Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Arms Sales To Israel Must Stop

By heathlander in Op-Ed
Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:47:26 AM EST
Tags: Israel, US, UK, Israel-Palestine, Palestinians, Lebanon, arms trade, Amnesty International, international law, human rights (all tags)

Amnesty International today published an open letter from Irene Khan, Amnesty's Secretary General, to EU Heads of State and governments asking them to immediately halt sales or transfers of arms to all parties in the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel, naturally, reacted negatively to the proposal. Mark Regev, spokesman for Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that an arms embargo "would leave every man woman and child in this country to face a multitude of hostile challenges that there are here. It ignores the real threats faced by the Jewish state and gives comfort to those who say Israel should be wiped off the map."


"Israel is a democracy where there is rule of law which puts the issue of human rights at the centre of civic life," Regev added. The reality is that Israel systematically and deliberately abuses the human rights of its perceived enemies. As Irene Khan has put it, "Most civilian deaths have been the result of deliberate and reckless shooting and artillery shelling or air strikes by Israeli forces carried out in densely populated areas in the Gaza Strip". A Human Rights Watch report on the Lebanon war earlier this year, entitled 'Fatal Strikes: Israel's Indiscriminate Attacks Against Against Civilians In Lebanon', describes how Israeli forces,

'consistently launched artillery and air attacks with limited or dubious military gain but excessive civilian cost. In dozens of attacks, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparent military target. In some cases, the timing and intensity of the attack, the absence of a military target, as well as return strikes on rescuers, suggest that Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians.'

The report concludes that 'a systematic failure by the IDF to distinguish between combatants and civilians' was the primary cause of the massive civilian suffering caused by the war.

An Amnesty International investigation  into the same war, entitled 'Deliberate Destruction or "Collateral Damage"? Israeli attacks on civilian infrastructure' reached similar conclusions:

'The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of public works, power systems, civilian homes and industry was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than "collateral damage" - incidental damage to civilians or civilian property resulting from targeting military objectives.'

That report also noted that under international law, it is 'forbidden to use starvation as a method of warfare, or to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.' Israel has been using starvation as a method of controlling the Palestinian population ever since they elected the wrong people to power in January. After Hamas was elected to government, the Israeli government convened a meeting to decide how it should respond. Present were Dov Weisglass (advisor to the Prime Minister), the chief of staff of the IDF, the head of Shin Bet, a host of senior generals and officials and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livny. All concluded that an economic siege on the Palestinians was the way forward. Or, as Dov Weisglass expressed it, "It's like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but won't die".

Since January 2006, the Palestinian people have been subject to economic sanctions - the first time, as UN Special Rapporteur for human rights in the Occupied Territories John Dugard has noted, that an occupied people has been so treated. Since Hamas' electoral victory, Israel has withheld some $500 million in tax revenues it collects on behalf of the PA. The U.S. and the EU have also restricted aid to the Palestinians in a shocking display of contempt for democracy and human rights. Meanwhile Israel has continued its policy of cutting the West Bank into dozens of mini-cantons by increasing the number of military roadblocks by 40% in a year. David Shearer, head of the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), described the effect these roadblocks have on the residents of the West Bank:

"Since [the height of the intifada] it's become much more systematic, much more sophisticated in terms of monitoring Palestinian movement and closing Palestinian movement...The West Bank, for example, is effectively being chopped up into three big areas... and there are pockets within those areas where people also can't move."

John Dugard, who was also a prominent anti-apartheid lawyer, writes that Israel system of roadblocks resembles, but in severity goes well beyond, apartheid South Africa's "pass system" and that, in general, ' Many aspects of Israel's occupation surpass those of the apartheid regime. Israel's large-scale destruction of Palestinian homes, leveling of agricultural lands, military incursions and targeted assassinations of Palestinians far exceed any similar practices in apartheid South Africa.'

Meanwhile, the Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip have suffered a brutal and relentless siege since June 25, when an Israeli soldier was captured by Palestinian militants. The Israeli government used the capture as an excuse to completely seal the Strip off from the outside world, arbitrarily closing borders vital to Palestinian trade for extended periods of time. The Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt - ostensibly under EU control but in reality subject to Israel's wishes - has been closed more than it has been open. In November, the crossing was open for just 36 hours spread out over four days. In July, thousands of Palestinians were left stranded in the Sinai desert after Israel refused to open the border crossing to allow them to return to their homes in the Gaza Strip. Several people were reported to have died from heat exhaustion. The closure of the Rafah crossing truly is devastating to the Palestinians in Gaza. The Palestine Hospital in Cairo is an essential part of Gaza's health infrastructure, and many Palestinians who need to travel there for treatment are either not allowed to leave the Strip or are prevented from returning once they do.

Under the Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA) brokered by the United States a year ago, Israel agreed to leave the Rafah crossing open continuously regardless of threats to security unrelated to the crossing itself. Despite this, after the capture of Cpl. Shalit on June 25 Israel closed the border indefinitely. A recent UN report accuses Israel of violating every single one of its border crossing agreements, explaining that the Rafah crossing has been open for only 21 days since June 24. At the Karni crossing, which has been open only intermittently, an average of 12 lorries are allowed through each day, despite Israel's promise to raise that number to 400 by the end of this year. According to the report,

"The ability of Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip to access either the West Bank or the outside world remains extremely limited and the flow of commercial trade is negligible"

and, as a result, unemployment in the Strip has risen from 33.1% to 41.8% this year. A military document leaked to Ha'aretz confirmed that the closure of the Rafah crossing is intended to "apply pressure" to the Palestinian people - as journalist Amira Hass puts it, 'The experiment was a success: The Palestinians are killing each other.'

So, in summary, Regev is talking crap. Israel has no respect for Palestinian human rights, and Amnesty International is right to call for a ban on arms sales and transfers to it.

The request comes at a time when the Iraq Study Group report calls on the U.S. and the UK to settle the Israel/Palestine conflict to stabilise the wider region, specifically Iraq. The U.S. is the primary source of Israel's superior arsenal, and U.S. aid counts for 20% of Israel's defence budget. During the Bush administration, from 2001-2005, Israel received $10.5 billion in U.S. military aid and $6.3 billion in U.S. arms deliveries. This military dependency gives the U.S. considerable leverage over Israel, leverage that could be used to force a peace settlement. Sadly, the U.S. has chosen to be a force for violence rather than peace in the region. For example, in the summer the U.S. delivered shipments of 'bunker-busting' bombs to Israel before the Lebanon war was even over. This arming of the aggressor was accompanied by the unanimous Senate adoption of a resolution praising Israel's military campaign, neglecting even to include the obligatory reminders to avoid targeting civilians. Sadly, both the Democrats and the Republicans are on record as supporting Israeli war crimes.

In Britain there is a similar story. Despite Tony Blair's announcement in September that he will devote the last six months of his premiership to resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict, he is unlikely to abide by Amnesty's call to stop providing Israel with the tools it uses to oppress and to kill. The trouble, as I wrote at the time, is that,

'when Tony Blair talks about being "fair", "just", what he really means is conspiring with the US to block a resolution calling for an "immediate" ceasefire early on in the Lebanon conflict. When Blair talks about imparting "values" with an "even hand", what he really means is allowing US planes carrying bombs and missiles to Israel to re-fuel at British airports. That's right; Blair helped arm the aggressor before the war was even over, and he now has the nerve to talk about and bringing "peace" to the Middle East with an "even hand".'

In 2005 British arms sales to Israel doubled to £22.5 million. It is official British government policy that "no licence will be granted for arms exports if there is a clearly identifiable risk that the weapons could be used aggressively against another country or to assert, by force, a territorial claim". Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell was therefore right to call for an immediate cessation of arms sales to Israel in the light of 'disproportionate military action by Israel in Lebanon and Gaza'. After all, there can be no doubt that Israel uses combat helicopters and air-to-surface missiles - components for which are supplied by the UK - to commit war crimes against the Palestinians (and, this year, against the Lebanese). In 2002, Blair's government cleared the way to allow BAE Systems to sell components for F-16 jets supplied to Israel by the United States. Israel uses F-16s to carry out targeted assassinations - a policy declared by the UK Foreign Office to be "illegal under international law". For example, in July 2002 an Israeli F-16 dropped a one-tonne bomb on a crowded Gaza City apartment block with the official aim of assassinating the militant Salah Shehada. As well as Shehada, seven adults and nine children were killed in the attack, and 70 people were injured. There is ample proof that Israel cannot be trusted to use arms lawfully, so why does Britain continue to sell weapons to Israel, in violation of its own arms trade policies? For the answer, we can turn to ex-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw who, in 2002, justified his government's decision to license the export of components used in F-16 jets destined for Israel thus:

"Any interruption to the supply of these components would have serious implications for the UK's defence relations with the United States."

Or, in other words, 'the commercial relationship between BAE Systems and US companies such as Lockheed Martin was judged more important than the lives of Palestinians.' The British government, like its American counterpart, is almost completely subservient to the military-industrial complex. So, despite Mr. Blair's professions of good intent towards the Palestinians, his unblemished record of supporting the occupation and facilitating Israeli war crimes is not going to be broken now. It's a pity, because the idea of giving aid instead of weapons and of facilitating diplomacy and peace as opposed to arms races and war is definitely one whose time has come.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o published
o open letter
o reacted negatively
o report
o investigat ion
o convened a meeting
o noted
o $500 million in tax revenues
o increasing
o described
o writes
o 36 hours spread out over four days
o stranded
o essential
o UN report accuses
o leaked
o puts it
o The U.S. is the primary source of Israel's superior arsenal
o delivered
o unanimous Senate adoption
o announceme nt
o wrote
o block
o allowing
o doubled
o that
o call for
o cleared the way
o dropped a one-tonne bomb
o ample
o proof
o that [2]
o justified
o words
o almost
o completely
o subservien t
o giving aid
o Also by heathlander


Display: Sort:
Arms Sales To Israel Must Stop | 273 comments (254 topical, 19 editorial, 1 hidden)
+1srael & Palest+1ne (2.75 / 4) (#4)
by Wen Jian on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 01:38:34 PM EST

Thankyou for writing about this important issue, in a clear and calm fashion (rather than the usual hysterical treatment that this and issues like it get form both sides), using appropriate references to support your statements, and not being CTS.
It was an experiment in lulz. - Rusty
Y'welcome (none / 1) (#7)
by heathlander on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 01:44:21 PM EST

It is an issue about which people can get very emotional - and so irrational. It's important in general to always provide sources where possible to back up one's claims, but especially so here.

