Israeli airstrike into Gaza kills fighter

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

They aren't, though the Arabs will incessantly tell you they are -- but again, you can't convincingly claim you're the victim when you're so busy killing Jews in bunches. Arab propaganda sways you, but not me. I'll say this just once: the Arabs are the ones indulging in genocidal ideas for Israel; the Israelis are not indulging in genocidal ideas towards any Arabs. Understandably.

First, what propaganda? The media takes a pro-Israel side and I don't really read far left newspapers so I don't know what propaganda you are talking about. Israel wants every Arab out of their homeland and will kill them to do it. By your standards, the US never committed genocide on the Native Americans.

Oh really. For your information, Israel is a democracy, and there is not a single democracy among Israel's foes. I choose to support a democracy, and the undemocracies can all go hang, for all of me. Neither race nor religion enters into this. You're attempting to find fairness in neutrality, but between these two ways, I'll pick the better one -- according to my experience of which way is the better. Remember that I've had both. Too, if you're unable to make a value judgement, you're largely unable to really live -- because you don't count for anything. I should think not counting for anything would at least offend your ego.

Your blinded by the thought that democracies are all good and all non-democracies are bad. Israel is the most violent country in the world right now followed closely by America. They are both democracies in your opinion, which doesn't fit with your "democracies = good" childish thought. Democracies tend to be more moral than non-democratic countries but that isn't a guarantee, and America and Israel is the exception right now.

I think it has everything to do with it; see the remark on value judgments above. I am calling for choosing the best, and nondemocracy isn't it. The neocons you rave against (ever so ignorantly, I think) have one idea that is so right, so magnificent, so transcendental, that nothing can stand against it morally: democratic republics prosper best in a world full of other democratic republics. (Was it not PNAC that gave this idea expression?) When these republics prosper, the peoples prosper. You prosper. I prosper. Who would speak against prosperity?

I will speak against prosperity when these democratic countries keep other countries in dictatorship and poverty to take advantage of them. If we are trying to spread democracy, then why did we take away Iran's democracy in the 50's, or why are we trying to take away Venezuela’s right now? Why do we trade with non-democratic countries? Why are we allies with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the two most oppressive regimes in the Middle East? Shouldn't we be fighting them since they are not democracies?

Then I'll be blunt: you're a fascist sympathizer, and I'm not. Your own words condemn you, and they hang you up, all right -- nailed to the cross.

Ummmm....how?

Let's see if I have this straight: the Arabs have been screaming genocide and reading Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, in translation, under the impression it's nonfiction. They've launched war after war after war, and lost every one of them, without paying very much of a penalty in territory or anything else that can't be rebuilt or replaced.

That is because the Israelites have been committing genocide on the Arabs. They have kicked them out of their home and left them to starve. It isn't a holocaust or a Darfur, but it is still genocide.

I see in this that the weed of bigotry is bearing toxic fruit, and it's keeping the failing states of Araby in a condition of social wreckage.

No, we are keeping the failing states of "Araby" in a condition of social wreckage by taking their resources. Why do you think we attacked Iran when they decided to nationalize the oil fields in the 50's? We obviously never put any effort into helping the Arabs so you can not say that they are not able to keep a strong economy because there are too many outside conditions to make an accurate judgment.

And you call Israel's defensive efforts to deal with this menace one of the closest things to fascism we have now? Boy -- you're less than half my age and of far less experience of this world -- are you quite certain you know anything at all of fascism?

I see Israel expanding their borders which goes with Fascism. I see Israel attacking countries for no legitimate reason (Lebanon). I see Israel considering their citizens better than the Arabs that once lived there. I see Israel building walls to keep the people that once lived there out of Israel, keeping them in poverty and then complaining when they fight back.

This would be defensible were all else being equal. Unfortunately for this we have one side full of enthusiasts for genocide, and another side that suffered genocide and is quite allergic to it. Which side is then on the higher moral plane? And if they're on the higher moral plane, wouldn't I like them better? You see, I make value judgments confidently: eschew moral relativism; it's popular with the young (and the careless) but it's a snare and a delusion.

Give proof that Israel is on a higher moral plane. Everything the Arabs have done is out of retaliation from what Israel has done.

The supremacy is more than a feeling: it's engendered by winning all the wars, not by assembling the Zionists. They've done that both without and with our aid, remember. We're a mighty ally and nice to have, but Israel doesn't necessarily need us to keep itself propped up: the Jews have turned tough and they've turned heroic. In the face of their enemies who know no restraint, the Jews keep such restraint as they can. When the Arabs cease their genocidal madnesses, the Jews will take no revenge upon them. Such is their character, and you are most reluctant to admit it. Now picture yourself surrounded by chronically murderous foes. Are you going to like these peoples? Let's just understand that any attitude the Israelis cop is pretty understandable.

