Osama, Saddam, WMD's and the 2004 election

brownidj: I think you are showing bias against Israel, as many people, including those in the media, show and have shown for years. An end to the Israeli occupation will not bring about peace because the Palestinians do not want peace. They want the destruction of the state of Israel. The only reasons the Israeli army (which, I might add, is composed entirely of almost all its citizens at one point or another, so the line between the military of Israel and the people of Israel is very blurry) might strike at Palestinians is either to defend themselves or others from attacks or to search for terrorists (homicide bombers and the like).

I'm not sure what you mean by having a "fluid situation." The current war is very bad both for Israel's name and its people. Whenever an altercation goes down, many portray Israel and the IDF as aggressors and monsters when usually they were defending themselves or acting in a humane manner. (Join www.honestreporting.com for many examples.)
 
So, toast, your bottom line is simply that Israel is more likely to annex the Occupied Territories, than not... Exactly my point. And then, what to do about the Palestinian population?

I look at what people/populations actually achieve by their so-called democratic processes. That is is a good indication of what they want, and an excellent indication of what they do not object to.

I think I made my point. Ty for the debate.
 
Originally posted by arden
brownidj: I think you are showing bias against Israel (...) the Palestinians do not want peace. They want the destruction of the state of Israel.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. Who are you to tell brownidj he's biased ? After all, he's only giving his own opinion. He's not hiding the fact that what he writes is tinted by his own personality.
What about you and this bit I quoted in red ? Isn't that biased ? This generalization of yours is astounding. Are all Israelians little Sharons ? All Palestinians islamist bomber squads ? How far does your knowledge of this region of the world go ?

I have nothing against you (nor anyone) here, but I don't think (and this proverb seems very appropriate in this conversation !) you should throw stones when living in a glass house. Just like the poeple in your own country are torn between a multitude of ideologies, of social objectives and conflicts, the Israeli and Palestinian people are torn between war and peace, between bellicism and pacifism, between fear and security, between reconciliation and aggression.

I find it sad some people bring back the Israel / Palestine conflict to simple remarks like 'Poor Jews, all killed by Hitler and now persecuted by Bin Laden friends' or like 'Israel is fascist, this land is not them'. I mean, this conflict is the most complex conflict of the 20th century, and you think two sentences can get it summarized ?

You also wrote:

The only reasons the Israeli army (which, I might add, is composed entirely of almost all its citizens at one point or another, so the line between the military of Israel and the people of Israel is very blurry) might strike at Palestinians is either to defend themselves or others from attacks or to search for terrorists (homicide bombers and the like).
Click to expand...

I think this passage contains two errors.

1. Tsahal is composed of professional soldiers. These soldiers are obviously all of Israelian nationality. But this proves nothing: the army (and especially Tsahal) is not a representative democracy, the soldiers have no decisionary power. Hence, saying that Tsahal thinks and acts like the Israelian population as both are composed by the same flesh and blood is false. Tsahal has no women, and genders do not think the same in Israel (women are far more moderate and far more afraid of terrorism at the same time). Tsahal has means the population does not always conceive. Last, Tsahal soldiers live a life most Israelians do not live: Tsahal is in contact with the Palestinian population all day, whereas most Israelians have strictly no contact with them.

2. Also, Tsahal is not only the defensive or pre-emptive army you are speaking of. Yasser Arafat is evacuating his HQ tonight, as he's expecting Tsahal reprisals. Actually, Tsahal also replies to terrorism, and this is a offensive behaviour. I personnally think the first step in a policy of appeasement would be to brake Tsahal from responding to human bombs. At the same time, I know I'm dreaming when I write this :rolleyes:

---

BTW, I hope I'm not offending you by any ways, if I am, tell me, I'll bend my sentences and make them more polite.
 
Originally posted by myself, toast
I personnally think the first step in a policy of appeasement would be to brake Tsahal from responding to human bombs. At the same time, I know I'm dreaming when I write this :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

... And my point has just been backed up today by this event. Sometimes dreams come true, but you need many of such acts to build a serious appeasement policy.
 
I'm sorry if my comments came off hypocritical... I did not mean to generalize all Israelis and all Palestinians; in general, and I know this doesn't apply to everyone, the majority of Palestinians have a deep hatred of Israel and only want to see it destroyed.

What exactly is Tsahal? As far as I know, the Israeli government is called the Beit K'nessit (Hebrew doesn't transliterate well into English), and the army is the IDF. Also, I believe "eretz Yisrael" means "the land of Israel."
 