[ Parent ]
yeah fuck CTS (3.00 / 3) (#108)
by circletimessquare on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:44:48 PM EST

he's such a fucking egotistical asshole, i mean, everytime someone mentions his name, even in the negative, he gets a little warm and fuzzy feeling that someone thinks so much of him to mention him, even if it's in the negative. what a fucking asshole he is

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Indeed (none / 1) (#172)
by Tau Neutrino on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:08:42 AM EST

I couldn't fail to disagree with you less.

--
Theater is life, cinema is art, television is furniture.
[ Parent ]
How this looks in the neighbourhood (2.50 / 2) (#10)
by spasticfraggle on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 02:26:39 PM EST

1. "Israel looks weak. And they'd never dare nuke us."
2. "Charge!"
3. Israel: "FUCK!"
3a.(In regional capital city) "Oops, bit of a miscalculation there, that appears to be a large nucl" - BOOOM!
or
3b.(In Israel) "Oh noes, not again! God's chosen people my fucking ass!" - squish

Or to put it another way: yeah yeah, it's not the fucking garden of Eden over there, but it may well be the least shit readily available scenario.

It's not as if everybody over there is actually going to stop wanting to kill each other is it? Maybe you should be pushing for more arms sales - once they kill all the locals they might fucking stop.

--
I'm the straw that broke the camel's back!

Mistake at #1 (none / 1) (#91)
by cburke on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 03:51:38 PM EST

I don't think there's anybody in the region who doubts that Israel would use their nukes if the circumstances were right.  Which means any kind of WMD launched at them, or any invasion that seriously threatens to "push Israel into the sea".  Which is why nobody is going to hit #2 any time soon.  The closest you'll get is little militias like Hamas or Hezbollah who poke at Israel but don't seriously threaten the state itself.

But if your point is that the current conflict is better than all-out war with a neighboring state, I agree.

[ Parent ]

defining better (none / 1) (#98)
by zenofchai on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 05:43:24 PM EST

the current conflict is short-term better than an all-out war

the current conflict(s), if continued for, say, 50 more years, may not be better than an all-out war that results in "peace"

it's a mess.
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]

It goes like this (2.40 / 5) (#13)
by nidarus on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 02:54:45 PM EST

Hundreds of thousands were raped and murdered in Darfur without any justification.

The casualties from the latest Iraq war are at least several tens of thousands.

These are just from the top of my head. If you take several minutes to research to topic, you'll find much more.

The whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict, since its beginning in the 1920s, had less casualties than any of these conflicts, by an order of magnitude.

And yet, there are more articles on k5 about Israel/Palestine than any other political topic.

So, first and foremost, ask yourself: "why did I write this article in the first place?"



Well, not that it matters, but... (none / 1) (#15)
by heathlander on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 03:05:15 PM EST

I'm an Israeli citizen. I have family there. I know much more about the subject than I do about Darfur and so am able to do it more justice. My government is far more complicit in the suffering of Palestinians than it is in the suffering of Sudanese in Darfur (as far as I know). I (as a British citizen) have a far greater ability to affect change in the Israel/Palestine conflict than I do in Darfur.

But anyway it's a stupid question. By your logic, we shouldn't be interested in anything unless it is as serious as what is going on in Darfur. That's nonsense.

[ Parent ]

Shouldn't be interesting in "anything"? (none / 1) (#18)
by nidarus on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 03:20:08 PM EST

Do you really think that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is discussed just as any other international conflict? Do you think it's even remotely proportional to its severity?

You don't find it even slightly strange that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is on of the most debated political topics for the last 40 years (at least), despite being a (relatively) low-intensity, regional conflict?

Anyway, if you have ties to Israel, I guess that's OK by me. Although, as I mentioned in my previous comment, the Iraq war, a completely pointless war that your government is an active party in, is several times worse (roughly 100 times, if you go by the casualties).

[ Parent ]

lol idiot (2.33 / 3) (#28)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 06:50:26 PM EST

I guess you are an American as only an American could be so naïve and incomprehensibly ignorant of the magnitude of the potential calamity a fallout in the Middle East would cause. A few hints:

  • take a look at a political and religious map of the world. Notice how Israel is a Jewish state surrounded by Muslim states. Hint: Jews and Muslims hate each other
  • take a look at who has nukes in the world. Israel does and Iran will in a few years if not sooner. Hint: nukes go BOOM. Big badaBOOM.
  • take a look at who has the most oil in the world. Hint: it's in this same region

Those alone are enough reasons to cause the amount of debate and worry the entire world does over the region.

--
Keep banging those rocks together, MMM!
- Kasreyn


[ Parent ]
Guess again, I'm typing this from Tel Aviv (none / 1) (#41)
by nidarus on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:20:53 AM EST

  • It's true that Muslims hate the Jews and vise versa. Guess what, that's more or less the definition of a regional conflict. The question is, why is this regional conflict so important.
  • Yes, Israel has nukes. But guess what, so do the Chinese and the Russians. Sure, Iran might bring a second cold war to the region, but this article was about Palestine, and that conflict has absolutely nothing to do with nukes.
  • Yeah, there is oil in the region, but there is absolutely nothing in the tiny, barren piece of land that is Israel/Palestine.


[ Parent ]
Except Jerusalem. $ (none / 1) (#46)
by Scott Robinson on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:29:07 AM EST



[ Parent ]
It's not true that Muslims and Jews (none / 0) (#167)
by heathlander on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:28:32 AM EST

intrinsically hate each other. That's buying into this whole 'clash of civilisations' garbage and it's just a fantasy designed to deflect discussion from the conflict as it actually is: a conflict about expansion, about land and about occupation.

Back in 1937, the Peel Commission concluded that the animosty felt by Palestinians to the Zionists was due to fear of displacement. They feared, accurately as it turns out, that if the Zionists were to achieve their aims, it would be at the expense of the native Palestinians. No anti-Semitism, no anti-civilisation, none of that. Just the plain, obvious common sense answer: the Zionist Jews faced hostility because the Palestinians feared displacement.

Just like if I were to tell you that the Native Americans fought against the colonisers because they were 'anti-White' or 'anti-European', you would think I was nuts. Why? Because the obvious answer is that they feared displacement and that the invaders' success would come at the Natives' expense.

[ Parent ]

Fear of displacement (none / 0) (#177)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:38:15 AM EST

And that's why they rejected the 1948 partition plan, and decided that trying to destroy Israel would be a much better idea (which is what led to their displacement).

Btw, I never implied that "Muslims and Jews intrinsically hate each other", since I don't think so either, so you're basically arguing with yourself.

[ Parent ]

But if you weren't arguing (none / 0) (#198)
by heathlander on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:53:29 PM EST

that they implicitly hate each other, then why group  them according to 'Muslim' and 'Jews'? By grouping according to those categories, you are implying that that is the divide. If you're not arguing that the hatred is due to Muslim-ness and Jewishness, why not say (for example), 'Occupiers and the occupied hate each other'. Or 'Colonialists and natives hate each other'. By using 'Muslims and Jews' you are of course implying that religion is the primary cause for the 'hatred', when in fact it isn't.

As to the 1948 plan - of course on reflection it was a bad decision to reject it. But don't you understand that any concession of any land of historical Palestine to the Zionists was, well, a concession. Any concession would have meant a loss of land for the native Palestinians. Moreover, the Zionist leaders had made it clear quite publicly that their ambitions would not stop at the land they would have got by the Partition Plan.

I'm not here arguing that Israel has no right to exist. I'm saying that Palestinian hostility to the Zionists should be understood and talked about in terms of their concern about loss of land, loss of power and displacement, not in terms of 'anti-Semitism' or this strange, inbuilt desire to see Jews driven to the sea.

[ Parent ]

I was replying to MMM, who was using these terms (none / 0) (#210)
by nidarus on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:23:13 AM EST

From what he was saying, I understood that he meant Muslims and Jews in the Middle East, today. As in, the Jewish Israel, and its surrounding Muslim states.

I was never claiming anything about Palestinian anti-semitism or anything like that.

[ Parent ]

Btw, "expansion" lol (none / 0) (#178)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:42:16 AM EST

Have you ever even looked at a map?

[ Parent ]
Millions and millions of people have died ... (3.00 / 4) (#23)
by j1mmy on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 05:06:40 PM EST

... from heart disease.

Maybe we should post more articles about heart disease and fewer about war?

[ Parent ]

Let's go with your flawed analogy (none / 1) (#51)
by nidarus on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:52:49 AM EST

Israel/Palestine isn't "heart disease". It's a rare, relatively benign disease, that just happens to be related to the world's most hated minority.

If there was a health section on K5, and the most debated topic was this disease, then it would be just as disturbing.

Oh, and btw, I prefer articles about heart disease than the same stupid "Israel sucks" articles over and over.

[ Parent ]

World's most hated minority (3.00 / 3) (#96)
by bodza on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 05:36:05 PM EST

There are mimes in Israel?

Nuke it. Nuke it now!
--
"Civilization will not attain to its perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest." - Émile Zola

[ Parent ]

world's most hated? (none / 0) (#149)
by Morally Inflexible on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:41:09 PM EST

really? I think most Americans think "they look white to me, what's the problem?" (I know America isn't the whole world, but neither is Europe.)

In fact, I think that if the jews of ww2 were a more swarthy bunch, I don't think the US would have backed the creation of Israel. It's not that we are any less racist, just that we are less 'refined' in that racism.

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure you're right (none / 0) (#174)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:19:53 AM EST

With that "swarthiness" thing. As far as I remember, Jews weren't exactly loved in the pre-WW2-US either.

But my point is that, historically speaking, the Jews were persecuted and hated more and longer than any other people.

Thus, if you want a scapegoat, the Jewish state is a great choice.

[ Parent ]

Pease elaborate (none / 0) (#163)
by xaccrocheur on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:08:47 AM EST

world's most hated minority ? I live in France and I'm really not perceiving this here. Heck, my girlfriend IS jewish (yeah, I sometimes forget it)

But please, tell us : Since you think that israel is "world's most hated minority" you may have thought a reason for this, I'm curious, what is it ?

[ Parent ]

The Jews are the world's most hated minority (none / 0) (#173)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:11:17 AM EST

That's a historical fact.