Please, you refuse to see that the Israelites have started everything in this conflict. If the Arabs start committing genocide on the Jews, then I will quickly switch sides but right now, it isn't that way. Both sides are prejudice against each other, but Israel is the one with the power so they are committing the genocide.

In this case, it is not we who must learn to deal, but they. The Israelis were always willing to deal. The Arabs: conspicuously not. Read Israel's history, particularly in its early days.

Who could be sympathetic to the unwilling ones? I sure can't.

I have. They did not go to Uruguay when they were told that the Middle East would cause major problems. They did not deal with the Palestinians living there, they kicked them out. They are not compromising with the Palestinians now, they are building a wall to keep them out of the country. They are refusing to give up the Gaza Strip and West Bank which was not given to them in 1948. I don't think it is me that is blind, but you.

I can't be anywhere near so sure until I do hear from them. They've had sixty-nine years to speak up, and in Israel they actually could. As for the other, one state -- or perhaps three states. But we can both think of how either solution could collapse into yet another war -- the one-state into a civil war, the three-state into a general war.

Yes, there will be conflict no matter what solution we use but even the though the one-state will probably have the most initial violence, it will hopefully go away after a generation or two. If we have a two-state solution, then the rivalry will stay with them for how ever long they are rivals.

You're blaming the wrong party here: Jordan could have resettled every displaced person, either in Jordan or elsewhere, AND helped them to prosperity. There is absolutely no effort by any Arab state, far or near, to succor their displaced coreligionists, either by government programs or private charitable ones. Zero. Zip. Nada. They'd rather have their cats-paw to fight proxy wars with. The Arabs are the warmongers, and my sympathy for these warmongers is, well, scant. Yours is too great.

You can expect Jordan to take care of all the people that don’t live there. The United States can house all the Mexicans but you seem reluctant to do that. Israel can also house all the Arabs. You are making a double standard by forcing Jordan to take the Palestinians when Israel can. Why don’t you want Israel to take the Palestinians?

The Israelis started without us, and they can continue on their own initiative. They are not the American economy's sock puppet, you know. The Arabs never showed the same degree of initiative. Our foreign aid to Egypt, for one example, is of the same order of magnitude as our foreign aid to Israel. It is less, yes, but two billion dollars annually isn't pocket change.

They steal resources from the Palestinians and I find it hard to believe that they aren’t the western economy’s sock puppet. Outside forces, lack of education, etc, are likely to be most of the cause of this lack of initiative.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by ”UG”

It's always time to stop genocide, but the Israelis, knowing restraint, don't think genocidally, and the Arabs, based on the evidence of their own literature and newspapers, clearly do. The Israelis are allergic to genocide and will remain so. It's ingrained in the culture, I believe ineradicably.

You are talking stupid. I have given many more examples of how the Israelis are genocidal than you have given me how the Arabs are genocidal.

Ask why the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan does nothing to eradicate or alleviate their poverty, but keeps them right there on the Middle Eastern equivalent of reservations. No Palestinian is allowed to seek his betterment in friendlier climes, is he? There, I say, is the problem.

Once again, why can’t Israel take in the Palestinians?

We expanded our borders in a mighty migration of smallholders. Are we in the wrong by reason of migration from a worse situation to a better? If your ancestors didn't figure it was all to the good to come here, you'd be writing from Europe. If Cro-Magnon early modern humans didn't migrate into Europe, we'd all be ... miffed at GEICO.

Yes we did and even though we can’t do anything about it, it is still technically wrong. We committed genocide on the Native Americans and I will admit it and Israel is doing the same exact thing. Also, I just want Israel-Palestine to become one state so your argument does bear any weight with this since it has no place.

There's a law forbidding the establishment of new nations? New one on me! Maybe it's only against the law in the Arab states.

Ok, I call for a new Mexican state, since it was first their land, in California, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico. It is not illegal so I can do it. Also, all non-Mexicans will be forced to leave. That includes you buddy.

Oh yeah? What's better? How do I distinguish the foundations of your views from outright antisemitism, then?

I am not calling for the death of the Jews or revenge on Jews. I just want them to stop killing Palestinians and live peacefully with them.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I don't think that stands up well to close examination: Hitler reduced the Jewish population by five or six million and there's no reduction of the Palestinian population, is there? Nor are the Israelis allocating national resources to industrial-scale killing-off of the Palestinian population. You have been listening to those screeching genocidal Arabs again. Wise up!

