Israel

Neil3030

Sickening.

We are talking about a nuclear nation that goes into towns with tanks and heavy bombing to combat men armed with the odd rifle or two. They then call this a war on terrorism? They have America's support because the yanks want to keep their Jewish citizens happy. A sick nation if you ask me. On the News they are always seen as the good guys because you hear of suicide bombers killing thousands of jews, which i don't condone but you have to ask yourself why someone would hate a country so much as to want to take his or her own life just to atack them. Israel are no good guys. Just look at the picture.

Boston

the cicle of abuse, abusie becomes abusier, they are several times worse then the nazi's for the simple reason no one will stand against them

Stephen

flamewar ahoy!

Victor

Originally posted by Neil3030
On the News they are always seen as the good guys because you hear of suicide bombers killing thousands of jews,

This is over stating the facts.

However, I saw the picture on the paper and yes it disturbed me. Like the footage of the soldiers shooting at the feet of the women on the way home with her shopping - as the reporter put it "shoot first, ask questions later".

azezil

Originally posted by Neil3030
On the News they are always seen as the good guys

I wouldn't agree with that, not sure what news you were listening too but the news i heard was about suicide bombers but they usually only kill one or two and injure some more. Then the Israilies send in their gun ships n blow the crap outta something!

I'v always seen teh Isralie's as teh agressive, unrelenting one.


And that pic is sickening

Neil3030

You are right i may have exaggerated the distructiveness of the suicide bombers but I always get the feeling that Sky News are more sympathetic towards Israel.

Keeks

Sky news is but BBC news is not al all sympathic towards them.

Having worked in the aera I've seen the hatred first hand and it is hundreds times worse than the sectarianism in the North. There will never be peace there unless Big Brother gets involved and actually does something. the Israelies are some of the most self centred and ignorant ppl I have ever met. They are totally blinded by the propaganda that their government (Sheron) tells them. the place has become really bad since he took over as prome minister.

Sand

I remeber Kevin Myers writing an article about people who made comments similar to:

Israelies are some of the most self centred and ignorant ppl I have ever met. They are totally blinded by the propaganda that their government (Sheron) tells them.

The article boiled down to: take a group of people, give them a massive chip on their shoulder along the lines of the holocaust, place them in a region where theyre actively despised by a large proportion (Id say majority but ill say proportion to avoid hairsplitting) of their neighbours, throw in an ongoing campaign of terrorism and attacks which sow an understandable fear and suspicion along with a healthy dose of ruthlessness.

And then people act all surprised when the Israelis dont act,vote and speak like people who live normal lives, in safe calm regions with little to no threat of death at any time from complete strangers.

Keeks

The only real was i could expalin them to my friends when i came back was that it was a country full of ppl who had the same bigoted ideas ad Ian Paisley. It was only way i make ppl understand what its like. Imagine a country of ian Paisleys.

/me shudders @ d thought

The Gopher

Yes Israel does a load of inhumane **** but gets off with a slap on the rist by the US.What Israel is doing at the mo is much worse than what the Serbs were doing in Kosovo before full scale war broke out.And the US was cricicising the Serbs long before the large scale massacres.1000-2000 people have died in Israel in riots and airstrikes mainly and the US says very little.12,000 Kosovans died i8n massacres-only a few dozen died in riots etc.But the US went mental on them for those deaths.On the subject of news bias I find that the likes of Jeremy Bowen and John Simpson on the BBC are very pro Palestinian-mainly cos many of their reports are based around the civillian suffering there.But generally I find sky news has no opinion in particular.

Victor

Originally posted by The Gopher
But generally I find sky news has no opinion in particular.

Watching Sky the other day and I am paraphrasing with the first one here:

Israeli with gun = doing his duty
Palestinian with gun = gunman

Victor

Originally posted by The Gopher
But generally I find sky news has no opinion in particular.

Watching Sky the other day and I am paraphrasing with the first one here:

Israeli with gun = doing his duty
Palestinian with gun = gunman

This was immediately after showing footage of Israeli soldiers firing at the feet of a woman walking home with shopping.

adnans

Personal Testimony of an Israeli Refusenik by Asaf Oron, is at least worth a read when discussing a topic about Israel.

adnans

Sand

1000-2000 people have died in Israel in riots and airstrikes mainly and the US says very little.12,000 Kosovans died i8n massacres-only a few dozen died in riots etc.But the US went mental on them for those deaths.

Hard to compare as the kosovars werent running into resteraunts and pizza parlours, detonating the exsplosives attached to them and commiting pre meditated murder of women, children and pensioners who were unlucky enough to be there.

BTW can anyone point me to a statistical breakdown of the deaths in this current round of violence? I.E Israeli Milatary, Israeli Police, Israeli civillians (including settlers) and Palestinian militants, palestinian authority officials (police and otherwise) and palestinian civillians? Preferably by a source which is not anti US/Israel or anti Palestine as they inevitably let their passions cloud their judgement.

The Gopher

Not sure of any exact figures but this week alone 50 people died.It passed the 1000 death toll perhaps last summer if I remember right.Since it has calmed down a little I would say that perhaps 1300 have died?Roughly 8-10 times as many Palestinians die as Israelis.
And the Kosovo Albanians DID kill civillians-though not on the scale of Palestinians.About a dozen farmers of serb origin were massacred soon after the peacekeepers arrived.Also about 400 other Serbs have died since the end of the war.