I have no idea why you thought I meant "Israel".

[ Parent ]

that's a pretty broad claim. (none / 0) (#203)
by Morally Inflexible on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:56:47 AM EST

I obviously don't know either way, but you know what they say about extrordenary claims. Have you references?

[ Parent ]
Do you have any other ideas? (none / 0) (#237)
by nidarus on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:36:07 AM EST

I mean, in Europe, more or less from the beginning, they were persecuted and massacred, including one of the biggest genocides in history. In Arab countries they fared better, but as dhimmis, were still subject to humiliation and discrimination.

The only other option I can think of is the gypsies, but at least they weren't accused of killing God and controlling the world.

[ Parent ]

If by "the world" you mean Europe (none / 0) (#254)
by Morally Inflexible on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 11:08:03 PM EST

I agree with your original statement. even if you throw in russia, you are probably still correct. However, does China care one way or another about the jews? I kinda doubt they separate the Jewish race from the rest of us white guys. how about Mexico? Brazil? Japan? south Africa?

I'm sure you can cite cases of American anti-Semitism, but it's minor compared to our skin-tone based racism, thus my comment about the swarthiness. In WW2, we segregated black people in the military; to my knowledge, we didn't have special jew units.

So yeah, from a Eurocentric point of view, I agree with you completely. But I'm an American; and I think most of us think Europe puts way too much effort into it's racism.

[ Parent ]

Well, I dunno (none / 0) (#258)
by nidarus on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 11:04:29 AM EST

Maybe the East Asians or Africans persecuted some other nation more than the Europeans (and sometimes, Arabs) persecuted the Jews, but I certainly never heard about it.

[ Parent ]
well, the south africans (none / 0) (#260)
by Morally Inflexible on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 10:00:22 PM EST

are kinda like the Americans, from what I understand; lots of skintone-based racisim. It was pretty intense for a while not too long ago, and some say it's likely to heat up again soon. Much of the less-civilized parts of Africa seem to turn up constant stories of genocide and attempted genocide, foiled only by the lack of technology (and sometimes not even then)

From what I understand East Asia is extremely racist; Just about everyone wants to take a shot at Japan, mostly because of japan's miltary actions in the last bit of the 19th century and the first half of the twentieth century. I can't say I blame them- Japan did some pretty messed up stuff. Japan seems to have it's own "racial superiority" issues, and doesn't seem to have the national feeling of remorse that Germany seems to have.

Granted, I'm no expert, you might still be right; I'm just saying that "persecuted worse than any other race in the world" is a pretty strong statement to make.

[ Parent ]

Yeah (none / 0) (#261)
by nidarus on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 08:35:14 AM EST

The South Africans discriminated and killed blacks. But for how long? European antisemitism dates back to the early middle ages, and we have evidence for antisemitism in the Roman empire.

And the East Asians may be xenophobic, in the sense that some peoples (like the Chinese or the Japanese) think they're the center of the world, and everybody else is inferior, but that's not what I meant!

If they all ganged up on some particular East-Asian minority, then it would apply, but, to be honest, if they did, I think I would've read something about it.

And while my statement is a strong statement to make, I think it's also pretty well-founded.

[ Parent ]

Darfur doesn't matter from a global POV (none / 1) (#26)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 06:43:07 PM EST

and there have been plenty of articles on Iraq here and elsewhere.

--
Keep banging those rocks together, MMM!
- Kasreyn


[ Parent ]
YOU don't matter from a global point of view ... (none / 1) (#30)
by cockroach on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 07:33:39 PM EST

either. I'll just go and slaughter you, ok? WTF kind of argument is that!?
--
Webisoder - never miss another TV episode
[ Parent ]
The argument is that if you slaughter me (none / 1) (#32)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 08:04:45 PM EST

(bring a big gun) you won't see articles about that murder outside my home town. Same thing with Darfur: the region doesn't matter outside the realm of Horn of Africa - apart from the Chinese interest there which is another reason the US and EU aren't doing anything there.

Israel, OTOH, does matter in the geopolitical sphere. As such it deserves to be on the front pages everywhere, unlike your slaughtering fantasies or Darfur.

--
Keep banging those rocks together, MMM!
- Kasreyn


[ Parent ]
If that is the way you feel (3.00 / 3) (#65)
by hatshepsut on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:35:25 PM EST

You should write an article about Darfur, or the war in Iraq, or whatever else strikes your fancy. This piece is well-written, non-hysterical, linked to hell-and-back, etc., and your complaint is that it is about something about which you think too much has been written.

While you are certainly entitled to feel that there are more than enough articles about Israel/Palestine, that is your opinion. You can vote the piece up or down as the mood strikes you. If you feel the article shouldn't have been written in first place because Darfur is more important...write your own article and submit. The author of this piece is trying to contribute something to this site. If you think something is important enough to write about, I look forward to seeing what you have to say.

[ Parent ]

This article provides no new insight (none / 1) (#69)
by nidarus on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:01:43 PM EST

It's exactly like the other 12,312 articles about Israel/Palestine on k5. The only people who might find it even remotely interesting are very new k5 users (that is, if they have never been exposed to anything but FOX news).

However, my point was more than a "-1srael" comment. I find the fact the same "Israel sucks" are still being posted on k5 disturbing. I find it especially disturbing since I know this phenomenon is not limited to k5.

Do you really think it's a coincidence? Do you really think it's not worth discussing?

[ Parent ]

What do you mean ? (none / 1) (#158)
by xaccrocheur on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:57:28 AM EST

> Do you really think it's a coincidence? Do you really think it's not worth discussing?

Can you quit being a girlie finger-in-the-mouth and state what you imply already ?

If it's not a coincidence, what is it that you have in mind ? That anyone  emmiting any critisism about Israel is a jew-hating fascist ? If so, you should have the dam courage to say it, and then suffer the consequences of such a stupid & hateful statement.

Specifically, THIS article about weapon sales is quite new.

We talk about it a lot because it's pissing us OFF !  You and your stupid enemies are REALLY a menace for the whole world ! And oh, yes, you are correct, so is the war-of-terror of the Bush Admin, but guess what, we talk about this too quite often.

So please, walk the extra mile and tell us WHY you think this is so.

You know, you should really play it low-key here. Nothing says "dictatorship" like somebody saying that we talk too much about some tragedy going on. And BTW, you are not saying anything other than "shut up" basically. Please learn how to handle a discussion.

[ Parent ]

Israel is a scapegoat (none / 0) (#171)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:03:08 AM EST

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a tiny regional conflict. As such, it's a relatively peaceful one, devoid of the atrocities that usually occur in such conflicts.

It's painfully obvious that there are hidden motives behind its demonization. I have my ideas, and I could discuss them at length, but the problem is that you, and many people like you can't even see the problem.

Btw, what were you smoking when you wrote the last paragraph? I should play it low-key? Was I accused of being a dictator or something?

And as for "learn how to handle a discussion" and the other gems in your comment - it mostly makes you sound like a 15 year old. And not the fun kind either.

[ Parent ]

Isn't the importance obvious? (3.00 / 3) (#88)
by cburke on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 03:42:32 PM EST

I mean, you're Israeli, no?  So you're saying you don't understand the importance of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it relates to the broader problems is the Middle East and the interests Europe, the Americas, and Asia have in the region and the global political climate?

Israel has attacked and been attacked by basically every nearby Muslim nation.  They are currently and conspicuously oppressing a disenfranchised Muslim population.  Israel is a lightning rod for conflict in the region.

In particular due to the U.S. government's staunch support for Israel you will see many articles about this conflict, our role in it, and how it affects the larger Middle East.  In particular you will see articles questioning our continued support.  Exactly for the reason that it is such a lightning rod, it is often felt that without finding peace between Israel and Palestine there can be no peace in the middle east.  It is also increasingly felt as though Israel isn't doing their part in pursuing peace, and often seem to be deliberately antagonistic.

Now you bring up the Iraq war and its size.  It is quite possible that we have a new lightning rod for conflict in the middle east... but again, because of the U.S.-Israel connection and the continued Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel is still involved.  The U.S. will eventually leave Iraq, probably leaving behind a ruined nation fraught with conflict, but the U.S. will be gone.  Israel isn't pulling out period.

So that, in a nutshell, is why this particular conflict gets so much attention in comparison to other conflicts which are, in pure numerical terms, much worse.  I'm not trying to make a lot of value judgements, I'm saying it's perfectly clear why the conflict is important.

[ Parent ]

You say "lightning rod" (none / 0) (#236)
by nidarus on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:25:46 AM EST

I say "scapegoat"

[ Parent ]
What will an arms embargo achieve? (2.40 / 5) (#16)
by nidarus on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 03:06:54 PM EST

It will strengthen the Israeli arms industry (it has been on the verge of going bankrupt for the last two decades or so), it might harm the Israeli economy, and it will severely weaken American and European influence on Israel, allowing it to do what it wants. And that's about it.

There could be no kind of peace agreement if one side (the Palestinians, led by the HAMAS) openly wants to destroy the other. In the meanwhile, Israel has to defend itself or be destroyed.

As for war crimes and disregard for civilian life: do you know of a better way to fight terrorists, hiding in densely populated civilian territory? Well, the Americans certainly don't. Nor do the Russians. In fact, I can't think of a single other country that fared better in this kind of conflict.

The Israeli arms industry (3.00 / 2) (#17)
by heathlander on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 03:09:45 PM EST

doesn't produce F-16s or Apahce helicopters (for example). Israel depends heavily on U.S. military aid and arms sales for its superior army. It has a thriving arms industry of its own, mainly engaged in exporting weaponry, but that doesn't negate its heavy dependence on the U.S.

In any event, I think removing our complicity in murder and oppression is good in itself, even if it has no follow-ons.

[ Parent ]

First of all, chicken an egg (none / 1) (#19)
by nidarus on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 03:24:39 PM EST

The reason Israel doesn't make planes and helicopters, is because of US aid (basically, all the money the US gives Israel must be spent on American arms). There were plans for an Israeli airplane, but they were scrapped when US aid started pouring in.

This is also the reason why the Israeli arms industry is far from "thriving".

As for complicity in murder and oppression, I would worry more about your active role in the pointless, nearly-genocidal occupation of Iraq, than about a tiny country's efforts to defend itself from destruction.

