Sick.

P

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :

Pyx E,

You make many valid points and if I say that I agree with much of what you say, may appear to be in contradiction to my earlier postings. However....

The central point for me is that Israeli leaders like Sharon seem to get away with things which are generally not tolerated by the world community of other countries partly because of the powerful Jewish lobby in America and partly because of the 'we're defending our country' argument, which is made nonsence of by the allowance of settlers in the occupied territories.

I cannot think a modern parallel to the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories except for (ironically) the way the Nazis moved Germans into countries that they were illegally occupying like Poland. THIS IS NOT A SICK COMPARISON BEFORE YOU SAY IT IS - OF ALL PEOPLES, SURELY THE JEWS HAVE A BETTER IDEA THAN ANYONE TO KNOW WHAT IT IS LIKE TO SEE YOUR HOMELAND BEING 'SETTLED' BY INVADERS, AFTER WHAT OCCURED IN WORLD WAR TWO.

Regarding the 'sick' comparison of Sharon to Saddam, both men to me are particularly vile and I see little point to the argument that Saddam has killed more people, done more bad things etc - in law, you get life for murder whether you kill two people or two million. When innocent Palestinians are being repeatedly killed or having their homes destroyed in vengeance raids by Israeli tanks, gunships and the like in response to attacks by minority groups of terrorists, Sharon is for me a war criminal. Suppose Britain had sent aircraft and tanks to bomb Irish civilians after every IRA bombing on the mainland?

Incidently (with further irony), the way Sharon and his ilk target civilians in responce to attacks by terrorists (or resistance fighters, depending on your point of view)is again, the way Nazi Germany reacted in countries like France and Czechoslovakia.

Many Jewish people would concede the above points
(that was made clear in the Kaufman programme refered to earlier).

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :

Well, it teetered along for three pages, but I think Lifeman's just lost. Look up Goodwin's Law to understand why.

Viki

Posted by James M (# 3414) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sarkycow:
Well, it teetered along for three pages, but I think Lifeman's just lost. Look up Goodwin's Law to understand why.

Viki

Succinct Definition [Big Grin]

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :

Ordinarily, Goodwin's Law would apply except that in the case of Israel, 'Hitler' and 'Nazism' are generally used to support arguments in favour of Israel at the OUTSET of any debate, usually on the grounds that Israel (or the Jewish peoples) are in an on-going battle against world anti semitism which was brought to an extreme by the Nazi's.

I don't how I have exemplified Goodwin's Law by pointing out the extreme irony of Israel's current actions in relation to the above. Goodwin's Law can surely only apply to debates where Nazism is not materially a part of the overall discussion. [Cool]

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

Invoking Godwin's Law as a substitute for rational thought (as it is being used here) hardly impresses me. People who do so should be made to show, in essays of 1000 words, exactly why it applies and the reference to the nazis is immaterial to the conversation at hand. At gunpoint.

Reader Alexis

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :

Well said, Mousethief,

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

As I recall, the Soviet Union actively moved Russians into the Baltic countries as a way of asserting more control. But no, Lifeman went for the Nazi's instead.

Sieg

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :

Siegfried,

You could probably find evidence that China has moved people into Tibet but I would still maintain that the example of the Nazis moving people into 'liebensraum' is a closer parallel to what has been happening in the West Bank and Gaza. At least one Israeli Prime minister has actually stated 'Palestine does not exist'!
Is'nt that like the Nazis claiming that certain countries had been Germanised?

Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on :

There are actually Holocaust survivors in Israel who see similarities between WWII and the way their country treats the Palestinians.

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lurker:
There are actually Holocaust survivors in Israel who see similarities between WWII and the way their country treats the Palestinians.

And?

As other posters have pointed out, there are plenty of other countries Lifeman could have used to draw a parallel with Israel's current behaviour. 'The Nazis' as a concept now has a lot of unspoken implicit ideas which go with it - ultimate in evil, mass-murdering, burning in Hell to name but three. Invoking such a concept says that you have run out of argument and are reduced to the textual equivalent of spluttering incoherently.
Comparing Israel's actions to those of the Nazis, is similar in a breath-takingly crass and highly stupid way to using rapists as a comparison for abused kids.

Viki, hellhost

Posted by Hull Hound (# 2140) on :

Is this thread about Ford Capri drivers in Essex?

Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on :

sarkycow,

My point was that, if holocaust survivors see the parallels, is using the analogy anti-semitic? (not that anyone on the thread has openly called Lifeman an anti-semite, but it's what goes through a lot of people's minds when they hear Hitler's name invoked in a debate on Israel) I personally wouldn't use the analogy, but I wouldn't condemn anyone who does. As for your points:

1 There are plenty of countries that come to mind, but Nazism is first. I can see why someone who considers a country's actions to be immoral would think of Hitler. It's the first thing that comes into most people's head when you think of a goverment doing wrong. Personally, I find elements of the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia to be a closer parallel to what is happening in the West Bank. The settlers don't want to wipe out the Palestinians, just get them off the land they consider theirs.