Sand

Hmmm I know the number of Israeli dead was a fraction of the palestinian dead. I was more interested in what the ratio fo civillian casualties was on both sides- i.e is it that 70% of Israeli casualties were civillian whilst say 70% of the Palestinian dead were militants/rioters/suicide bombers etc etc. Just out of curiosity. If anyone knows of such a statistical breakdown Id be grateful.

As for Kosovar attacks on Serbs after the arrival of NATO/UN forces we agree that the scale is not comparable.We also agree that such attacks are not acceptable regardless of justification (Id hope anyway). In Kosovo Milosevics regime carried out a sustained campaign of apartheid and systematic murder. Clearly Evil. The Kosovars (previous to the "liberation" anyway) were not as "violent" an oppressed people as the palestinians. You might claim that Israel is doing the same as Serbia (the implication from your comparison of Israel to Milosevics Serbia). Certainly its policy of *encouraging* settlements cannot be supported. So its pretty clear then that Israel is evil. But then we have Palestinians carrying out the aforementioned terrorism. So clearly theyre evil.

Whose a US president to support then? For every Arab woman getting shot at by Israeli troops theres a dozen Arabs carrying out suicide bombings against Israeli women and children. Whose more evil (seeing as weve got to the "best of a bad bunch" as Typedef put it in another thread regarding the PDs)?

Hard for the (rare) US president, who feels free to go against the large Pro-Israeli lobby in the US, and take a strongly moral stance to decide eh? Of course its fairly easy for the non-involved to decide - the side most associated with the US is cleary the most evil!

This could explain why a lot of Israel/Palestine threads start of with a long round of denouncing Israel with a few " of course i dont agree with suicide bombers but we should really try to understand why someone would want to blow up women and children" thrown in. Very few (any?) start off with the purpose of brining a palestinian atrocity in for discussion.

Personally I cant blame the current US philosophy of washing their hands of the problem (as much as the can- the pro-israeli lobby must be appeased to some degree).

they are several times worse then the nazi's for the simple reason no one will stand against them

Wooh, Boston finds somebody worse than me:|

Neil3030

Look at the picture, sand. That is a human being lying dead on the ground. Someone's son. And those 3 sick individuals treating him like a prize. How could you stand up for a country that carries out this kind of behaviour? Soldiers with years of training and the latest weapons versus a gunman trying to protect his city. That man wasn't killing women and children by blowing himself up. He was trying to defend his town from an army.

pugwall

Its sick
I wonder if the 'angry' Eoghan Harris (Hack with the Sunday Indo who also happens to have that "massive chip on his shoulder along the lines of the holocaust") bought the times that particular day and saw that revolting pic. That Palistinian man was killed with filthy American money.

Typedef

The article boiled down to: take a group of people, give them a massive chip on their shoulder along the lines of the holocaust, place them in a region where theyre actively despised by a large proportion (Id say majority but ill say proportion to avoid hairsplitting) of their neighbours, throw in an ongoing campaign of terrorism and attacks which sow an understandable fear and suspicion along with a healthy dose of ruthlessness.

And then people act all surprised when the Israelis dont act,vote and speak like people who live normal lives, in safe calm regions with little to no threat of death at any time from complete strangers. [/B]

Point of glaringly obvious fact!

The Israeli army is occupying palestinian land, it is bulldozing palestinian homes and the state of Israel is forcebly colonizing the 'annexed' land with Jew only 'settlements'. There is not a campaign of terror ongoing against Israel, Israel is clearly in the wrong here, the United Nations has tried and failed to interviene to constrain Israel inumerate times since the first wave of illegal Israeli annexation, occupation and Jew Supremecist actions have plagued the Palestinian people.
It is 'not' a terrorist campaign (at least on the Palestinian side), it is action of self defence, as I have stated Israel occupies land and colonises it contrary to the wishes of the 'entire' UN bar the US and Israel it self and that is all that has prevented foreign 'international' troops from long ago intervienign in some form.

Do the Palestinians not have the right, to not have their homes bulldozed by the Israeli army? Do the Palestinian people not have the right to their own state? Do people, the media and Pro-Israeli sentiments at large honestly believe that if one spits out one's pro-Israeli propaganda long enough and in the most ignorant and unobjective way possible that it will somehow become logic? Do these same people think if they call people nazi's long enough that suddenly their moronic totalitarian propaganda will enunciate itself as truth?
Never, for as long as I live will I ever capitulate to the extraneous error of logic, reason and morality that allows people to support Israel, a state which.