Eretz Israel = 'greater' Israel. A large number of Israelis, including most members of recent governments, believe that Israel extends far beyond even its current borders (up to the Litani river in Lebanon, virtually to the gates of Damascus in Syria, to thhe Jordan rivers (and in some cases east of the Jordan) in the east, and to roughly the line of the Suez canal in the south. It is not just 'the land of Israel' - it is far more politically charged than that.

This is why no Israeli government will actually agree where Israel's borders are! And that's official! The problem is, in this day and age, that out and out land grabs, even during the course of a war, are not permissible in International Law. So how Israel can be expanded? The only possibility is during armed conflict. first you occupy, then after a decent interval, you annex.

Once you realise this, it explains why the Israelis are not unhappy with a 'fluid situation' as I called it, brought about by a level of conflict and threat. By that remark, I don't mean people are happy about the violence which affects them on a personal level. I take it as obvious that even in a so-called just war, people do not relish having violence inflicted on them. My point is that in order to allow for the possibility of territorial expansion, Israeli politicians are content to maintain a certain level of conflict, and that a proportion of the Israeli population goes along with this.

Arden has no real basis for his remarks about what the Palestinians think - that is just the standard Israeli belief and one of the justifications for the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the daily brutal repression of the people living in those areas. If s/he wants to get into what people think, perhaps s/he would care to comment on how many Israelis believe that all arabs should be expelled to Jordan...

Just having the IOF withdraw from one town in Gaza is not really much more than a crumb - what needs to happen is for the real issues to be addressed, on both sides. One can argue that it is a small step, but bear in mind that that leaves the rest of the Israeli Occupation Force in place.

If anyone is interested, we can get into a debate about what really is required, but maybe it should be the subject of another thread.
 
Originally posted by brownidj
Just having the IDF withdraw from one town in Gaza is not really much more than a crumb - what needs to happen is for the real issues to be addressed, on both sides. One can argue that it is a small step, but bear in mind that that leaves the rest of the Israeli Occupation Force in place.
Click to expand...

Peace processes in ME are but a succession of 'crumbs'. I obviously agree with the rest of your thought. I am not sure I am competent to judge what should be done and what may be done, as I have never been there nor digged the topic deeper enough.
 
Hey, toast, let's put it like this. are we any less competent than the current protagonists? At least we're not killing people...
 
In fact, if they are competent, then let me be incompetent for the rest of my life! (; Actually, to be serious, although it is only those who live there, and I no longer do, who can implement the solution, it is perhaps beholden on those on the outside to suggest a way forward and to oversee the critical steps.

When I've got a few minutes I will start a new thread and put forward some suggestions based on a paper written by an Israeli government advisor, someone who has thought some of the stuff through. Geeeez, at least he is not easily accused of hating jews/anti-semitisim etc.
 
Originally posted by brownidj
Hey, toast, let's put it like this. are we any less competent than the current protagonists? At least we're not killing people...
Click to expand...

Nobody's bombing my buses or bulldozing my house at the moment.
 
Concerning generalizations, there is a asymmetry here: On the one hand, we ahve the army of a sovereign nation, which illegally invades and occupies territory that according to the UN does not belong to it. This is an illegal act, committed by a democratically elected government. On the other hand, we have single fanatics, appartaining to non-governmental fundamentalist organizations, which do not officially represent by election any people or government.

This is not the crisp and clear situations which we would have if this was a war between the official military of two sovereign nations. It rather closely resembles the independence struggles of Chechnia, as far as I can tell. One nations terrorist, is the other nations hero and freedom-fighter.

It is probably very easy, in a certain sense, to look at the conflict from outside and judge it, but indeed, if my house were bombed or teared down by bulldozers, I am quite certain I would think and behave differently.

However, not so objectively, my sympathy in this conflict goes out to the underdog, the palestinians, precisely because of the asymmetry outlined above.
 
You want to talk about asymmetry? The asymmetry lies in the Israelis constantly being portrayed as the aggressors and the Palestinians as the "underdogs." Who go out and blow themselves up in crowded public areas like buses and shops? The Palestinians. Who throw stones, molotov cocktails, or bullets at the other, without provocation or good reason? The Palestinians. Who promise peace in English and death to Israel in Arabic? The Palestinians. On the other hand, who act humanely during conflicts, tending to injured on both sides? The IDF. Who go door-to-door, looking for terrorists, at the risk of life and limb, instead of carpet-bombing an area (think Jenin)? The IDF. Who do not fire their (far superior) weapons unless specifically provoked? The IDF. The Israelis. The Jews.

As it is, Israel acts very carefully to protect the lives of its people and those who would see it torn down. You may know something I don't about the "occupations," and feel free to fill me in if you do, but the way I see it, Israel is protecting the settlers in lands the Palestinians willingly gave up, and now they are demanding them back.

