Israel vs. Middle Eastern Arab states

[JAStewart]

I am an Atheist who appreciates Xmas and the tree and presents have nothing to do with Jesus Christ. Atop our tree we had a cat, or a santa or something.

 

Britain is a nation which is culturally Christian but not based on Christian laws. America is the same, indeed its constitution was created under a secular understanding, by deists.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Since the mods are now not bothered about the Holohoax now being dragged up as an excuse for draining the blood of more innocents I feel it apt to mention a couple of points.

 

"I've checked out Churchill's Second World War and the statement is quite correct†not a single mention of Nazi 'gas chambers,' a 'genocide' of the Jews, or of 'six million' Jewish victims of the war. This is astonishing.  How can it be explained? Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill's Second World War total 4,448 pages; and de Gaulle's three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages.  In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi 'gas chambers,' a 'genocide' of the Jews, or of 'six million' Jewish victims of the war."

 

What about the population of Jews?  Per World Almanac figures, it INCREASED by 584,549 between 1941 and 1948. So, this being the case, where did the 6,000,000 dead go?

[paulb]

Name an all-Christian state.

the vatican city state. well i hope it is anyway.

[paulb]

Since the mods are now not bothered about the Holohoax now being dragged up as an excuse for draining the blood of more innocents I feel it apt to mention a couple of points.

 

"I've checked out Churchill's Second World War and the statement is quite correct†not a single mention of Nazi 'gas chambers,' a 'genocide' of the Jews, or of 'six million' Jewish victims of the war. This is astonishing.  How can it be explained? Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill's Second World War total 4,448 pages; and de Gaulle's three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages.  In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi 'gas chambers,' a 'genocide' of the Jews, or of 'six million' Jewish victims of the war."

 

What about the population of Jews?  Per World Almanac figures, it INCREASED by 584,549 between 1941 and 1948. So, this being the case, where did the 6,000,000 dead go?

 

i deny it. no arabs have ever died at the hands of isreal they all went on holiday.

i think its more to do with nationalism on both sides thats causing the problem.

yes isreal does over react. but the yanks went to war twice for one avent. imagine what they would have done if say cuba had fired missiles and suiside bombers ect.

imagine being surrounded by countries that were hell bent on your destruction your fingers may get twitchy on the trigger to.

we went to war over some islands thousands of miles away so isreal has the same right to kill maime and slaughter as the other moral countries have.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

isreal has the same right to kill maime and slaughter as the other moral countries have.

 

Just cause you got the power, that don't mean you got the right

[Guest Anonymous]

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7819257.stm

 

Thought this was a brally good explanation , they will never win anything with bullets and bombs , maybe if they went around spendin da same amount o money on handin out food , medicines and providing infrastructure etc den da arabs wid maybe tak mair o a liking tae dem ??

Den again im likly just spikin a lot o drite , one o theses days somebody is mair likly to set aff an a-bomb in Teli Aviv .

Not gowing up under such a situation means I can never really understand either sides mind set .

Thay aaa waste to much time trootlin on aboot god and Allah !

Dats da main budder .

[paulb]

isreal has the same right to kill maime and slaughter as the other moral countries have.

 

Just cause you got the power, that don't mean you got the right

but isreal is rightwing and nationalistic i thought you would approve.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

but isreal is rightwing and nationalistic i thought you would approve.

 

YOU thinking, I'm afraid I find that rather hard to believe.

 

 

the yanks went to war twice for one avent

 

Avent the Manufacturers of baby feeding systems, skincare and Niplette (for inverted nipples).

Must have been before my time but yes this would seem an over the top reason to go to war twice.

[EM]

First of all, perhaps you could give your idea of what would be a proportional response (if any) from Israel to defend itself against Hamas’ rocket attacks.

I would suggest their best approach would be to follow droilker's suggestion of trying genuinely to improve the real conditions of the disaffected and bitter people. The popularity of Hamas and Hezbollah is most likely to be more due to their having invested in practical social programmes rather than the military campaigns. Oppressed people only stop fighting, be they Jewish, Arab, Irish..., when they no longer feel it absolutely needed. Never from being shat on however hard.

 

One thing I keep noting in your posts is that you seem to assume that when someone points out something negative about Israel the person is automatically in the other bi-polar camp. This may be true for some but not in my case. My points are all addressed to pointing out the hypocrisy of the Zionist establishment. Despite having no admiration for Begin or Shamir, I have more respect for them than the current crew. They did not pretend that their terrorism was different to other terrorism. They believed it a necessary tool to deal with injustice. Like the more liberal Zionists I think their project was ill-conceived and bound to result in the current situation. To bleat, as Bibi etc do, about Hamas terrorism as being fundamentally different achieves nothing positive.

 

... you abandon the need for context to protect your idea of disproportionate Israeli actions from debate. ... you are unwilling to put your definition of proportionality to debate.

I am not unwilling to discuss any point, but I'm not going to argue for words put in my mouth.