In terroritories occupied contrary to UN mandate has
1. Given 60,000 (illegal) colonists 17 times the right and acces to water than the 2.x million palestinian people who (legally) live on that land.
2. Allowed it's army acting in the name of the Israeli state and therefore representative of that state, to murder maim, and kill innocent people, bulldoze their houses, bomb their cars, and asassinate people it 'suspects' of being terrorists. The big difference here is (now try to assimilate this) Hamas does not act in the name of the palestinian state, that is why it is wrong to retaliate against the palestinian people for what Hamas does. Now if (some) people would try to look past the end of their biggoted nose and actually notice the difference here 'major' progress would be made.
3. Has made 'refugees' of 750,000 people who have been 'displaced' or some other such non-thought word from their own land, why because those people were terrorists?
4. Is in direct contravention of the 1948 UN resolution calling for the withdrawal of Israel troops from Palestinian land, and calls on Israel to make a quote 'Land for peace deal' with representatives of the Palestinian people.
5.Participated in the suppression of the human rights of the Palestinian people, it has denied them equal status with Jewish people on the grounds of religion, it has denied people the right to trial by jury instead favoring a policy of arbitrary asassination of 'terrorists' where 'terrorist' is anyone Israel deems so, it has in a contigious way flouted it's obligations to comply with the most basic requirements of the international community for 54 years and has with US protection enjoyed a status of being totally above the 'law', where other countries that infringe on UN resolutions in some instances get 1/50 the period of time to comply with resolutions.

And all the while Israel makes a mockery of five million years of human evolution and ten thousand years post-iceage civilisation, by it's blank cheque form the world's pre-eminant superpower, a superpower which lethargically allows any transgression to pe perpitrated by the state of Israel, a superpower that labels Palestine as 'terrorist' for resisting such clearly unfathomable supression, repression and terrorisation.

Sand

Look at the picture, sand. That is a human being lying dead on the ground. Someone's son. And those 3 sick individuals treating him like a prize. How could you stand up for a country that carries out this kind of behaviour?

Your obviously choked up with such righteous indignation that you missed the fact that I havent commented on the photo in any shape or form in your urge to attack somebody. But lets comment to satisfy you.

Im unfamiliar with the exact event but taking your description mentioned above Id have to say that soldiers tend to kill gunmen- or gunmen tend to kill soldiers. It could quite have easily been any of those Israeli soldiers dead and the palestinian celebrating his victory over the zionist satan spawn. Soldiers will tend to get crude in their victory "celebrations" (anyone who tries to pull condoning rape or assorted war crimes out of that statement is quite simply a moron and should keep it to themselves) because its one way to build up the sheer insanity/agression it takes to go into a situation where youre liable to be killed, rather than run away from said situation as most people would do. Soldiers have been celebrating killing their enemies and having survived for as long as their has been war. And it has been tolerated all down history. So is Israel good or evil because of this? Or it simply the way things are disagreeable as they might be?

Hmm Im pretty sure i criticised Israel when I said their policy of encouraging settlements could not be supported. If I defend Israel its because so many are intent to go on for yonks and yonks about the wrongs Israel have done- thus proving their evil- and yet dismiss Palestinian atrocities with "Well I dont condone terrorism but boy those evil Israelis are the ones really responsible by *making* them go out there attack civillians". My viewpoint is that theyre as bad as each other, but at the very least the Israelis do not engage in the evil of deliberately attacking targets seeking maximum civillian deaths.

Speaking of people who go on yonks and yonks about the wrongs Israel have done....Oh heres Typedef. Of course for Type he does not have to deal with the moral problem I posed regarding whose most evil in the post Neil responded to because....

It is 'not' a terrorist campaign (at least on the Palestinian side), it is action of self defence

So clearly not evil. The Israelis being the only ones doing anything evil its then quite clear whose not evil.

And all the while Israel makes a mockery of five million years of human evolution and ten thousand years pos-iceage civilisation,

And suicide bombers are what? A celebration of human evolution and post ice age civillisation?

Just to make sure we all know whose the most evil we can go for the "Most Associated With the US" acid test....

it's blank cheque form the world's pre-eminant superpower, a superpower with lethargically allows any transgression to pe perpitrated by the state of Israel, a superpower that labels Palestine as 'terrorist' for resisting such clearly unfathomable supression, repression and terrorisation.

Thats settled then. BTW i think that labelling of terrorist has something to do with the suicide bombings. I could be wrong.


Type is caught in the JPF trap. Because Israel is evil the palestinians cannot be. The fact that they could both carry out evil acts never enters his head. Even if they did hed still be hellbent on "proving" the Israelis were more evil, thus picking the "best of a bad bunch"- something he ridiculed in that PDs/SF thread there.

Im pretty sure Im a nazi cos I dont go along with the JPF view that the Israelis are evil and the Palestinians are good (or at least merely naughty)

Moriarty

Originally posted by Neil3030


Sickening.

That it is, but its not unique. In just about every long-term or high intensity conflict, similar things have occoured upto and including the gulf war. It dosent make it right, but you seem to think that only Israeli soldiers would do such a thing.

Originally posted by Neil3030
We are talking about a nuclear nation that goes into towns with tanks and heavy bombing to combat men armed with the odd rifle or two.

Would you prefer Israel to send in its soldiers in jeeps, so that they can more easily be killed? What exactly would the point in that be? They have tanks etc, so they use em.

You are very wrong with the use of the term 'heavy bombing'. Dresden during WW2 - that was heavy bombing. The Israelis are carrying out small-scale tactical bombing. Very different things, used for very different objectives.

Originally posted by Neil3030
Israel are no good guys. Just look at the picture.

With that twisted logic, Britan, Germany, France, the US, every other NATO member to a greater or lesser extent, Russia and numerous other countries are 'bad guys' because their troops have participated in similar things in their recent past. Go figure.

Ri-ra

I see the references to the JPF/ PFJ "splitters" are back in swing.