[ Parent ]

btw (none / 1) (#20)
by nidarus on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 03:28:04 PM EST

The main reason for US support is to control Israel. Without it, Israel would be free to do more or less what it wants. I'm not sure it will be in the best interests of the Palestinians.

[ Parent ]
Contradiction (none / 1) (#21)
by heathlander on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 03:53:18 PM EST

"The main reason for US support is to control Israel. Without it, Israel would be free to do more or less what it wants. I'm not sure it will be in the best interests of the Palestinians."

Right - which makes your previous comment make no sense. If the Israeli arms industry could make everything Israel needs itself, then why would they bother with the US, when bothering the US brings with it subservience to US designs?

As to 'defending itself'...I'm not going to go into all the reasons why that is wrong now. Suffice to say, it is. Israel has more than enough in order to defend itself. The weapons it buys from the U.S. are offensive weapons used to perpetuate the occupation of the Palestinians.

[ Parent ]

Very simple (none / 1) (#42)
by nidarus on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:26:02 AM EST

Being subservient to the US is a price many Israelis are ready to pay for the convinience of receiving a billion dollars (or was it 2?) of US aid. The simple fact is - Israel was doing just fine without American weapons. It won several wars without them, and Israeli weapons (the Uzi, Galil, Desert Eagle, etc) became famous. US aid is more or less killing off the Israeli arms industry.

As for defending itself - it's exactly what Israel is doing. The HAMAS wants to destroy Israel. Israel wants to stop it. It's that simple.

Israel has no interest of occupying Palestinians. The only reason this conflict is still going on, is because the HAMAS cannot allow Israel to exist.

[ Parent ]

the russians? are you *sure*? (none / 1) (#25)
by the spins on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 06:36:28 PM EST

because they pretty much won in chechnya. i'm not sure if there could be another conflict that you're referring to.

 _
( )
 X
/ \ SUPPORT THE DEL GRIFFITH MODBOMBING CAMPAIGN

[ Parent ]

Chechnyans still perpetuate terror attacks (none / 1) (#27)
by LilDebbie on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 06:50:26 PM EST

Yes, the Kremlin has succeeded in cowing the civilian population, but they were always good at that.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
o rly. (none / 1) (#39)
by the spins on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 11:59:21 PM EST


 _
( )
 X
/ \ SUPPORT THE DEL GRIFFITH MODBOMBING CAMPAIGN

[ Parent ]

They fucking flattened the place (none / 0) (#176)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:30:23 AM EST

There were tens of thousands of civilian casualties.

What's your point?

[ Parent ]

The point (none / 0) (#200)
by antizeus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:06:36 PM EST

I'm not sure, but I think the point is that the Russians seem to know how to murder people just as well as the Israelis do. Isn't that what you were talking about?
-- $SIGNATURE
[ Parent ]
My point (none / 0) (#211)
by nidarus on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:24:16 AM EST

Is that they suck at not killing civilians, at least as much as the Israelis.

[ Parent ]
We don't have to stop weapon sales to Israel (2.90 / 11) (#24)
by United Fools on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 05:42:20 PM EST

We just need to require that for every weapon Israel gets, an identical one is sold to the Palestines. This is the most fair, and others can still profit from the conflict.

We are united, we are fools, and we are America!
How is it 'fair' (none / 0) (#165)
by heathlander on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:16:26 AM EST

to sell weapons to someone who uses them illegally? That makes you (the seller) complict in those crimes. Arming both sides does nothing to negate this fact.

[ Parent ]
You know, you use "illegal" a lot (none / 0) (#182)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 12:11:35 PM EST

And I have to ask you: who acts "legally"?

The US and UK, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq alone? The Russians? The Chinese? The Palestinians?

[ Parent ]

It is true (none / 0) (#217)
by heathlander on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 09:49:59 AM EST

that most countries violate the law. That doesn't make it right.

[ Parent ]
But that does mean it's not a "law" (none / 0) (#235)
by nidarus on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:20:02 AM EST

If no one follows it, then it's an utopistic philosophy at best, or, as in your article, a propagandistic device.

If every war is illegal, then the only reason to point out that this specific war is illegal, is to vilify the Israelis.

[ Parent ]

No it doesn't mean its not a law (none / 0) (#238)
by heathlander on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:02:48 AM EST

Not every war is illegal. Some violence is explicitly justified by the law - for example, a people under occupation have a legal right to use force to resist.

The purpose to pointing out that Israel commits war crimes against the Palestinians and that by selling them weapons we are complicit in them is to stop the  Palestinians having to suffer like they are now.

[ Parent ]

So, wait, you're implying (none / 0) (#242)
by nidarus on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:35:54 AM EST

That the war the Palestinians are waging to destroy Israel (instead of trying to achieve a peaceful solution), while intentionally killing innocent civilians, is not only a legal war but one of the few legal wars in the world?

And, of course, Israel's attempt to stop them is illegal.

Uh-huh.

And as I mentioned before, there is a simple way for the Palestinians to stop their suffering.

Stop attacking Israel.

Accept some kind of a peaceful compromise.

Until then, there is nothing Israel can do except for allowing itself to be destroyed.

[ Parent ]

What 'war'? (none / 0) (#244)
by heathlander on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:50:56 AM EST

There is no war between Israel and the Palestinians.  There is an occupation, and resistance to that occupation.

[ Parent ]
You just said (none / 0) (#246)
by nidarus on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 10:05:21 AM EST

That resisting occupation is a legal kind of war. Can't you see the contradiction?

And besides, how is that not war? And even if it's not "war" by your bizarre, self-contradictory definition, so what?

And last, the declared goal of the HAMAS is not to end the occupation. Unless, of course, if by "occupation" you mean "Israel's existence".

Israel, on other hand, explicitly stated that it does want to end the occupation, and form a Palestinian country alongside Israel.

So even that observation is dead wrong.

[ Parent ]

I didn;'t mention 'war' (none / 0) (#249)
by heathlander on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 12:37:40 PM EST

read above, you'll see. I said that under the law, some violence is permissable.

Hamas is not fighting to destroy Israel. They want a hudna and a just settlement. That's why they signed the Prisoner's Document, which limits attacks to the OPT. Of course, then Israel went and started Operation Summer Rains which put an end to all that. Hamas is fighting a resistance.

It does matter what Israel states. It matters what Israel does. Israel does things like expanding settlements, building an annexation wall, passing laws to annex bits of stolen land, expelling  Palestinians from areas Israel wants to keep forever (e.g. East Jerusalem) and so on. Israel is prepared to let the Palestinians call themselves a 'state', but it is not prepared to respect their legal rights and allow them the sort of state they are entitled to. As Netanyahu's government put it, "Well, they want to call it a state? Fine, they can call it fried chicken if they want to."

[ Parent ]

Quote: "Not every war is illegal." (none / 0) (#253)
by nidarus on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 10:47:20 PM EST

And then you bring struggle against occupation as an example.

Look, you can't push so much contradictory propaganda in one thread. It really stands out. Basic law of demagoguery.

In any case, Hudna means temporary ceasefire in order to regroup. That's the historical meaning of that word. That's why they say "Hudna" and not "Peace".

And just settlement? The HAMAS couldn't be any clearer that it wants to destroy Israel. I mean, they never try to hide this simple fact. It's the basis of their platform.

I mean, if there was any doubt that this is their intention, if they tried to hide it in any way, then maybe your delusions were not completely insane. But come on, this claim is not even in the bounds of this conflict, hell, it's not really in the bounds of reality.

As for what Israel does? How about the complete withdrawal from Gaza, that led only to Qassams on Ashkelon? How about creating the Palestinian autonomy, that was followed by a sharp increase in suicide bombings? How about giving the Palestinian "police" weapons that were used against Israeli soldiers in the 2nd intifada?

Israel officially accepted the two-state solution. There is no vast Israeli conspiracy. Israel actually wants what it says.

What state are the Palestinians entitled to? That's a question for negotiations. Unfortunately, there could be no negotiations when the Palestinians can't accept Israel's existance.

[ Parent ]

No I didn't (none / 0) (#256)
by heathlander on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 08:22:51 AM EST

I said 'some violence' is legal and gave it as an example of that. I can see how it might have confusing, though - the only reason I mentioned war was in response to you. So to clarify - some wars are legal and some violence is legal. Palestinian resistance to occupation is an example of lawful violence.

"In any case, Hudna means temporary ceasefire in order to regroup. That's the historical meaning of that word. That's why they say "Hudna" and not "Peace"."

Right, but you have to look at the context. Hamas has made many overtures at peace - short of changing its founding Charter commitment to destroying Israel. That's because politically, I cannot do that before even being granted the honour of talking to Israel. The PLO did it - and where did it get them? More settlements, more annexation, more occupation. The PLO was undermined and hugely embarassed by Israel over a long period of time - of course Hamas isn't going to let that happen to them.

A future Palestinian state would pose no threat to Israel. Even Israeli politicians admit that. Moreover, if a just settlement was signed, the Palestinian population (who overwhlemingly favour a two-state solution) would not allow Hamas or anyone else to reduce the situation back to how it is now through needless violence. The occupation is not about security, its about expansion.

"As for what Israel does? How about the complete withdrawal from Gaza, that led only to Qassams on Ashkelon?"

Israel withdrew from Gaza but it did not stop occupying it. If you doubt this tell me and I'll both digging up all the detailed explanations from Amnesty to Israeli journalists to the UN. But it really isn't controversial that Israel didn't stop occupying Gaza. Even Olmert and Kadima don't claim that - that's why they constantly use 'disengagement' and 'withdrawal' but they never say the occupation ended. Because it didn't.

Furthermore, the West Bank remained occupied. Therefore, resistance would obviously continue in Gaza. If Syria occupied Haifa, would you complain if residents of Tel Aviv joined in the fight? Would you claim that only Israelis in Haifa had the right to resist? Of course not. The West Bank and Gaza are one unit, so when it is justified to resist in the West Bank it is justified to resist in Gaza.

"Israel officially accepted the two-state solution. There is no vast Israeli conspiracy. Israel actually wants what it says."

Saying that you want a two-state settlement is almost meaningless. The kind of settlement Israel wants is one that completely violates Palestinian legal rights.

"What state are the Palestinians entitled to?"