 

I would suggest you can’t have it both ways

I must say that this is something I reject very strongly. People trying to have things both ways is something which I particularly dislike. Indeed, as noted, it is the reason for my posts here.

 

All Zionists are extremist terrorists? Zionism being equated with Nazism (or worse if it can be conceived), please tell me you don’t believe this

Of course not all. I had already clarified that Zionism was a "wider church" and my issues are with the current Zionist establishment. These people are I believe extremely extreme, if that is a feasible term. As for comparison to Nazism, such a point has been well argued (see end of this post). I don't think it really matters just what the top-ten of extremism is. Once you go beyond a certain threshold it is all pretty ugly. I am no Nazi apologist (they were and are scum) but remember that statistically there would have been people who believed in most of the whole patriotic slant of the NSDAP but didn't agree with the most extreme tenets. I would say that todays Zionists are typically extremists and that the liberal Zionist is now as rare as hens teeth.

 

Would you have the same problems with a future Palestinian state’s historical association with terrorism that you do with Israel’s?

I would have a problem if they hypocritically suddenly denied that they had considered terrorism a legitimate tool.

 

You would be on stronger ground selecting other Palestinian terror groups

Your selection not mine. I only refer to Hamas when they have been mentioned in terms of something specific.

 

Isn’t Israel surrounded by prime examples of far more extremist states?

Extremist yes, but I don't think more so.

 

You can’t single out Israel in this respect. Many countries disregard international laws when it suits them.

Hence my proviso.

 

In what more specific ways is it an extremist state?

Returning to the Nazi aspect again, how about another Quiz question?

 

Who said:

 

The public avowals of Begin's party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.

...

Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority.

...

This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means

 

Well?

[Guest Anonymous]

The mass demonstrations we are now seeing around the world against Israels conduct and the plight of the palastinians are now taking on epic scale proportionss , They are bombing the muslim world into a very deep hatred against them it seems ....... They are also just dismissing legally binding un resolutions calling for ceasefire..... the united nations is a complete farce at maintaining any sort of worldly law and order it nearly may as well not exist , it is just one big list of failure .

I am pretty sure Israel is going to reap the whirlwind BIGTIME at some point in the future .

All in all its a very sorry state of affairs.

[paulb]

The mass demonstrations we are now seeing around the world against Israels conduct and the plight of the palastinians are now taking on epic scale proportionss , They are bombing the muslim world into a very deep hatred against them it seems ....... They are also just dismissing legally binding un resolutions calling for ceasefire..... the united nations is a complete farce at maintaining any sort of worldly law and order it nearly may as well not exist , it is just one big list of failure .

I am pretty sure Israel is going to reap the whirlwind BIGTIME at some point in the future .

All in all its a very sorry state of affairs.

maybe thats what helps keep their govements in power.not to mention the billions of aid money from the usa.

its a lot easier to make war than peace.

 

to another poster my slip of avent instead of event is not in your league of mistakes but then none can compare with you genius.

[Guest Anonymous]

Thankyou plaub for recognizing my true genius , most folks just think im an eccentric nut but I do try my best to be a likeable one .

Yes some of my grammer here is atrooshus butim just hairin me views whit we being stuck inside we dis awful wedar .

I hope for all da bairns oot yunder dat some sausage will see sense ....

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Thankyou plaub for recognizing my true genius

 

HERE, back off. It was me she was coming on to.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Henry Kissinger trys his hand at a message of hope:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7LZ2mRQNyU

 

His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when really a new world order can be created. It's a great oppertunity, it isn't just a crisis.

http://img3.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/rolleye/rolleye0010.gif

 

the patsy to take the flack, while the new world order is forced through by the real rulers of the world.

[Gibber]

I would suggest their best approach would be to follow droilker's suggestion of trying genuinely to improve the real conditions of the disaffected and bitter people. The popularity of Hamas and Hezbollah is most likely to be more due to their having invested in practical social programmes rather than the military campaigns.

 

That's not really a response to stop Hamas' rocket attacks is it? Hamas got elected over Fattah because of what they did for Gazan civilians to improve their conditions, and because of the corruption of Fattah. I don't know the extent of Hamas' credo of Jihad in their success in the elections. Hamas are going to stop fighting when there is no Israel, improved social conditions are not going to stop the fundamentalists of Hamas who will fight on in the name of God regardless. If social conditions had improved after Israel's withdrawal then perhaps there wouldn't be a war today. If Israel and the PA had genuinely sought to improve the real social conditions then perhaps rocket attacks would not have continued. But as I say, we are discussing Israel's response and what response is proportional.

 

One thing I keep noting in your posts is that you seem to assume that when someone points out something negative about Israel the person is automatically in the other bi-polar camp.

 

I have agreed with the validity of a number of negative aspects about Israel, Irgun fulfilling a definition of terrorism, settlements, occupation, religious elements in society, mechanisms to control demographics, conditions in the occupied territories.

 

When you say Zionism is as extremist an ideology as one can conceive I will be on the defensive as it sounds like the common comparison with Nazism.