Even though they're trite attempts to deflect from real discussion, it's a shame that in this particular case they take on a crassly offensive resonance.

Keeks

Originally posted by adnans
Personal Testimony of an Israeli Refusenik by Asaf Oron, is at least worth a read when discussing a topic about Israel.

adnans

That is a really good article. Cheers for that adnans. Its good to get an insight into how ppl who live there see things. it would be nice to find a pro-israeli and a palestinian viewpoint aswell just to compare thinkings.

Sand

I see the references to the JPF/ PFJ "splitters" are back in swing.
Even though they're trite attempts to deflect from real discussion,

Rather ironic Ri-Ra. Someones using the JPF references to deflect from real discussion though:)

bonkey

Why is it that every single discussion on the Israel/Palestine argument seems to be filled with opinions that imply one side or the other is the victim.

The general consensus of the international body politik, which everyone (media, laypeople, and the nations themselves) seems to disregard is that both sides are at fault. Israel's occupation is not just under any stretch of the imagination, but neither is the Palestinian "response" to this occupation.

Pointing fingers at Israel and saying "nasty bully's" does absolutely nothing to mitigate the actions of the Palestinians. However, this is not to say that the Israeli's somehow have the higher moral ground. They dont.

There is no easy solution. Simply pointing at one side or the other and saying "you must stop such unacceptable practices" is pointless, because the simple fact is that both groups engage in unacceptable practices, and it is nigh on impossible to convince one group that they should somehow lead the way in stopping the fight. Leading the way is simply seen as a polite way of saying "admitting defeat", and so cannot happen.

jc

Boston

right so the palestinian are wrong, no one would dear say killing anybody is a good thing or that good things can come from it, but the simply fact is if it was in any other location, then they would have never resorted to this level of extremism they never would have needed to because this matter would have been sorted out long ago

damn sure if it ws in euope it wouldnt have lasted 5 years let alone 50

Boston

i think, as in kosovo the powers that be would step in long before you had people willing to blow themselves apart in the hundreads, or even worse people willing the fact an isreali prison

they certainly wouldnt be funding and selling weapons to one side

nick_riviera

The tragedy of the current situation is that surely both sides should be able to see what a final peace settlement will look like, ie; Israeli withdrawal from the territories,dismantling of the settlements,and some kind of compromises on Jerusalem and the right of return of Palestinian refugees.There is no military solution to this but the current Israeli goverment seems set on continuing with the current strategy,which aside from the pain it is causing on the Palestinian side is damaging their own economy and morale.From what I hear,ordinary Israelis have never been so nervous,over a year after Sharon started to "get tough" on the Palestinians.Mind you,the Palestinian Authority should crack down on the propoganda that gets taught and broadcast in the territories,did anyone see the picture of the kid on front of the Irish Times today?If only a passive resistence movement would begin among Palestinians,they'd get their homeland faster.

Boston

there are and have been several, none worked. i mean were the hell did the home rule party get us?

Keeks

Originally posted by Boston
there are and have been several, none worked. i mean were the hell did the home rule party get us?

A lot of dead Irish ppl during WW I

Boston

good point,

nick_riviera

Not an unfair point,but suicide bombings are hardly going to work
either.International law and moral argument is on the side of Israeli withdrawal and a Palestinian state,but blowing up pizza restaraunts and buses is not likely to increase international sympathy.Aside from the fact that it is counter-productive,it's also
just plain wrong.

Celt

TypeDef and Sand arguing on a thread about Israel, how shocking!

Me, it's rather obvious that neither side should be in control in israel, whichever one was in power, I'm quite sure the status quo would not change.

Fidelis

Originally posted by Neil3030 That is a human being lying dead on the ground. Someone's son. And those 3 sick individuals treating him like a prize

Don't be so naive. Using the term 'human being' doesn't portray the Palestinian gunman in any higher regard then the Israelis. I agree that the image is disturbing to look at, but that's only because you don't see powerful images like that very often. As has been said in this thread before; it's nothing special when in the context of warfare.

Soldiers with years of training and the latest weapons versus a gunman trying to protect his city

Ugh, I've said this before. They're mostly conscripts, something like 6 weeks basic training - off to the front & serve your country.

Bizarely, I find myslef agreeing with Sand on this topic.

Boston

give it a minute, you soon wont

JustHalf

I'm shocked the level of muppertry on this thread has remained at "moderate" or below.

Here's something of interest.

http://www.underash.com/emessage.htm

It's great when people use the Q'oran to back their opinion, when I was SURE there was only one Satan in the book...

Typedef

As much as I hate repeating myself and making enemies of people in political posts, I have to say that it is quite easy for a bunch of comparitavely middle class < 30 year old males to regard Israeli actions as somehow 'balanced' when viewed in the context of some kind of supposedly moral qualification that is exponenciated by 'war'.

Interesting how people can seem to feel themselves objective in labeling Israel and Palestine as the flip side of each other. This is a fallacy of politically correct thought. You see in the act of trying to promote your 'political correctness' you actually miss the fact that if what is perpitrated against the Palestinian people were perpirtated against you against us the Irish in the Republic by anyone the response of people on this Island would be much the same as the Palestinian people.

