Actually the article post is by UncleMikey and the one that started this thread by seebs. Or are you refering to something else ?
Perhaps this will refresh your memory. Was there a misunderstanding about the word article confusing a link to a article post? Looking at your response I do not think so. You replied immediately that "The article you mention fail to talk about how Israel also failed to match its obligations."
You obviously knew what I was talking about at one point. I find your selective memory to be more indacative of a revisionist mind. I can't see how I'm supposed to hold you as a credible source of counter-examples when you've just attempted to twist such recent history, and then tried to re-inforce with more inanity.
Never the less, although it escapes me how, it may just have been an oversight on your part. Lets continue and discuss this metric you've raised rationaly. You have agreed to that the cruxt of your argument is...
It's hard to believe Israel is the victim when they are the richest, strongest and most powerful of the two sides. It's hard to believe they are victims when they are the ones occupying Palestinians territory.
First of all you bring the arguement to a belief system by saying "Its hard to believe Israel is the victim" and then again this is reinforced in the next statement "It's hard to believe they...".
This isn't about faith, or believing what you want to believe. This is about treaties that both have signed, and about war that is currently waged between the two. Its about resolving things through peaceful negotiation, especially since both sides agreed to that.
To reiterate your statement "There's not much one population can do against a vastly stronger armed occupying army." But they can sign a mutually agreed arbitrated peace agreement, especially when it is offered. If they don't like it they can negotiate some more. What they did do was continue hate speach over their national radio, and call for suicide bombers to attack Israel. Then out of their population these volunteers arised and targetted and killed civilian Israelis.
Next your simple metric of victimization does not hold *at all.* It may be well understood on the pre-school playschool playground but it does not hold in real life. The following are counter examples of your vicmimization metric.
When I see a child pick a fight, then their parent gives them time out and they cry in the corner, I do not call them a victim becuase their parents are more powerful than the children, and imposed a punishment.
When Nazi Germany was occupied by a more powerful force that threw up baracades and initiated check points, I did not consider them victims, and I bet you do not either.
When Japan was occupied by a more powerful force I at the end of WWII I did not consider them victims, and I bet you do not either.
When I see protesters throw rocks at police, and the police disperse the crowd with tear gas and water cannons I do not consider the protesters as victims. However I bet you might becuase your metric is really more "If I don't like them and they are too powerful they are *wrong*." And then any time they excersise power is evidence they are wrong.
And so on and so forth. In everyone of those cases your metric simply does not hold up, yet by belief you hold it as an absolute (yet alterior) standard. Never the less you attempted to support it with some examples. Allow me to point out where your examples do not fit the situation. They are simplistic and even revisionistic to the context at hand.
...[I have] a hard time believ[ing] China is the victim of Tibet either.
Tibet never sent suicide bombers into China, or any other military force so I have to agree. Tibet is one home to one of the long standing most peaceful doctrines on the planet. Palestine is no Tibet. This example is definately not fit the present situation in Israel.
When a tiger and rabbit are in the same room, and the tiger eat the rabbit and broke one teeth doing so, you can't really call the tiger a "victim" of the rabbit.
Wild Rabbits are onery creatures. Try to grab one, they'll knaw your finger off. However, they simply run away when a Tiger or person chases them. Fighting is a last resort. Palestine on the other hand disagreed with UN resolutions creating Israel in the first place. They attacked first, second, third and fourth before they were wholesale occupied. If a rabbit picks a fight with a Tiger, I do not consider it a victim. Palestine was no rabbit, it picked the fight when it had many peaceful alternatives.
So I conclude that your metric is simplistic and flawed in application to this story. I also notice that you suggested that Israel is at war with the Palestinian people rather than terrorist within the civilian population. But that is clearly not true.
Israel is attacking (and clearly targeting) the Hamas and PLO elite guard. To me Palestines attacks on disco-joints, busses, malls and ambulances suggests that they are targeting civilians.
The closest we have to Israel vs. Palestine is the checkpoints where a baby died becuase it couldn't get to the hospital two weeks ago. Then again checkpoints are set up in Afghanistan these days, as they were for Germany (and even by Germany), Japan and other nations that were occupied. Even in the extreme case of Nazi Germany, it shows an attempt at selective war against a group within a population, rather than a population as a whole.
Israel mentions its enemy as Hamas who has killed thousands of innocent civilians. In Germany it was the Jews who it really had no claim for being violent or malicious.
You know, now that I mention it I am reminded that Germany considered itself a victim of the Jews also, for much of the same reason as your victimization metric. To the Nazis the Jews were sooo economicaly powerful that they must be victimizing the superior Germans.
[ Parent ]