 

This may be true for some but not in my case. My points are all addressed to pointing out the hypocrisy of the Zionist establishment.

 

I don't think you can now say you are only pointing out the hypocrisy of some of Israel's leaders. You have tried to equate most of Zionism with a terrorist element that was active during the establishment of Israel which is now "revered" by Israel's current leadership (and apart from Netanyahu and Livni's dad you haven't pointed out anyone else whose hawkishness can be said to be a result of reverence for terrorists).

 

Perhaps you would like to look at Israel's political history and provide a list of leaders and MKs who don't revere the Irgun, for the sake of objectivity. You might like to point out that Israel's electoral system is geared towards coalition governments where doves, hawks and everything in between are included.

 

Since you are sometimes concerned in taking the wider context into account, perhaps you would like to mention that hawks such as Netanyahu can be returned to power in response to Palestinian terrorist actions, replacing Peres' dovish government. The result of a democratic vote of the people not the passing down of Zionist militant attitudes through the years.

 

... you abandon the need for context to protect your idea of disproportionate Israeli actions from debate. ... you are unwilling to put your definition of proportionality to debate.

 

I am not unwilling to discuss any point, but I'm not going to argue for words put in my mouth.

 

You can still give a suggestion about what a proportional response would be.

 

I must say that this is something I reject very strongly. People trying to have things both ways is something which I particularly dislike. Indeed, as noted, it is the reason for my posts here.

 

You abandoned a wider context when it suited you and took me up on this when I deliberately used a limited context.

 

Of course not all. I had already clarified that Zionism was a "wider church" and my issues are with the current Zionist establishment. These people are I believe extremely extreme, if that is a feasible term. As for comparison to Nazism, such a point has been well argued (see end of this post). I don't think it really matters just what the top-ten of extremism is. Once you go beyond a certain threshold it is all pretty ugly.

 

I am no Nazi apologist (they were and are scum) but remember that statistically there would have been people who believed in most of the whole patriotic slant of the NSDAP but didn't agree with the most extreme tenets. I would say that today's Zionists are typically extremists and that the liberal Zionist is now as rare as hens teeth.

 

And statistically some of them would have joined up because they liked the uniform, Hitler was nice to his dog etc. This is comparing the less extreme members of the National Socialists with the non-militant liberal Zionists. The comparison doesn't work any more than comparing the majority of Zionism to most of Nazism.

 

I understand that there is a wider church in all movements. I think you are concentrating on the militants of the Irgun too much. I don't think that you have managed to show Israel as an extremist state because of these elements in Israel's history.

 

You would be on stronger ground selecting other Palestinian terror groups

 

Your selection not mine. I only refer to Hamas when they have been mentioned in terms of something specific.

 

It was because you specifically mentioned Hamas, I was just pointing out that a comparison with Palestinian terror rather than Hamas is closer to Stern Gang actions, and agreed with you about fundamental similarities i.e. I agree that the Irgun etc were terrorists and I share your dislike of hypocrisy.

 

Would you have the same problems with a future Palestinian state's historical association with terrorism that you do with Israel's?

 

I would have a problem if they hypocritically suddenly denied that they had considered terrorism a legitimate tool.

 

Yes we are both agreed about disliking hypocrisy, (perhaps the leaders you talk about disassociating themselves from the Irgun are doing so because they don't revere the Irgun as much as you say).

 

Wouldn't these militant aspects of Palestinian society be evident through its future history like you are arguing has happened in Israel, making it an extremist state also, with some degree of comparison to Nazism?

 

Isn't Israel surrounded by prime examples of far more extremist states?

 

Extremist yes, but I don't think more so.

 

!? ok.

 

In what more specific ways is it an extremist state?

 

Returning to the Nazi aspect again, how about another Quiz question?

 

You can't say it's an extremist state based on an "aspect(s)" from many years ago. You can say there was an extremist aspect, you can try to argue that this extremist aspect has been passed down to current leadership and you can try to argue it is evident in Israeli policies and actions.

 

And even if this aspect is to be found in the current leadership how different is the situation? A stateless, government less people trying to obtain statehood after WWII is not the same as Israel the 60 year old nation. You will also have to argue how these aspects/strategies have a practical use today that is in Israel's interest.

 

Doves are voted in, hawks are voted in. To say hawks get power because of an inherited aspect of history I don't think is accurate.

 

I'm still not entirely sure about the degree of comparison to Nazism, saying Israel is an extremist state suggests there is a lot about Israel and Zionism to compare to Nazism. And wouldn't it only be a comparison in the most fundamental sense, violent means to a political ends like the actions of the Irgun, rather than the extremes of ideology of the Nazis and German people of the time.

 

Who said:

 

The same man that said this?

 

"The Jewish people alone has for centuries been in the anomalous position of being victimized and hounded as a people, though bereft of all the rights and protections which even the smallest people normally has...Zionism offered the means of ending this discrimination. Through the return to the land to which they were bound by close historic ties...Jews sought to abolish their pariah status among peoples."