To my mind either people are ignorant of the years of repression by the Israelii state of the Palestinian people since 1948 and the miasma of filibustered UN resolutions with regard to Israel since 1948 or people simply choose to feel a kind of self gratification and subliminal qualification and intellectual smugness that they have come to a 'balanced' view, when in fact you have come to a view that is not based on objective evaluation of the facts to any great extent.

If you do the slightest search on UN resolutions as regard Israel you will find a wealth of information regarding this issue. Search for information on the law of return, on the 'displacing' of 750,000 people by Israel, the demolition and colonization of 'occupied territories' (to use the sanitized vernacular), and then realise that a balanced view seeks to equate the last 54 years of Israeli expansionist militarism and the resistance of the Palestinian people to this repressive nuclear power.

How many different tangents and angles and litonies, accusations of nazi, accusations of terrorism of the Palestinian side without the slightest mention of it's context and reason for being must people ascribe to such a fecicious 'balanced view' before it feels logical and comfortable?

I've given up posting to threads like this, there comes a point where pointing out 54 years of brutal repression just to be countered by 'Palestinians blow up pizza parlors' becomes futile. The logic is 'well Palestinian's resist repression and I don't like their tactics so that must mean Israel is in the right', which for me is perhaps too boolean, too simplistic and too easy for people to simply sit back hold up their hands and say 'oh well they're all mad in the Middle East and sure the news tells me how Palestinians are terrorists, so it must be true'.

Yeah right, so this is the picture, Palestinian born, grows up, goes about his/her business and decides that instead of becoming a doctor he/she wants to become a suicide bomber, because the news says so, so it must be true.
QED.

Yeah hello, I'd like to order a brain for my friend..... second thought better make that two

PS:
It's at times like this I wonder what did Europe fight the two world wars over? It was supposed to be ideology and 'freedom' and some isms presumably, but clearly these isms were a comfortable vehicle for a neo-Imperialism, if not then why is it the case that the isms 'we' fought for can so easily be forgotten for example when we reference Israel? Clearly if the wars were about freedom, then we lost, if they were about *ism then those isms seem like comfortable clothes that 'we' can slip on and off at will.

Sand

Type Im assuming as a child prodigy youre reasonably intelligent. Why then do you miss the point?

How many different tangents and angles and litonies, accusations of nazi, accusations of terrorism of the Palestinian side without the slightest mention of it's context and reason for being must people ascribe to such a fecicious 'balanced view' before it feels logical and comfortable?

Type dont be offended but you sound like Sinn Fein/32 countiy sovereignty comittee exscusing IRA attacks - "Sure, we regret the deaths but its really the brits fault for forcing them to plant that bomb at omagh- you have to remeber the context". I dont want to offend you. I can already guess youre pissed off at being compared to SF on that. Like I said I dont believe you support that sort of theing. But given that how can you exscuse suicide bombings with talk about context etc?

The palestinians might have a valid case. Indeed I believe they do have a valid case. But talk about UN resolutions and Israelis bulldozing homes and so on does not give anyone the right or the justification for carrying out suicide attacks against civillians. It accomplishes *nothing* except misery and suffering which is the true evil of terrorism.

there comes a point where pointing out 54 years of brutal repression just to be countered by 'Palestinians blow up pizza parlors' becomes futile. The logic is 'well Palestinian's resist repression and I don't like their tactics so that must mean Israel is in the right', I don't like their tactics so that must mean Israel is in the right'

The palestinians tactics is terrorism. The bombing of women and children for no other reason than theyre Israeli women and children. I hate terrorism with a passion. I despise apologists for terrorism. It is the most futile, petty and insane evil Ive ever seen. Every SF person Ive seen fumbling, trying to dodge the word "condemn" makes my skin crawl. The fact that youre still playing "Whose most evil" shows you dont understand.

What you dont understand is I recognise the 54 years of repression etc. I accept that. What you dont get despite me saying it again and again and again is that it is *no* justification whatsoever for bombing women and children. None. Every common murderer has his sad tale to tell.

if not then why is it the case that the isms 'we' fought for can so easily be forgotten for example when we reference Israel? Clearly if the wars were about freedom, then we lost, if they were about *ism then those isms seem like comfortable clothes that 'we' can slip on and off at will.

Incredibly ironic.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
What you dont understand is I recognise the 54 years of repression etc. I accept that. What you dont get despite me saying it again and again and again is that it is *no* justification whatsoever for bombing women and children. None. Every common murderer has his sad tale to tell.

But are you not equally missing Typedef's point? He is not saying that the bombing of pizza parlers is right (at least, not by my reading), but that it is somewhat understandable.

You have a nation which has been oppressed for 54 years, by an aggressor which the rest of the world (led by the US) are generally portraying as "the good guy".

When does resistance turn into terrorism? This is the morally difficult question we find ourselves having to ask. On one hand, it is fair to say that the Palestinian targets appear civilian, and therefore the acts are not of resistance but of inflicting terror.

On the other hand, is it not true that all adults (or all adult males) in Israel are required to be members of the military. In short - there are no civilian adult males (or adults, if its an "equal rights" society"). By extension, every child is a soldier in the making - they *will* become a member of the military. In this respect, one could argue that these are therefore valid targets, or that the valid targets (the adult men) are shielding themselves behind a curtain of innocents - something which the world superpowers seem to be able to use as justification, but obviously the bad guys cant.