How do I not have basis for my remarks about the wants of the Palestinians? Do they not continue to blow themselves up in the names of Allah, Jihad, Arafat, and the destruction of Israel? Do they not manipulate the media to come out as the ones being oppressed when the solution is quite simple? Do they not hate Israel? I stated this before, and I'll say it again: I know that not all Palestinians think this way. There are those who would rather people keep themselves alive and find a peaceful solution. There are also Israelis who want to see all Arabs burned to the ground. But those are not the majorities, on either side. Much of what I have heard from Israelis is for a peaceful solution to the benefit of all parties, while many Palestinians blame Israel and the IDF for their own follies, initiate violence to bring down Israel's hand to say "No," and show a constant disrespect for the lives of Israelis and their own people.

I have received many communiques from www.honestreporting.com about the conflict and the media's portrayal therof, and I believe they are honest and factual. I will post them (there are at least 25) if you need more convincing; I have saved every one, for about a year, and they show telling trends in the behaviors of Israel, Palestinians, and the media.

FYI, I am a "he."
 
Don't get tricked by names. The IDF is capable of offensive moves (such as reprisals) just as they are capable of pertinent defensive moves.

Plus, quoting www.honestreporting.com makes little sense when you know the exact replica of this site exists for the Palestinian side (it's not a website but a book, I'll post reference if you like).

Is Charles Enderlin known in the US ? He is here in France, for his documentary about the 1995-2001 peace process failure. He's a good lecture too.
 
Originally posted by toast
Don't get tricked by names. The IDF is capable of offensive moves (such as reprisals) just as they are capable of pertinent defensive moves.
Click to expand...
Well, sure, but capability does not equate action. I am capable of punching people in the mouth, but I won't do it unless someone punches me first.
Plus, quoting www.honestreporting.com makes little sense when you know the exact replica of this site exists for the Palestinian side (it's not a website but a book, I'll post reference if you like).
Click to expand...
Of course there is. However, I would probably question the validity of this book because much of what the Palestinian media, or those sympathetic to their cause, puts out is propaganda, not necessarily based on truth or the entire truth. HonestReporting does not claim to be pro-Israel or anti-Palestinian, but only interested in portraying Israel in a truthful light, as they are often not (I suppose that could be considered pro-Israel, but they do not hesitate to point out the mistakes Israel makes, as well as others). Most of what HR does is point out bias in the media, opposed to facts from well-researched, valid sources, whereas the Palestinians and their friends often distort the truth to meet their own ends.
Is Charles Enderlin known in the US ? He is here in France, for his documentary about the 1995-2001 peace process failure. He's a good lecture too.
Click to expand...
Never heard of him. If you can find any of his material online, post a link and I'll have a looksie.
 
Arden, I just checked out the website and after reading about 20 different articles, it was apparent that the reporting is anything but honest. To begin with in the about section, there is no mention of who provides their funding, hardly an "honest" tactic. The section on Rachel Corrie basically blames her for her death. Since Israel no longer allows "outsiders" into the occupied territories there is no way to independently verify what is really going on.

IMO, honestreporting is little more than a propaganda machine for the current Israeli government. I don't doubt that the press is polarized on this issue, but promoting news analysis that is so obviously biased does little to help the situation.
 
Arden, which bit of the OTs did the Palestinians give up willingly? Israel is in illegal occupation - are you surprised when the inhabitants of that area fight back? What would you do in a similar situation? Try to forget for a moment that it is Israelis, Jews and arabs...

To think that the land in Israel proper was all given up 'willingly' is to misuse the word 'willingly'. Yes, some of it was sold, but much of it was simply grabbed. Many Palestinian refugees still have the keys to their houses that they evacuated and the title deeds to the land they occupied, and sadly, a lot of them still hope to one day return. That is a problem Israel will one day have to get to grips with.

In fact it is a myth that the IOF makes every effort to avoid casualties; one the Israeli government likes to perpetrate. If you have been reading any reporting of thhe situation, you will know that. There are hundreds of examples. If it is so hard, let me give you a clue. F16s and Apaches don't do door to door.

Perhaps it also explains why theh Israeli government is very reluctant to allow outside observers in - and don't just tell me everyone is biased against Israel and jews. That is the same sort of argument the white South African government used to cover up the fact that what they were doing was fundementally wrong and immoral.

The problem with much of the stuff I am seeing posted re this conflict is that it is straight out of the Israeli government press office - ie it is tainted by propagandists trying to put a particular spin on it...

Try to look beyond that and see what is right and what is wrong in the situation. Try to get to grips with why what is being done is being done. Look under the covers. We all have a duty to do that to keep governments in check and it applies very much to both sides in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top