No it isn't. It's a question of law. Negotiations are to decide on compromises, but before you can compromise you have to recognise what you are compromising from - legal rights. In this regard, the Palestinians are the only side ever to have compromised on anything. To quote Finkelstein:

"Now, it is correct to say that if you frame everything in terms of what Israel wanted, it made huge concessions. However, if you frame things in terms of what Israel was legally entitled to under international law, then Israel made precisely and exactly zero concessions. All the concessions were made by the Palestinians.

Briefly, because we don't have time, there were four key issues at Camp David and at Taba. Number one, settlements. Number two, borders. Number three, Jerusalem. Number four, refugees. Let's start with settlements. Under international law, there is no dispute, no controversy. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it's illegal for any occupying country to transfer its population to Occupied Territories. All of the settlements, all of the settlements are illegal under international law. No dispute. The World Court in July 2004 ruled that all the settlements are illegal. The Palestinians were willing to concede 50% -- 50% of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That was a monumental concession, going well beyond anything that was demanded of them under international law.

Borders. The principle is clear. I don't want to get into it now, because I was very glad to see that Dr. Ben-Ami quoted it three times in his book. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. Under international law, Israel had to withdraw from all of the West Bank and all of Gaza. As the World Court put it in July 2004, those are, quote, "occupied Palestinian territories." Now, however you want to argue over percentages, there is no question, and I know Dr. Ben-Ami won't dispute it, the Palestinians were willing to make concessions on the borders. What percentage? There's differences. But there is no question they were willing to make concessions.

Jerusalem. Jerusalem is an interesting case, because if you read Dr. Ben-Ami or the standard mainstream accounts in the United States, everyone talks about the huge concessions that Barak was willing to make on Jerusalem. But under international law Israel has not one atom of sovereignty over any of Jerusalem. Read the World Court decision. The World Court decision said Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. Now, the Palestinians were willing, the exact lines I'm not going to get into now -- they are complicated, but I'm sure Dr. Ben-Ami will not dispute they were willing to divide Jerusalem roughly in half, the Jewish side to Israel, the Arab side to the Palestinians.

And number four, refugees. On the question of refugees, it's not a dispute under international law. Remarkably, even fairly conservative human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, in 2000, during the Camp David talks, they issued statements on the question of the right of return. And they stated categorically, under international law every Palestinian, roughly five to six million, has the right to return, not to some little parcels, 1% of Israel, which Israel is about -- which Israel would swap, return to their homes or the environs of their homes in Israel. That's the law. Now, Dr. Ben-Ami will surely agree that the Palestinians were not demanding and never demanded the full return of six million refugees. He gives a figure of 4-800,000. In fact -- I'm not going to get into the numbers, because it's very hard to pin it down -- other authors have given figures of the tens of thousands to 200,000 refugees returning. That's well short of six million.

On every single issue, all the concessions came from the Palestinians."



[ Parent ]
First of all (none / 0) (#257)
by nidarus on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 09:39:24 AM EST

What you said went like that: "Not every war is illegal. Some violence is explicitly justified by the law". As in, you were equating "violence" with "war". I have no idea why you backed out of this, rather logical, conclusion.

Maybe you think that since it's not "war", then every combatant Israelis kill is a "murder", every house they invade into is a "trespassing", and every tank on the street is a "parking violation". Yeah, whatever.

Anyway, even the most far-reaching "peaceful" gesture the HAMAS made talked about a temporary ceasefire, to allow them to regroup. In any case, for political and religious reasons, they cannot, and will not, allow Israel to exist.

To be fair, I do think the HAMAS are kinda confused right now. The Palestinians do want a future, and all they can offer is pointless war. But obviously, since their whole platform, their main difference between them and the PLO was that they still want to destroy Israel, they can't back down on this.

Like the Israeli far-right-wing, they never expected to be anything but opposition.

As for "what the peace agreement got the PLO" - what did it get for the Israelis? Look at the sharp increase in terror attacks after the Oslo accords. In fact, the most gruesome attacks (such as the one on bus line 5) were after Oslo. Not to mention that the guns that were given to the Palestinian police by the Israelis, were later used against the Israeli soldiers (during the 2nd intifada).

And Israel did withdraw from the Gaza strip. Completely. There was no occupation in Gaza after the disengagement. The reason Kadima called that disengagement is because "withdrawal" has bad political connotations. They made it very clear that "withdrawal" is the end of the "occupation".

Of course, by lobbing Qassams from the freed areas, the HAMAS showed Israelis that occupation or not, they will still try to kill them.

So what? All peace is a lie? Is war, oh sorry, I mean, violence the only way?

As for the agreement:

You make it sound like if Finkelstein says that Israel should make huge concessions under international law, then that's the plain truth.

Well, guess what, that's a highly debated issue, and Finkelstein's writings are very controversial.

Basically, the law may say that Israel should return the territories to Jordan and Egypt, but guess what, they don't want it anymore. The whole idea of giving Palestinians any territory is a compromise on Israel's side.

In any case, it's pretty clear that if international law meant anything to the Arab nations, there would be no Israeli/Palestinian conflict, there would be no occupation, and there would be no refugees. Why? Because the whole thing started when the Arab states decided to ignore the UN's partition plan and try ("illegally", as you would say) to destroy Israel.

Besides, you make it sound like Israel's positions on Palestine are set in stone, and nothing could be further from the truth. Israel's positions were always open to negotiations, and, indeed, changed considerably during the past 10 years.

But that doesn't matter, because no negotiations could be made while the Palestinian government's only position that it cannot allow Israel to exist.

[ Parent ]

Concerning Lebanese "civilian property" (2.71 / 14) (#29)
by LilDebbie on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 07:00:44 PM EST

When did targeting bridges become a war crime? As I recall, disrupting enemy logistics is a key factor in fighting war. That means disrupting transportation infrastructure, i.e. roads and bridges. The fact that civilians use the same infrastructure is, survey says, irrelevant.

Or did you not know that the RAF proudly boasts of destroying almost every single major bridge in Germany (including recently conquered territory, e.g. Holland) during WWII?

Right. I keep forgetting assholes like you think wars should be fought with puppies and cotton candy. At least when the revolution comes, your kind will be put into slavery since your superiors will have little worry of you fighting back.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

wars should be fought with puppies (3.00 / 2) (#58)
by wiredog on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:19:45 AM EST

That's it, I'm reporting you to PETA!

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
Not if I nail you with my puppy-cannon first! $ (none / 0) (#63)
by LilDebbie on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:33:59 PM EST



My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
BOOM! (none / 0) (#79)
by wiredog on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:58:35 PM EST

Yip! Yip! Yip! Thud!

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
+1 Hard-on for war (none / 1) (#87)
by Just this guy on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 03:35:50 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Dogs of war (none / 1) (#93)
by LilDebbie on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 04:29:09 PM EST

...and men of hate
With no cause, we don't discriminate
Discovery is to be disowned
Our currency is flesh and bone
Hell opened up and put on sale
Gather 'round and haggle
For hard cash, we will lie and deceive
Even our masters don't know the web we weave

One world, it's a battleground
One world, and we will smash it down
One world
One world

Invisible transfers, long distance calls,
Hollow laughter in marble halls
Steps have been taken, a silent uproar
Has unleashed the dogs of war
You can't stop what has begun
Signed, sealed, they deliver oblivion
We all have a dark side, to say the least
And dealing in death is the nature of the beast

One world, it's a battleground
One world, and we will smash it down
One world
One world

The dogs of war don't negotiate
The dogs of war won't capitulate,
They will take and you will give,
And you must die so that they may live
You can knock at any door,
But wherever you go, you know they've been there before
Well winners can lose and things can get strained
But whatever you change, you know the dogs remain.

One world, it's a battleground
One world, and we will smash it down
One world
One world

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

infrastructure (none / 0) (#125)
by nostalgiphile on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 05:02:01 AM EST

yer right, but the key point is, infrastructure (bridges, communications, rail, etc. networks) isn't "civilian" anything, it's a vasculatory system that keeps the state organism alive.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
+1 screw Amnesty International (none / 1) (#201)
by shokk on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:28:43 PM EST

They can call for whatever they want, the unrealistic idiots.  They won't get this one any more than any others.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
[ Parent ]
-1 (2.00 / 5) (#31)
by GhostOfTiber on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 08:00:14 PM EST

All I get out of this is that Amnesty International is not willing to be involved in wars where the line between civilian and soldier is blurred such as the case of Hezbollah.  As such, they have to say something in order to appear legitimate in front of their supporters, so they take the easy way out and condemn the Israelis.

Since the US govt doesn't take Amnesty International seriously and is the primary aid provider to Israel, I don't see this accomplishing much.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne

also: -1 plagarism (2.00 / 10) (#33)
by GhostOfTiber on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 08:04:53 PM EST

It appears large sections of your story appear word for word from:
http://www.caat.org.uk/publications/countries/israel-1002.php
http://www.davekopel.com/Corner/CornerPDA.htm
http://www.saferworld.co.uk/images/pubdocs/Audit_4B%20India-Israel.pdf

And so on.

It's been massaged a bit here and there, but it's basically a retread of other people's work.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne

Research <nt> (none / 0) (#37)
by The Diary Section on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 10:10:33 PM EST


Parent ]

<blockquote> (none / 0) (#38)
by GhostOfTiber on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 10:44:58 PM EST

But then, it's considered poor form to enclose an entire K5 submission in blockquote.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

Examples? (none / 0) (#150)
by Metamorphorical Rock on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:47:58 PM EST

I'm not seeing it.

[ processed instant god ]
[ Parent ]
Thx, definitely -1, report it to editors /nt (none / 0) (#57)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:05:07 AM EST


--
Keep banging those rocks together, MMM!
- Kasreyn


[ Parent ]
I haven't even looked at (none / 0) (#62)
by heathlander on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:24:01 PM EST

any of the pages you link to above. I think it's polite to ask before throwing around accusation of plagiarism.

[ Parent ]
you must be new here (none / 0) (#64)
by cDiss on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:34:14 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Mr GhostofTiber claims they are copied verbatim (none / 1) (#75)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:27:21 PM EST

which would suggest that you are either lying or he is. Since his uid is lower than yours, it is you, sir, who has to prove his innocence.

--
Keep banging those rocks together, MMM!
- Kasreyn


[ Parent ]
That's obviously bullshit (none / 0) (#119)
by heathlander on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:49:32 AM EST

Wherever I have used a page as a source for information, I have linked it. Wherever I have actually quoted from a page, I have linked it and placed it in quotes.