I would also suggest that before we condemn the Palestinians we look at the reasoning for their actions. The "arabs hate Israelis" argument is ridiculous - because the attacks are coming from one of several neighbouring arab nations.

The simple fact is that we have a state resisting oppression from an aggressor who is vastly more technologically advanced, and who has the military backing of the most powerful army in the field today. Exactly how can you resist such oppression? Negotiations have repeatedly failed, woth both sides blaming the other, but at the end of the day, the Israeli's have never once simply offered to give back what they took. So before someone tries saying "give peace a chance, use diplomacy", please explain why there is any credible reason to believe it will result in an acceptable solution for both sides?

So, what do we have. We have a nation who is oppressed, and who has some of its land categorised as "occupied territory". We have failed negotiations where the occupier has refused time and time again to simply withdraw to its original borders. We have twe nations so imbalanced in military might that a war between them is a laughable concept. So - what does that leave the Palestinians as options? I see two :

1) Give up your lost land. Given that it Ireland spent several hundred years refusing to give up our lost land (before ultimately getting most of it back), I think we should at least realise the hyprocacy of us advocating this to anyone.

2) Fight in whatever way you can. Given that this is what the Irish did for hundreds of years against our militarily superior aggressor to regain our freedom, I think we should be very careful about condemning this as an unacceptable practice.

Terrorism is horrific. Yes, the Palestinian terrorists should be condemned. But Israel should be equally condemned for creating and perpetuating the situation which created these very terrorists. Hatred of Jews did not create the terrorists - because if that were the case, why are they all coming from one nation? The occupation of land has created these terrorists.

Give back the territories, and wait. Afterwards, any significant continued terrorism is enough to justify walking back in, but really - do these occupied territories hold *any* benefit to Israel today? I dont think so, other than avoiding the "loss of face" of being seen to capitulate to terrorists.

jc

Sand

But are you not equally missing Typedef's point? He is not saying that the bombing of pizza parlers is right (at least, not by my reading), but that it is somewhat understandable.

He said the palestinians were only defending themselves. So I assume hes sees nothing wrong with the bombing of targets like pizza parlours. It is in self defence after all.

When does resistance turn into terrorism?

When they start carrying out terrorist atrocities.

By extension, every child is a soldier in the making - they *will* become a member of the military. In this respect, one could argue that these are therefore valid targets

Bonkey I dont even know where to begin with a statement like that. Suffice it to say I disagree wholeheartedly that that could be used as a valid justification for terrorism.

1) Give up your lost land. Given that it Ireland spent several hundred years refusing to give up our lost land (before ultimately getting most of it back), I think we should at least realise the hyprocacy of us advocating this to anyone.

You overestimate Irelands resistance and the determination of that resistance. We just recently surrendered our territorial claim on Northern Ireland. So I dont see how its hypocritical.

2) Fight in whatever way you can. Given that this is what the Irish did for hundreds of years against our militarily superior aggressor to regain our freedom, I think we should be very careful about condemning this as an unacceptable practice.

Theres a difference between warfare, even guerilla warfare- and outright murderous terrorism. We should be very careful that we *always* condemn terrorism as an unacceptable practice.

Canaboid

Sand will never accept that violence is sometimes both necessary and justified.
That is why he repeatedly ignores the core point in others arguments.
The Palestinians are fighting an occupying army for their homeland. I don't see how they can do anything less.
To listen to Sand, I would swear there is some kind of terrorist gene which has tainted the Palestinian people. "They just can't help commiting atrocities".

My views on this may be polarised by the fact that I'm Irish and as a nation we've been down this road before. I'm sorry to say violence played a huge part in every painful step towards establishing a Republic.

Once again Sand, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter so please stop making that particular distinction. You sound like GW Bush.

Lemming

Well .. time to throw in my 2p worth

I must say that I have to agree with Bonkey and TypeDef (yes folks .. you read that last name right First time for everything, eh Type? )

I don't completely agree, but most of what they've said does ring true. Yes, I despise terrorism for whatever reason its been committed, but if you understand the problem, then you can resolve the problem. The current israeli administration seems to be perfectly content with the status quo, which would imply that they see no reason to talk when they have such overwhelming military superiority. That is an affront to not only humanity, but to their own people as they are happy to sit back and watch more die.

I do not excuse the Palestinian terrorist actions one bit Sand, but I do see *why* they think that they [the actions] are needed.

JustHalf

Genius:

http://www.overclockers.com/tips861/

You have two people, one land, and there's enough people on either side who don't want to share to keep those who do from doing that. That's the Israeli-Palestinian problem in one sentence.

And when one of those sides has a couple hundred nuclear weapons; they ain't going away and nobody else is going to make them go away, no matter how unfair or unjust or unanything else it is. No matter how many martyrs you make or rocks you throw.

Rocks and world opinion can get you to a negotiating table. They'll never get you a white flag. The most the Palestinians can expect for the foreseeable future is to get a West Bank state. Forty years ago, Israel didn't have the West Bank. Thirty years ago, Israel probably would have agreed to a West Bank state, no problem. Twenty years ago, they probably could have been persuaded to agree to a viable West Bank state without too much fuss. Today? If a reasonably viable West Bank state hasn't already become a fantasy, that day is soon approaching.