It is genocide nevertheless because they are deliberately killing Palestinians, even forcing them to stand in front of tanks when other Palestinians are throwing rocks at them, and they and they are still displacing them, leaving them homeless and in poverty. They are building walls to keep them out of Israel.

I'm not putting words in your mouth; I am putting ideas in your head. I'm not here to steer you wrong, Pierce, but to call you to repent from fascist sympathies. Surely this is right.

Since we are calling each other names that don't make any sense I will start calling you a commie, or maybe an anarchists.

And you'd be 102% wrong, too. Those guys are smart. Read The Neocon Reader and see. I did, and now I am well inoculated against believing the slanging the fascists of the Left give them. You could be cured too. Plenty of room over here on the side of the angels.

This is why I hate your side.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by fargon

After having 6,000,000 of your friends and family turned into air pollution, you might be a little quick on the trigger. Not to mention that every week or so, some bunch of jealous idiots is blowing up a bus, or restaurant.
If the Arabs would leave the Jews alone, the Jews would leave them alone.

Most of the terrorist organizations against Israel is because of Israel's occupations. Hezbollah was started by Israel's occupation of Lebanon. If we put in the one-state solution then a neighboring country can't just blindly attack Israel because there would be an equal number of Palestinians in there as well.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

They gave back Gaza. They gave back the sections of Lebanon they had occupied. Then they were attacked on exactly those fronts. Can you explain?

Once you explain about the 380,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0514-04.htm

Q: How many days after the UN declared the borders of Israel were they attacked?
A: One.
Q: How did most Jews wind up in Israel?
A: They were forced/coerced out of the surrounding Arab countries.

Can you explain?

1. The neighboring countries already knew of the Israeli state and were not going to accept it from the beginning. How many days before they attacked doesn't mean anything since this conflict has been going on for a half century. The British knew a conflict was coming and the British tried to compromise with the Zionists but they refused to go anywhere else. It does not justify the Arab attack on Israel but it means we could have done something to avoid it.
2. I might go a little off-topic with this but right now, but the Jewish immigration was in the best interests of the Jews for obvious reasons but it is the part of them kicking everyone out and keeping them in poverty is what I extremely disagree with. A single Israeli state will only cause conflict because both sides will never accept the other but if we join them together, it leaves room for compromise and a new step forward. Not all Arabs want the Israelis dead, it is just an extreme view taken by few. These few are the ones committing the crimes against Israel so they get more attention.

[Undertoad]

Can you explain?

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Once you explain about the 380,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank.

You can't explain. Got it.

I might go a little off-topic with this but right now, but the Jewish immigration was in the best interests of the Jews for obvious reasons but it is the part of them kicking everyone out and keeping them in poverty is what I extremely disagree with.

You can't explain. Got it.

This is an extremely complicated situation and you appear to know dick about it, yet you want to make sweeping suggestions about what should happen. Let's continue, more homework.

1) 10% of Israel's government is made up of Arab Israelis. What percent of the surrounding Arab countries' governments are made of Jews?

2) Why did Israel invade and occupy the West Bank?

3) In a 2003 poll, 76% of Israelis would give up the West Bank in exchange for lasting peace. What would similar polls in Palestinian territories find?

4) When Jordan was created in 1923, what happened to the Jews who lived there?

5) Why do Palestinians demand a single state solution? Why don't Israelis want that? (Hint: same reason)

[Kagen4o4]

Originally Posted by fargon

After having 6,000,000 of your friends and family turned into air pollution, you might be a little quick on the trigger. Not to mention that every week or so, some bunch of jealous idiots is blowing up a bus, or restaurant.
If the Arabs would leave the Jews alone, the Jews would leave them alone.

are people still using that as an excuse? i think the jews have done quite well for themselves. one group of people attacks them (that havent been for centuries) and suddenly every fucking one of them needs special treatment. so what happens? they get given someone else country!

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You can't explain. Got it.

It could be many reasons. They may want to make themselves look better in the world community, they may want peace, or they may want to encourage Gaza terrorist groups to come into Israel to attack instead of attacking the soldiers stationed in Gaza. The ten year truce probably had some influence with it too.

You can't explain. Got it.

There was racism against the Jews.

1) 10% of Israel's government is made up of Arab Israelis. What percent of the surrounding Arab countries' governments are made of Jews?

0%, there are no Jews in Jordan and a very very small amount of Jews in Syria and Egypt. Why would Jews want to live as a minority when they can live in Israel? I don't see the relevance of this.