There's no need to 'believe' one of us over the other. Check the links. Check every single link in my article and you will find that all the stats/quotes come from those links. As to the rest of it...check the links he provided. Apart from using the same figures, they aren't the same at all.

[ Parent ]

For example (none / 0) (#120)
by heathlander on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:52:47 AM EST

he says I have copied verbatim from here: http://www.davekopel.com/Corner/CornerPDA.htm

But if you look, where is the verbatim copying? Linked there is an article about Control Arms, an NGO that is apparently lobbying for banning arms sales to Israel. I didn't even know a group called 'Control Arms' existed, which is why they aren't mentioned anywhere in the article above. Itss just nonsense.

[ Parent ]

Note that he does not claim (none / 1) (#82)
by Naysayer on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:21:53 PM EST

that his article is not plagiarized or composited from other sources, just that he has not visited those particular links (and is offended by the accusation, but boo-fucking-hoo to that).

That'll teach me to check the comments before voting...

[ Parent ]

Note that you do not claim (none / 0) (#160)
by heathlander on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:03:24 AM EST

that you are not an idiot. Hence, by your logic,...

[ Parent ]
It is impossible to fight Hezbollah (2.00 / 3) (#34)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 08:11:28 PM EST

without causing severe damage to "civilian" infrastructure and loss of "civilian" lives. Hezbollah uses guerrilla tactics. Further, they complement those tactics with (ab)using civilians, hospitals and mosques as shields.

Therefore to fight Hezbollah effectively you will hurt civilians and their infrastructure even if you take all possible measures to avoid "collateral" damage. Civilians getting in the line of fire is as much the fault of Israel as it is of Hezbollah.

--
Keep banging those rocks together, MMM!
- Kasreyn


Good conventional war analysis (none / 0) (#35)
by 1419 on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 09:23:27 PM EST

which is why the US and conventional war loving countries fail again and again.

This requires political warfare.

[ Parent ]

Well, the US is making the mistake known since (3.00 / 3) (#36)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 09:39:28 PM EST

(at least) Sun Tzu's times: fighting the last war instead of the current one. You expected the Iraqis hadn't learned their lesson from the early 90s war, but they did.

The problem with guerrilla warfare is that it is practically impossible to win a determined enemy waging guerrilla war which is willing to go at it for generations. (By practically impossible I mean perpetual carpet bombing, mass internments and displacements, and genocide are not options.) And I have no reason to think Palestinians don't have that determination. The sooner the rest of the world realizes and accepts this, the sooner we can start figuring out real solutions to the problem.

--
Keep banging those rocks together, MMM!
- Kasreyn


[ Parent ]
I think we're ready! (2.50 / 2) (#45)
by Scott Robinson on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:24:35 AM EST

Real solutions like perpetual carpet bombing, mass internments, displacements, and genocide!

[ Parent ]
meh (none / 1) (#49)
by binford2k on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:46:28 AM EST

Russia tried shit like that in Afghanistan for years and failed.

[ Parent ]
That's because the Afghanis (none / 0) (#55)
by LilDebbie on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 10:38:14 AM EST

had US support back then. I imagine they would've had a much easier time with it if we weren't arming and training folks like bin Laden to kick some commie ass.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
wow I didn't expect such misplaced USian (none / 1) (#76)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:36:15 PM EST

hubris from you.

Afghans have been waging war with everybody around them - and amongst them - for millennia. They didn't need American's aid or weapons in defeating the Russians - or at least defeating their morale. I'm sure the Stingers helped and Delta Force training shortened the Russian's withdrawal but vanya would've done that eventually anyway as the Afghans were fighting yet another war against a clueless outside aggressor.

As I stated, winning against a determined guerrilla army is literally impossible. And Afghanistan's terrain is perfect for guerrilla warfare and a bane for "conventional." They destroyed Russian choppers by throwing rocks at them from hilltops above. Rocks!

--
Keep banging those rocks together, MMM!
- Kasreyn


[ Parent ]
Well very fortunate for the Iraqi insurgency (none / 0) (#85)
by cburke on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 03:21:31 PM EST

that they are being armed and trained by the U.S. to kick our own ass.

Or did you think that because someone stands in line at the army recruitment office, puts on the uniform, and cashes the paycheck, that they therefore are on our side?

We train them in our military tactics, then they go home to their real job in the Madhi army or some other militia/insurgent group, and use that knowledge against us.

Yeah, we're way smarter than the Ruskies.  laugh sob

[ Parent ]

No way around it (none / 0) (#92)
by LilDebbie on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 04:12:57 PM EST

If you want to build an army you need recruits. Yes, some of 'em will turn on you. I doubt our commanders in the field were terribly surprised when that happened.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Or, you know, Libya and Iran. $ (none / 0) (#225)
by Scott Robinson on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 08:06:11 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Read The Transformation of War (none / 0) (#40)
by The Diary Section on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:00:59 AM EST

by Martin Van Creveld, published March 1991.

I don't have shares in his publishers or anything, I just can't help noticing when someone is right.

Parent ]

If you read the HRW report (3.00 / 2) (#47)
by heathlander on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:40:48 AM EST

they conclude that the excuse of 'Hizbullah hiding behind civilians' neither explains nor justifies the massive civilian casualties in southern Lebanon. For example, it doesn't justify Israel killing fleeing civilians and it doesn't justify Israel bombing the power station on the coast.

Incidentally, Israel too places its military installations close to civilian settlements. I don't hear anyone claiming that justifies Hizbullah's katyusha rocket firing.

[ Parent ]

That's because Hizbullah (none / 0) (#54)
by LilDebbie on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 10:36:07 AM EST

isn't aiming anywhere near Israeli military installations.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
How do you know this? (none / 0) (#67)
by A Bore on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:39:39 PM EST



[ Parent ]
While Katyushas may be inaccurate (none / 0) (#72)
by LilDebbie on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:14:05 PM EST

Hitting neighborhoods several miles distant from any legitimate military target suggests they weren't aiming at a legimate military target.

Or Katyushas are really, really, really, inaccurate.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

well, it is rocket science /nt (none / 0) (#106)
by SocratesGhost on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:15:43 PM EST


-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
And exactly how do you know (none / 0) (#126)
by vivelame on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 06:49:54 AM EST

that the katiushas hit several miles from legitimate targets?
I mean, if you look closely, it's actually quite funny.
"Oooh, Haifa was hit, EVIL EVIL muslims!!!!111"
Of course, they never remind you that there is a massive military presence in Haifa. Right next to civilians, by the way. Seems obvious that the IDF is using civilians as cover, but no one is willing to come out and say it.
"Ooooh, this nice little kibbutz was hit!"
And, on TV,in the background noise of the reporting, you hear the thuds of isreali heavy artillery firing from positions right next to the fuckin' civilians.
So, i'll take the "Hitting neighborhoods several miles distant from any legitimate military target" with a f'in tanker of salt, thank you very much.

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
You do realize (none / 0) (#140)
by LilDebbie on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 04:00:47 PM EST

that artillery is kinda loud and can be heard for miles?

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
LilDebbie (none / 1) (#166)
by heathlander on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:20:17 AM EST

Israeli ships used to launch missiles at Lebanon were docked at the port of Haifa. Israel stationed soldiers in civilian settlement in the north. Hizbullah, for all their inaccurate weaponry, had a higher soldier:civilian kill ratio than Israel, armed with precision guided missiles. Only someone utterly blinded by the official narrative could conclude from this that the IDF behaved better during the war than Hizbullah.

[ Parent ]
One small point - "official narrative"? (none / 0) (#181)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 12:07:58 PM EST

Do you really think that parroting a contradicting, but nevertheless just as manufactured narrative makes you a free thinker or something?

[ Parent ]
What do you mean by 'manufactured'? (none / 0) (#197)
by heathlander on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:44:49 PM EST

By official narrative I meant the narrative that has been pushed by the Western and Israeli establishments.

[ Parent ]
Manufactured as in "not real" (none / 0) (#207)
by nidarus on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:06:02 AM EST

Both narratives try to simplify a complex story into a simple tale "good vs. bad".

That's the point of propoganda.

On the one side you have the story pushed by Israel and "the West" (you must be referring to the US, because that's certainly not the mainstream opinion in Europe).

On the other, you see the story that's being pushed by the Muslim world.

The first story is bogus. But you seem to think that buying the other story makes you a free thinker. Well, guess what, it doesn't.

It's like talking about how McDonald's is a faceless corporation that makes shitty food, and then going to Burger King.

[ Parent ]

No-one mentioned "free thinker" (none / 1) (#212)
by heathlander on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 02:43:01 AM EST

except you. No-one can think independently of their cultural surroundings and past experiences, so in that sense no thinking is "free". All that matters is that we try to be as accurate as possible, and this is done by insisting that our opinions are backed up with as much evidence as possible.

I don't think the way I view the conflict simplifies it into 'good vs bad' and I don't think  there is a choice simply between two propaganda versions (the one pushed by Israel & the U.S. vs. the one pushed by the Arab world). There is also the progressive view, which focuses on the law and recognises the fundamental asymmetry of the situation.

[ Parent ]

I mentioned "free thinker" (none / 0) (#220)
by nidarus on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:31:27 AM EST

Because that's what you seemed to imply. In fact, that is what you seem to imply in this comment as well.

The problem is that I haven't seen any difference between your opinions and the standard Arab narrative.

[ Parent ]

not, that's not what he implies. (none / 1) (#264)
by vivelame on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 02:51:35 PM EST

That's what you put in his mouth.
Not the same thing altogether.

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
If someone (none / 0) (#271)
by nidarus on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 07:26:44 AM EST

... talks about "being utterly blinded by the official narrative", he implies that the person he's replying to is a sheep that mindlessly believes his government's blatant lies.

And how can you call the person that sees through the lies of the "official narrative", if not a "free thinker"?

What I was saying that heathlander was just following another "official narrative", so he's also a sheep, just with a different shepherd.

Yes, I know that "free thinker" was my term, and if you read my comments, you'll understand that I've never claimed otherwise. I was obviously talking about the spirit of his words - but you were too busy getting angry at me to get that simple point.

[ Parent ]

well, you know it's actually not that far (none / 0) (#265)
by vivelame on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 02:55:27 PM EST

when you see soldiers in the background. And when you see next nice pictures of israeli children marking shells with "from isreal with love" and stuff.
Oooh, the children got fragged in counter-battery fire??
Too fuckin' bad.