2 Some abused kids turn out to be abusers themselves.

To sum up, I think Lifeman's use of Nazism is tactless, would anger most Jewish readers, and overlooks the closer parallels that exist. But it neither makes him an anti-semite or invalidates his arguments.

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :

Lurker: I have not accused Lifeman of anti-semitism. I have pointed out that he has fallen foul of Goodwin's Law, and told people to look it up if they don't know what it means. James M has even provided a link. Perhaps you could read and understand what is going on before shooting your mouth off?

There is, as I am sure you will understand, a world of difference between a Jew pointing out parallels to Hitler, and A.N.Other pointing them out. Similar to the difference between a black person telling a joke against blacks, and a white person telling the same joke.

Mousethief: There were several other examples Lifeman could have used instead of 'ultimate evil' aka Nazism. In general, using the Nazis as your comparison shows intellectual poverty, as there are pretty much always other examples with which you can make comparisons.

Viki, hellhost

Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sarkycow:
Lurker: I have not accused Lifeman of anti-semitism

That'll be why I made sure my post states that nobody on this thread was calling lifeman an anti-semite, then.

As for Goodwin's Law, I disagree with it, mainly because it relates to the curious belief some people have that the Holocaust was a completely unprecedented, unique event, rather than the worst example of a desire that many people have- to exterminate those seen as an enemy. The difference between the Holocaust and, say, the massacres in Rwanda, is one of degree, not of kind. I did actually read James M's link but Mousethief had articulated my feelings on the 'Law', so my post was simply a reply to your most recent one.

Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on :

Actually, my post says no-one openly called Lifeman an anti-semite, so you may have misinterpreted it as meaning that you were insinuating that he was anti-semitic.

That's not what I meant and I'm sorry if my post wasn't clear on that point.

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :

Sarky Cow,

You still addressed the iss ue as to how Goodwin's law applies where Nazism is materially part of the argument.

In the case of Israel (even allowing for their friends in the US senate), the Israeli state is allowed to do many things like repeatedly flouting UN resolutions which others (like Saddam) are not allowed to do because the world still (quite rightly) feels a sense of guilt about the Holocaust. In this instance, it becomes especially relevent when the Israelis use Nazi methods themselves. So wher does Goodwin's Law come into this? Would it apply also is I was talking about the BNP and then mentioned Nazis?

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Lifeman: I can not begin to tell you how sad this phrase has made me.

quote:
... when the Israelis use Nazi methods themselves.

Until you moderate yourself and think a lot more carefully about what you are writing I intend to ignore you. I can not even be bothered to call you a name. Unspeakable.

Pyx_e

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

I can't stand it any more...

It's Godwin's Law. GODWIN. GODWINGODWINGODWINGODWINGODWIN.

Posted by Poet_of_Gold (# 2071) on :

Deut:23:7: Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.

In the first place, when the state of Israel was first set up, they should have allowed the Palestinians to remain in their homes, and they should have acquired the land gradually by legitimate purchases, just as corporations in America do.

Secondly, now that this conflagration has erupted, don't you think it is the responsibility of each individual involved to seek God's will in the situation? Has nobody thought to even ask God what to do? In the days of old, kings of Israel were punished for not inquiring of the Lord.

Saul and Asa are good examples of this, not to mention Ahab. Ahab was a full-blooded Jew, but he was wicked in his heart. To oppose him was not to be an anti-Semite.

Whatever we say they ought to do, don't you think we should be praying for the situation, for the people? God can guide their hands and direct their steps, even when the people themselves don't know it, just as in the days when Nebuchadnezzar was used of God without his knowing it.

Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Poet_of_Gold:
Secondly, now that this conflagration has erupted, don't you think it is the responsibility of each individual involved to seek God's will in the situation? Has nobody thought to even ask God what to do? In the days of old, kings of Israel were punished for not inquiring of the Lord.

I'm sure plenty of people have asked God what to do. And i'm sure that those people still have opposing views. I wish everyone who asked God the same question got the same answer.

Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I can't stand it any more...

It's Godwin's Law. GODWIN. GODWINGODWINGODWINGODWINGODWIN.

Or, if you're Jewish:

G-dwin's Law.

Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I can't stand it any more...

It's Godwin's Law. GODWIN. GODWINGODWINGODWINGODWINGODWIN.

Or, if you're Jewish:

G-dwin's Law.

Posted by Poet_of_Gold (# 2071) on :

There can only be one will of God, and it is our responsibility to find out what it is.

It is not our responsibility to tell others what it is. Their own conduct is between them and their Creator, and we will all be held accountable for it one day.

Posted by Poet_of_Gold (# 2071) on :

[Razz]

To clarify that a bit, we will all be held accountable one day for what we choose to do with the time God has given us.

We will not be held accountable for what others choose to do with the time they have been given.

Thank you.

Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on :

Now that someone else has posted, I can now apologise for my duplicate post without making a quadruple post.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0