2) Why did Israel invade and occupy the West Bank?

They were attacked by an Egyptian-Syrian-Jordan alliance and they used it as a chance to expand their borders.

3) In a 2003 poll, 76% of Israelis would give up the West Bank in exchange for lasting peace. What would similar polls in Palestinian territories find?

I couldn't find any polls on it but I also couldn't find the poll you were talking about it. Could you lead me to it?

4) When Jordan was created in 1923, what happened to the Jews who lived there?

They closed all migration and settlements to Jordan and all the Jews probably migrated to Israel but I didn't find anything on that.

5) Why do Palestinians demand a single state solution? Why don't Israelis want that? (Hint: same reason)

There is not one reason for the single-state solution just as you said, this is a very complex situation. A single-state potentially gets rid of Zionism, which started most of the trouble in the first place, presents the Palestinians and Israelis as equals instead of an almost caste system, and will show the world that two very different groups can work together and find peace.

I'm not sure what reason you are going at but by same reason do you mean that Israelis would be expelled? If a single-state solution happened then we would have to work to avoid that at all costs if it ever presents itself as a problem.

[fargon]

Originally Posted by Kagen4o4

are people still using that as an excuse? i think the jews have done quite well for themselves. one group of people attacks them (that havent been for centuries) and suddenly every fucking one of them needs special treatment. so what happens? they get given someone else country!

Israel is not looking for special treatment, just peace with their neighbors.
All they have ever wanted is to live in peace, in the the land God gave them, so many years ago. It is in the book of Exodus, "So it be written, so it be done".

[Kagen4o4]

maybe they should give their neighbours house back. that would be a start

[Undertoad]

It could be many reasons. They may want to make themselves look better in the world community, they may want peace, or they may want to encourage Gaza terrorist groups to come into Israel to attack instead of attacking the soldiers stationed in Gaza.

The question was, when they gave back the land, why were they attacked on precisely those fronts? The answer is, the people who attacked them saw land give-backs as a sign of Israeli weakness.

Why would Jews want to live as a minority when they can live in Israel? I don't see the relevance of this.

But 10% of Israel's government is Arab. Why would Arabs want to live as a minority in Israel when they can live in Arabic lands?

...and they used it as a chance to expand their borders.

Right, they won wars in which they were attacked to expand the area from which they cannot be attacked. Followup question, is that wrong? How?

I also couldn't find the poll you were talking about it. Could you lead me to it?

Actually I don't know that they've been asked. But in 2000 Arafat was basically offered it at Camp David and his answer was to reject it and start the Second Intifada.

(What happened when Jordan was created) I didn't find anything on that.

The Jews were unceremoniously kicked out. They don't want "right of return" and nobody protests for it on their behalf.

A single-state potentially gets rid of Zionism, which started most of the trouble in the first place, presents the Palestinians and Israelis as equals instead of an almost caste system, and will show the world that two very different groups can work together and find peace.

That is incorrect. Correct answer: Arabic peoples would, through sheer demographics, soon outnumber Jewish peoples in Israel, leading to the practical end of the state.

Originally Posted by Kagen

maybe they should give their neighbours house back. that would be a start

They gave back Gaza. They gave back the sections of Lebanon they had occupied. Then they were attacked on exactly those fronts. Can you explain?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The question was, when they gave back the land, why were they attacked on precisely those fronts? The answer is, the people who attacked them saw land give-backs as a sign of Israeli weakness.

These terrorist groups are going to attack Israel no matter how much land they take or give back. They stated that they will not stop until Israel is destroyed so I don't think it has to do with a showing of weakness.

But 10% of Israel's government is Arab. Why would Arabs want to live as a minority in Israel when they can live in Arabic lands?

Many reasons. One, they have no where to go. Two, because they lived there before Israel was created and they still think that they land it theirs. Three, even though they are discriminated against and work very shitty jobs, they still have jobs and can avoid poverty this way. I would be supportive of forcing Jordan and Syria to take back Jews if it ever came to that but I doubt that will happen.

Right, they won wars in which they were attacked to expand the area from which they cannot be attacked. Followup question, is that wrong? How?

It technically isn't wrong. It just shows about their goal to take over their entire dream Israel no matter who lives there now. It isn't a smart international move even though there isn't anything wrong with it since many imperialistic countries have done it in the past.

Actually I don't know that they've been asked. But in 2000 Arafat was basically offered it at Camp David and his answer was to reject it and start the Second Intifada.