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
This debate is pointless (none / 0) (#180)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 12:03:45 PM EST

Nasrallah claimed to be aiming at military targets only at the first day or so.

But because of Israelis' attacks on civilians, he claimed, they had to "move on" to civilian targets as well.

[ Parent ]

But the aim of the debate (none / 1) (#199)
by heathlander on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:59:13 PM EST

(or this sub-thread of it anyway) is not to talk about whether Nasrallah or the IDF deliberately targeted civilians. The IDF definitely did and Nasrallah probably did (Israel won't release details of its military installations so we can't be sure, but on the evidence it looks like he did).

The point is to expose the double standards of people who preach the mantra that all the killings of Lebanese civilians by Israel can be explained - and justified - by the idea of a Hizbullah gunman hiding behind them. a) It's factually incorrect and b) people who espouse this view would have to also argue that Hizbullah was justified in (for example) firing katyushas on Haifa, because of the military port.

I argue that neither is justified. One could theoretically argue that both are (although such a person would certainly, and thankfully, be in the minority). However, one can't consistently argue that Israel was justified to kill Lebanese civilians because Hizbullah hid some rockets in some houses, but that Hizbullah was not justified in firing katyushas at Haifa even though the port was used for military purposes.

[ Parent ]

If both views are factually incorrect (none / 0) (#209)
by nidarus on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:18:58 AM EST

Then why are you pushing one of them?

Just because someone pushed the other one?

[ Parent ]

What both views are factually incorrect? (none / 0) (#213)
by heathlander on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 02:51:10 AM EST

It's factually correct that Israel places its military facilities and/or troops near civilians. It's factually correct that although Hizbullah do that sometimes, it doesn't explain or justify Israel's killing of civilians. It's factually correct that Israel deliberately targeted  civilians, and that Hizbullah probably did.

Where some apparently disagree is with the moral side of it. Some people seem to think that it is immoral for Hizbullah to fire rockets on Haifa but moral for Israel to fire missiles on (for example) Qana. Now, I can't disagree with morality on a factual basis. But I can point out that there is no logically coherent way of holding such a view without also holding the view that the life of a Lebanese civilians is worth less than that of an Israeli civilian.

[ Parent ]

Not "probably" because they admitted it (none / 0) (#219)
by nidarus on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:29:55 AM EST

In any case, even if you think something is probably false, then why say it?

[ Parent ]
They did not (none / 0) (#223)
by heathlander on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:33:54 PM EST

but what are you talking about? What is probably false? I said Hizbullah probably did target civilians.

[ Parent ]
You seemed to support vivelame and A Bore (none / 0) (#234)
by nidarus on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:13:29 AM EST

Who claimed otherwise.

But I might be wrong.

In any case, that sub-thread was about the question of whether the Hizballah targeted civilians or not.

Btw, as I said before - Nasrallah went on TV a day or two after the attacks, and said that until then they were only shooting at military targets, but because Israel is targeting civilians, they'll move to targeting civilians as well.

Of course, nothing really changed, as they were targeting civilian areas from the get-go, but the point is that they admitted it.

[ Parent ]

If you can provide a quote (none / 0) (#239)
by heathlander on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:06:30 AM EST

then please, do.

The sub-thread was not about whether Hizbullah targeted civilians. It was about the double standards people who dismiss the massive civilian suffering caused by Israel in Lebanon using the Hizbullah-terrorist-hiding-behind-them 'argumement'.

[ Parent ]

If you don't believe me, fine (none / 0) (#243)
by nidarus on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:42:53 AM EST

I was watching the war live. I saw it. If you want to look for the video be my guest. I don't have the time.

And I'm not sure you're right about the thread's purpose. Look at this quote:

And exactly how do you know that the katiushas hit several miles from legitimate targets?

I mean, if you look closely, it's actually quite funny.

"Oooh, Haifa was hit, EVIL EVIL muslims!!!!111"

Of course, they never remind you that there is a massive military presence in Haifa.

And another:
LilDebbie: That's because Hizbullah isn't aiming anywhere near Israeli military installations.

A Bore: How do you know this?



[ Parent ]

I did too (none / 1) (#245)
by heathlander on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:58:22 AM EST

but anyway, we'll leave that for now.

As far as I know, this started with MMM saying:

"It is impossible to fight Hezbollah without causing severe damage to "civilian" infrastructure and loss of "civilian" lives. Hezbollah uses guerrilla tactics. Further, they complement those tactics with (ab)using civilians, hospitals and mosques as shields."

I replied further down that:

"If you read the HRW report they conclude that the excuse of 'Hizbullah hiding behind civilians' neither explains nor justifies the massive civilian casualties in southern Lebanon. For example, it doesn't justify Israel killing fleeing civilians and it doesn't justify Israel bombing the power station on the coast.

Incidentally, Israel too places its military installations close to civilian settlements. I don't hear anyone claiming that justifies Hizbullah's katyusha rocket firing."

But anyway, the important point is not to 'measure up' who was more humane, Israel of Hizbullah. The important point is to expose the double standards so often employed when talking about this issue.

[ Parent ]

Wrong people (3.00 / 9) (#43)
by Kasreyn on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:31:32 AM EST

..."ever since they elected the wrong people to power in January"

I dearly hope you intended that usage of "the wrong people" with all the bitter burden of dripping sarcasm it so richly deserves. How typical of America and its lap-dogs to be such little fucking cheerleaders for "freedom", only to throw a temper tantrum when freedom proves to be a little more free than they'd have preferred. How dare they actually take us at our word and vote for who they really want!

Stop being so fucking womanish, you morons. Say what you mean. If you wanted the Palestinians to "vote for anyone they want" except for these guys over here, then how about making that clear from the get-go next time? All this hypocritical outrage makes me sick to my fucking stomach. Palestinians voted for Hamas for the same reason Americans reelected Bush in '04 - fear. Please, as much as your dim brains allow, try to keep your eyes on the ball, hmm?


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
Freedom to criticize (3.00 / 2) (#53)
by LilDebbie on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 10:32:54 AM EST

Freedom to not like the Palestinians' choice and have that reflect in our foreign policy.

In case you didn't hear, the US recognizes Hamas' legitimate victory. We also recognize our right not to give money to terrorists. We're glad they had a democratic election. We're not glad they elected Hamas. These are two different things that we have different feelings about.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

Exactly (none / 0) (#61)
by SocratesGhost on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:22:42 PM EST

That's what I think Kasreyn misses, by voting in Hamas, Palestinians voted to cease recognizing Israel. That type of voting should entail political consequences.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Whose tax money is it? (none / 0) (#66)
by A Bore on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:38:44 PM EST

Israels or the Palestinians?

[ Parent ]
I don't understand the question /nt (none / 0) (#90)
by SocratesGhost on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 03:48:31 PM EST


-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Israel collected tax money (none / 1) (#123)
by A Bore on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 04:29:17 AM EST

Palestinian tax money. They refused to hand it over when Hamas won the election. They still haven't given the money to the government because they say it would be used for "terrorist purposes"

[ Parent ]
It's Palestinian money (none / 0) (#233)
by nidarus on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:04:13 AM EST

That Israel seized is an act of war.

A war that the Palestinians declared.

People KILL other people in war. Do you think that confiscating money is so wrong in comparison?

[ Parent ]

Hmm, the war... yes (none / 1) (#248)
by A Bore on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 12:31:04 PM EST

Let me dig up my timeline again...fuck that took ages.

On June the 8th Israel assassinated Jamal Abu Samhadana and 3 others and wounded 7 in an air strike on a training camp. He had recently been appointed to the PA interior ministry.
On June the 9th Israel shelled a beach, killing 7 members of the same family and injuring 32.
On the 13th of June Israeli rockets killed 11, including 2 children.
On the 24th of June, a doctor and his brother were kidnapped and removed to Israel.
On the 25th of June, a splinter group of militants, presumably in your view acting on behalf of the entire Palestinian nation, such that it is, kidnap a soldier.

Only the latter act makes it war. Odd logic. Love the us of the word "confiscating", by the way. Over here we call it stealing, and there are laws against it.

[ Parent ]
What the fuck (none / 0) (#252)
by nidarus on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 10:23:11 PM EST

Let's forget for a second the Qassams and other attacks on Israel before the 25th of June (I mean, it's not as if the whole Palestinian/Israeli conflict started with Gil'ad Shalit's kidnapping).

The elected government of Palestine declared that it wants to destroy Israel.

You could not make up a more obvious declaration of war if you tried.

And "stealing"? As I said, war includes a lot of "murder of the first degree".

[ Parent ]

No, I didn't miss that. (none / 0) (#101)
by Kasreyn on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:26:25 PM EST

It just seems likely to me that security (read: fear) was likely a higher priority than hatred of Israel, just as fear of terrism was bigger in 2004 than hatred of gays, and just as (imo) desire to have the trains run on time and be safe from imagined dangers was more important politically than antisemitism in 1933 Germany.

Political scapegoating is always just the icing on the cake. This is not to say it isn't real, or harmful; just that it isn't the actual way to get in (and keep) power. To paraphrase Grand Moff Tarkin, fear is what really keeps people in line.


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
We're not afraid of Palestine (none / 0) (#102)
by SocratesGhost on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:57:25 PM EST

and your additional strawmen about gays and nazism have little to do with how we should treat a nation that chooses to elect people who are not peacemakers.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Who is this 'we' (none / 0) (#113)
by Kasreyn on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:10:37 AM EST

that you suddenly speak for?

I don't know what country you're from, but in mine, fear won an election in 2004. Fear of terrorism, which is only loosely defined in American discourse, and doesn't necessarily have to involve Palestine at all.

In any case, thejeff's reply seems to have handily crushed both my original fear argument as well as your "voted to cease recognizing Israel" argument. Unless you'd also be willing to agree that all '04 Bush voters have officially declared themselves to be outright homophobes? Tsk, tsk, these overgeneralizations...

I'm also curious why all the other nations that fail to elect peacemakers don't find themselves on the receiving ends of economic sanctions and trade embargoes... rather selective, huh? Seems to me like these "political consequences" you speak of are less a matter of principle than of opportunism: a useful pretext for an action already planned. Nations suffer "political consequences" only when their enemies are powerful enough to do so, and the reasons why are tailored after the fact to fit whatever recent provocation will most easily secure the appearance of the moral high ground. Nations have permanent interests, and everything else is so much smoke and mirrors, so quit with the prolefeed. I don't give a shit.