You Have To Know When To Hold 'Em, Know When To Fold 'Em

In chess, you can't always play to win. When you're in a hole, you fight for a draw, because the only other alternative is losing. The Palestinians are in a hole, hell, they're in quicksand, and Israel keeps leaning on them, and the more some of them struggle for total victory, the quicker they sink.

Some Palestinians realize that for a start, they have to stop sinking. Probably most. The problem is enough don't to preclude any sort of long-term deal or peace. They're only strong enough to defeat peace, not the Israelis.

You and your people live in a valley. Little Sprout shows up and buys some of it. Most of you don't like this idea, so you try to chase him out of it. Instead, he chases you out of a lot more of the valley.

You get some of your friends to chase him out, and Little Sprout keeps whipping both their butts and yours, each time grabbing more. Your friends get tired of this and get the hell out of the valley. Then Little Sprout starts showing up with the Jolly Green Giant, who tut-tuts every once in a while as Little Sprout keeps grabbing more from you, but always backs up Little Sprout when push comes to shove.

Sure, you can try to set fire to the valley and try to chase Little Sprout away, but you can't do too much with just a Bic. You can hurt him a bit here and there, but he can always hurt you more, and every once in a while, Little Sprout has the Giant (or at least his machines) accidentally step on you. If by some miracle, you ever got Little Sprout in real trouble, imagine how much foot-stomping the Giant can do if he means it.

Even if the Giant someday gets mad at Little Sprout and walks away from the valley for good, Little Sprout can blow up the valley out of sheer spite.

This is not exactly a scenario for total victory.

This is like the old computer cartoon that shows a programming flowchart and the single link between the rest of the flowchart and its completion has as its description "And then a miracle happens." In either case, it's not something you can count on.

If I wanted to someday eradicate Little Sprout (which I certainly don't), the smart thing to do is to first realize I've been getting my ass kicked for over fifty years and maybe it's time for a new approach. Right now, Little Sprout is a lot likelier to throw me and mine out of the valley sometime soon than the other way around.

While the Giant doesn't especially want Little Sprout chucking me, he definitely wants me and mine to stop trying to evict or even bother Little Sprout.

So make the best deal with the Giant you can get, then leave Little Sprout alone for a long time and work to improve yourselves and your country until another, better time and place.

Mr. Arafat realized at least the first part of this quite a while back. His problem is that too many of his countrymen won't swallow even the first part for him to control, and they're too strong for peace, too weak for victory.

One of the great ironies of our time is that the biggest friend of Israeli expansionism have been those who have fought it and hate it the most.

What does all this has to do with the game? The problem is not that this game being played as a fantasy; it's that reality is being played that way.

Do you know what would be a useful and truly dangerous intifada game? It wouldn't be a shoot-me-up. It would be like SimCity. In order to win, you have to stay quiet and build up your resources for a long, long time, maybe for a hundred years. Then maybe you start thinking about kicking butt.

Now that would be a game that would scare the bejezus out of Israel. Hell of a lot more than some fantasy rock throwing.

Boston

sands arguement is that nothing makes the bombing of "innocent"(i could argue that point) right.

you seem to be missing this typedef, of course we all agrea that killing anyone is a terrible thing and in no way is it anything but wrong. But the realist has to fact the fact that sometime needs must and there is no room for the moral high ground when fighting for your life let alone your freedom

bonkey

Originally posted by Canaboid
Sand will never accept that violence is sometimes both necessary and justified.

Not true. Did he not support the "necessary and justified" violence in Afghanistan?

See, its a question of how the violence is carried out. Sand argues that

We should be very careful that we *always* condemn terrorism as an unacceptable practice

which seems like a reasonable comment. Its not violence which we necessarily oppose, but rather the use of violence for terrorist activities. The problem is the question of what constitutes terrorism. There seems to be no clear definition. Therein lies the problem.

Why can we not clearly define terrorism beyond a glib assertion that it is an action designed to achieve its goal through the use of terror.

For example, if a military target is attacked, how do we define the difference between "guerilla", "resistance" and "terrorist" activities? The IRA bombed many "valid" targets, but it was always a terrorist act. Why?

So, its obviously not the target which matters. How about the act itself. Well, I fail to see how a mortar bomb from the Northern Alliance against the Taliban was "freedom fighting" or "resistance", but a mortar bomb from (say) the Palestinians would be terrorist in nature.

So, perhaps, the difference lies elsewhere. But if so, then where? Is it that freedom-fighters et al are all "official military of an unofficial government", where terrorists are no-ones military? Well, then, what distinguishes between criminals (say extortion rackets) and terrorists.

The simple fact is that terrorism is an ill-defined concept, which can be selectively applied, depending on the standpoint of the observer.

As for my assertion which Sand disagreed with that all Israeli's could arguably be considered legal targets....your disagreement only goes to prove my point that it is dependant on the standpoint of the observer. Did you condemn the US for bombing government buildings (during the Gulf War, IIRC), filled with non-military targets, with a creche out the front, when they justified it as people who were guilty by association and who could not be let hide behind a deliberately placed human shield - actions which prompted Timothy McVeigh to "return the favour" in his bombing in Oklahoma City (and be condemned for it). If not, I would really ask you to look again at what I'm saying about standpoints. Why do we condemn one and not the other? The human cost is the same, regardless of political ideology.