This doesn't represent the Palestinian people, but the Palestinian extreme. Yasser Arafat is the leader of PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization), which was created in response to Israel's occupancy in West Bank, Gaza Strip, etc, to destroy the state of Israel. Of course he would deny peace but that doesn't mean the Palestinian people wouldn't.

The Jews were unceremoniously kicked out. They don't want "right of return" and nobody protests for it on their behalf.

If the Jews want to go back to Jordan I will support them 100% but as long as they have Israel they will most likely stay there.

That is incorrect. Correct answer: Arabic peoples would, through sheer demographics, soon outnumber Jewish peoples in Israel, leading to the practical end of the state.

As I said before:

Originally Posted by Piercehawkeye45

If a single-state solution happened then we would have to work to avoid (Jewish expulsion and discrimination) at all costs if it ever presents itself as a problem.

Of course the one-state solution is going to have its initial problems and we will have to work with both the Jews and Palestinians to make sure we don't repeat what has happened to both the Jews and Arabs in the past century .

They gave back Gaza. They gave back the sections of Lebanon they had occupied. Then they were attacked on exactly those fronts. Can you explain?

As I said before (even though this question isn't directed towards me) that Palestinian terrorist groups, founded by Israel's occupancies, will not stop until Israel is destroyed. In order to stop these groups you have to help the Palestinians and get them to stop hating Israel, which doesn't mean Israel's destruction, and make the terrorist groups hated and outcasts within Palestine.

[DanaC]

And you call Israel's defensive efforts to deal with this menace one of the closest things to fascism we have now? Boy -- you're less than half my age and of far less experience of this world -- are you quite certain you know anything at all of fascism?

UG, I hold almost exactly the same views on this topic as those so elequently argued by Pierce. I know a fair amount about fascism. I know that it is still a problem smouldering at the heart of Europe. I know that the current breed have substituted the word 'Jew' in most of their propoganda, for the words 'arab' or 'moslem'. I also know that this does not mean those groups have ceased their hatred of Jewish people; it merely means that in today's political and social climate, 'moslem' and 'Arab' are more likely to inspire the kind of parochial racism which fascism so readily turns to its cause.

I spend a good portion of every year along with a bunch of other activists, working against the spread of fascism in England, where we have fascist parties polling approximately 7-10 % of the electorate. In Europe's mainland, they do a little better. Fighting fascism has been my main political issue since I was 18 years old. I've known good friends hurt during those years, by Combat 18, the paramilitary wing of the British National Party (the 1 and 8 refer to A and H, for Adolf Hitler. They used to be called Combat 88, with the two 8s corresponding to H and H, for Heil Hitler) I have, over the years gained some understanding of the history of fascism in Europe: the trends they exloited; the methods they used; the manner in which they were able to turn a large percentage of the population to tacit acceptance of widespread slaughter, a willful blindness to what was occurring.

But by all means, call me a fascist sympathiser for not supporting Israel's right to commit it's own set of war crimes, merely because they suffered so greatly. That they were victims of one of the worlds greatest massacres, does not give them carte blanche to commit new crimes. To equate disagreement with Israel, the nation state, as anti-semitism is ludicrous. Your labelling people as fascistic for not agreeing with Israel's stance is both ludicrous and crass. Your assumption, meanwhile, that anybody who disagrees with Israel must have a lack of either education, or age is frankly laughable having seen the cogent arguments pierce put forward, as compared to the ideological ranting you seem to favour on this topic.

[TheMercenary]

Good Shot, but damm they could have done it cheaper.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla
Seems you have a little problem here with doing right by the Jews

UG, not being a Zionist does not mean one is an anti-Semite.
I personally know Jews that are not Zionists.
The two have nothing to do with each other at all.
Why not give US homes in modern cities, randomly, to Native Americans? If someone tried, I would kill them. I am not exaggerating or making a point... I would kill them.

It IS the same thing that happened in Israel and, though I hope I would not, I would probably react the same way Palestinians and others have to Israel's treatment.
If I did not have Blackhawks and tanks and generations of my and my neighbor's schoolchildren were constantly murdered, eventually I may come to the conclusion that the only way to make it stop is to show them what it feels like.
I truly hope not... but, thank goodness, I don't have to find out what that feels like. But, I can understand how.
Israel needs to give Palestine their land back, get the fuck out in ALL ways, it is not theirs to "monitor" they need to get out of Lebanon, yes they stole that land too in the sixties and need to give it back, ALL of it (they only "gave back" a portion).
There is no god and no one promised them shit.
Religion... this is what it gives us, steaming piles of shit and death.