Again, I would remind people that I do not claim the Palestinians are right. I simply claim that almost every other nation in the world would act as they do if put in their situation, and that they are in a situation which is perpetuated not by their choice.

I would also argue that the condemnation of them is very simple, but if we condemn them, there should be a moral imperative on us to apply such condemnation unilaterally, rather than on a "who performed it" case-by-case situation, which is what we have at present.

It is not terrorism which we should condemn, but rather barbaric acts of violence. I see no difference in 100 innocent deaths caused by one conscious act or another - regardless of who perpetrated the act. Condemning terrorism only condemns one set of perpetrators. I condemn them all, but equally seek to understand why each of them made the choices they did.

Oh - one last thing....

Why does Israel need to keep the annexed land? What is so damned important about it that they cant just give it back? Or is the price of land more important then the chance of peace?

jc

Sand

Sand will never accept that violence is sometimes both necessary and justified.

Correction: Ill never accept that terrorism is sometimes both necessary and justified. I imagine we differ here.

The Palestinians are fighting an occupying army for their homeland. I don't see how they can do anything less.

Heres a clue. Instead of targeting civillians (terrorism) they could actually target the Israeli milatary (milatary/guerilla). I know about now your picking your jaw up off the floor at the simplicity of the concept of waging *war* as opposed to waging *terror*. This actually works however because you can actually win a war.

Once again Sand, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter so please stop making that particular distinction. You sound like GW Bush.

There is a distinction. If it makes you uncomftable to be reminded of it just go to a few JPF meetings. Theyll set you straight.

But the realist has to fact the fact that sometime needs must and there is no room for the moral high ground when fighting for your life let alone your freedom

The realist should also recognise that terrorism doesnt work. Its only goal is pain and misery and its only result is pain and misery.

Why can we not clearly define terrorism beyond a glib assertion that it is an action designed to achieve its goal through the use of terror.

For example, if a military target is attacked, how do we define the difference between "guerilla", "resistance" and "terrorist" activities? The IRA bombed many "valid" targets, but it was always a terrorist act. Why?

I define terrorism as an attack against civillian targets, with the intention of maximum civillian casualties and impact on other civillians. Terrorism is not a milatary action. Maybe you dont agree with that definition? I cant help you then.
I will help you with the IRA question. The reason IRA attacks were always terrorist attacks was because the IRA was a terrorist organisation. Attacks on the British army were not terrorist in and of themselves. They were milatary (guerilla) actions. However, these attacks were fairly rare, the bread and butter of the IRA and other terrorists being abducting and murdering civillians, or leaving bombs in busy streets and calling it a blow for a free ireland (reminded of the palestinians? ). Because the attacks on the Army were carried out by terrorists they were called terrorist attacks.

Did you condemn the US for bombing government buildings (during the Gulf War, IIRC), filled with non-military targets, with a creche out the front, when they justified it as people who were guilty by association and who could not be let hide behind a deliberately placed human shield

My own belief was that the gulf war was a war. It was a milatary operation. Civillian casualties were not the target. In fact US planners in the Afghan war for example often aborted attacks because the risk of civillian casualties was too great. For a terrorist the civillian casualties *are* the target. Of course civillians die in wars. No one wants that. Those deaths are not intentional however, unlike terrorism.

Why does Israel need to keep the annexed land? What is so damned important about it that they cant just give it back? Or is the price of land more important then the chance of peace?

Dammed if I know. I assume it has something to do with their own version of manifest destiny - settlers going out to reclaim their homeland as the chosen people blah blah blah. One however cant forget that the palestinians put a high enough price on that land as well. In blood.


As a general point Im a bit saddened by the fact that I see again and again on this thread "I dont support terrorism BUT..." .

The Gopher

For whoever asked it about 40 posts ago the thousandth Palestinian died since September 2000 yesterday.In the same period 288 Israelis died.From TV3 text.Imagine because an arsehole politician tried making a point 1288 people are dead.At least Drumcree never got that out of hand.

Celt

So Sand you agree that the Israeli government and military are also terrorist's and that there whole nation aids and abet's them?

Winning Hand

At the moment it would appear that there are 14 israeli soldiers cornered in a refugee camp (how did they get there?). Im just curious to know your (generic address) reaction if none of the soldiers leave there alive.
Although its not gonna happen, it would be a massive statement to the world to make by the palestinians if they let them go, following up on Saudia Arabias promising proposal this week.
Today one israeli soldier was killed, 8 palestinians

Victor

I will help you with the IRA question. The reason IRA attacks were always terrorist attacks was because the IRA was a terrorist organisation. Attacks on the British army were not terrorist in and of themselves. They were milatary (guerilla) actions. However, these attacks were fairly rare, the bread and butter of the IRA and other terrorists being abducting and murdering civillians, or leaving bombs in busy streets and calling it a blow for a free ireland (reminded of the palestinians? ). Because the attacks on the Army were carried out by terrorists they were called terrorist attacks.

On a point of information, approximately half the deaths (but not injuries) caused by the IRA were civilians. With Loyalists the figure was about 80% civilians. I'm not sure of the figures for the Security forces. This reduces the ability to call the IRA terrorists when compared to Loyalists.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Victor
This reduces the ability to call the IRA terrorists when compared to Loyalists.

Im sorry, but no it dosent. It means they are both terrorists, with different objectives.