I also don't give a shit for Hamas. I just think anyone who thought the Palestinians wouldn't elect them in a split second if given half a chance is the greatest fool in the world, and would like very much to point and laugh at them.


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
So why did the EU stop funding Palestine? (none / 0) (#132)
by SocratesGhost on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:34:25 AM EST

I guess fear is contagious? Or maybe because the EU has a track record of parroting US decisions, especially countries like France and Germany? Or is it possibly because most world leaders recognize that the Hamas election was dangerous for the region, requiring a dramatic reaction?

Actually, my position is consistent with with the comments by thejeff. He's talking about why they were elected. I'm talking about the U.S. reaction to it. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to fathom. While Palestinian voters were not necessarily taking a stand on Israel, the effect of the election is this policy. Still, in addition to getting the trains to run on time, there is a lot of polling on the ground to suggest that Hamas' militancy was a factor in their being elected. Current agreements between the Palestinian National Authority and Israel is that the PNA can man a military force of no greater than 30,000. Voting in Hamas cladestinely increases the size of security forces. Understandable, but other nations are attempting to show the voters that this is a devil's bargain by reacting with their wallet.

While you may not care about Hamas, you seem to be bending over backward trying to legitimize their points of view by talking about anything but their point of view. You're making everything else central to the issue except that Palestine voted into office the equivalent of the KKK, and you seem to think that's acceptable. Understandable, sure. Acceptable, no.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Yeah, you're a genius in restrospect (none / 0) (#232)
by nidarus on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:01:02 AM EST

At the time, nobody, including the HAMAS, didn't think they would win.

[ Parent ]
trying to fool me with double negatives now? ;) nt (none / 0) (#250)
by Kasreyn on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 06:17:59 PM EST

nt


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Nah I just fell asleep in the middle (none / 0) (#251)
by nidarus on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 10:17:10 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Corruption, actually (none / 1) (#105)
by thejeff on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:11:29 PM EST

Hamas was elected largely on local issues, mostly anti-corruption.

Fatah was, and is, too the extent it still has the opportunity, infamous for corruption. Bribery, nepotism etc, etc.

Local Hamas officials already in place had a much better reputation, and apparently did a much better job.

I'm not sure why you think fear/security were the priority. I'd agree with your other examples, but I don't see how it applies in this case. Much more "trains run on time", but I think that trivializes the level of corruption and incompetence.

Hamas ran publicly on good government and apparently won much bigger than they'd expected.
It actually looked like they were hoping for a large minority, not a majority. They offered early on to form a government with Fatah, but were turned down flat.

[ Parent ]

No. (none / 0) (#99)
by Kasreyn on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:20:48 PM EST

"Recognize" is a specific political term with a specific meaning. Look it up. The U.S. officially does not "recognize" the elected government of Palestine.


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
It recognizes it for what it is (none / 0) (#114)
by LilDebbie on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:52:17 AM EST

The Palestinian Authority was established by the Oslo Accords, which IIRC was brought together by President Clinton, then leader of the United States of America. According to Annex 1 of the Accords, the PA is subject to democratic elections.

Now, unless Oslo got tossed and no one told me, that means the US recognizes the democratically elected representives of the Palestinian Authority, who now happen to be Hamas, and the sovereign rights accorded to them via Oslo.

NOW PLZ TO BE SHOWING ME WHERE IN THE ACCORDS INTERNATIONAL FUNDING WAS MANDATED KTHNX OR SHUT THE FUCK UP

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

Ah. Apologies. (none / 0) (#115)
by Kasreyn on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:56:31 AM EST

I misread your initial comment, which was "In case you didn't hear, the US recognizes Hamas' legitimate victory." as "...the US didn't recognize" etc. My mistake.


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Just as the US didn't respect the Chileans (3.00 / 2) (#83)
by 1419 on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:48:18 PM EST

when the Chileans dared to vote for whom they wanted: the Marxist Allende.

Or when US foreign aid is tied not to having fair open elections (as in Nicaragua) but the winner being acceptable to the US (as Noriega was not).

There is a truism that one rewards accomplishment, not obedience.

I like to think of it as analogous to micromanagement (obedience) and accomplishment (macromanagement).

[ Parent ]

you don't get it moron (none / 0) (#215)
by circletimessquare on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:22:43 AM EST

it's the same as me saying that you have the right to say whatever you want to say... but i reserve the right to disagree with what you say

well, palestinians do have the right to vote for whomever they want... and the world has every right to disagree with whom they voted for

if i agree you can vote for whomever you want/ say whatever you want, why do you think that it logically follows that i must agree with what you say/ agree with whom you vote for?

next time, try and focus your feeble mind and keep the two concepts separate, k thx


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

i disagree (2.70 / 10) (#50)
by circletimessquare on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:41:32 AM EST

arms sales have a way of making themselves happen. in other words, say you somehow actually shut down every single arms transaction between the us and israel

what would happen?

china, france, great britain, russia, south africa... someone else would pick up the slack

however, what should stop is us financial support for israel

now THAT is wrong and insane

why the FUCK is the usa giving israel billions every year? that's patently wrong, and must stop

let israel sink or swim on its own weight


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

I think the point is controlling Israel (none / 1) (#52)
by nidarus on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:54:56 AM EST

Btw, I don't see why it's "wrong" or "insane".

[ Parent ]
control? (2.50 / 4) (#68)
by circletimessquare on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:46:48 PM EST

what the fuck are you smoking?

it's a holdover from the cold war, when egypt and syria sided with the ussr

well, the cold war is over

control? that's the most retarded bullshit i ever heard. like the us actually controls israel. wake the fuck up


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Guess what fucker, I have better perspective (none / 1) (#71)
by nidarus on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:12:07 PM EST

I happen to live in Israel and follow Israeli politics very closely. There is very little Israel can do unless the US approves it. Everybody here knows it, and admits it - including the politicians. It's fucking pathetic.

The Americans want influence in the Middle East, and having tremendous influence on Israel is a key part in this.

The only hole in my argument is that the US will retain lots of its influence even if it pulls the funding. But I guess the Americans don't mind spending money to simplify some politics.

[ Parent ]

so according to genius you (2.00 / 2) (#77)
by circletimessquare on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:43:48 PM EST

the us decided to invade lebanon in july of this year, not olmert

do i misunderstand you?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

US explicitly allowed it (none / 1) (#80)
by nidarus on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:07:40 PM EST

And the only reason Israel pulled out when it did is because of American pressure.

[ Parent ]
this just blows my mind (1.66 / 3) (#81)
by circletimessquare on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:14:00 PM EST

no wonder people think the us is to blame for everything in the world

look, my grandma stubbed her toe

must be gw bush's fault

dear low iq paranoid schizophrenic motherfuckers: israel is a sovereign nation. what israel decides to do, is israel's responsibility

really

i know, it's a fascinating wildly out there radical concept

it doesn't have much of that b-grade hollywood plot where one shady conspiracy controls the world in it though, so it's not really exciting

open your mind to the infinite possibilities of a world that is a little more complicated than your cartoon fantasies of eye of sauron=washington dc

you may even grow a new brain cell or two

seriously, it's like playing chess with a checkers player, some of you low iq numbnuts


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

^ antisemite (2.00 / 3) (#86)
by ditkis on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 03:32:56 PM EST



[ Parent ]
explain THAT demented logic, fuckwad (none / 1) (#95)
by circletimessquare on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 04:57:58 PM EST

this should be entertaining...


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
It's simple, really (3.00 / 2) (#97)
by LilDebbie on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 05:37:00 PM EST

YHBT

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
i am so beyond that moniker (2.00 / 2) (#103)
by circletimessquare on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:13:37 PM EST

i am trolled, and troll, all in one

i have become a great transcendent critical mass of trollocity


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I wasn't absolving Israel of responsibility (none / 0) (#118)
by nidarus on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:31:45 AM EST

And I wasn't saying that the US is Sauron (mostly because I'm not a huge nerd).

That dialog existed only in your brain.

My point was, the US can pretty much control what Israel does or doesn't do. Everyone with half a clue knows it.

But hey, don't believe me if you like. Wallow in your smug ignorance. All I can say is that I tried.

[ Parent ]

so what happened in july? (none / 1) (#141)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 05:52:43 PM EST

that was the us's doing? you know, the whole war on lebanon thingy?

get fucking real


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No, it was the Hezbollah's doing (none / 0) (#142)
by nidarus on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 07:07:02 PM EST

And Israel retaliated with the US's approval.

Okay, let me explain this for you again:

Israel can't do shit without American approval.

If the US didn't want Israel to go to war, there would be no Lebanon war, period.

That doesn't mean that everything Israel does is the US's idea. It just means that everything Israel does has to be approved by the US.

Do you get it now?

Would you like me to re-post this in a picture book format?



[ Parent ]

gee (none / 0) (#145)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 07:41:29 PM EST

last i checked israel was a soveriegn country

i did not know that the eye sauron in washington dc controls all

(snicker)

you confuse the idea of "influence" with the idea of "control"

here's some pretty pictures for your remedial education:

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+influence

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+control

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Oh my. Let me try and explain this again for you (none / 0) (#146)
by nidarus on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 08:07:59 PM EST

Israel is a sovereign nation. But it's allowing itself to be controlled by the US, for all kinds of political reasons.

In a way, a police captain (or maybe, if it's easier for you, a starship captain) doesn't control his underlings, he just "influences" them. They can quit if they don't like it. But guess what, that's not what most people call "influence".

[ Parent ]

dear fucktard (none / 0) (#147)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:11:02 PM EST

you tried, you really did

you even used magic words that you don't seem to understand:

SOVEREIGN NATION

look it up retard, figure it out

i got faith in you, you can do it!

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I don't know what keeps you from getting my point (none / 0) (#154)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:20:50 AM EST

Maybe it's hard for Americans to imagine a country not being able to do whatever the fuck it wants.

And maybe you're just a smug idiot.

[ Parent ]

a country IS able to whatever the fuck it wants (none / 0) (#157)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:53:11 AM EST

that's the notion of sovereignity

east timor couldn't do what it wanted a few years ago, it was just a region of indonesia

now it is an independent country, it can do whatever it wants

or, is east timor controlled completely by canberra?

is rangoon controlled completely by china?

howabout tblisi: are the georgians completely controlled by moscow?

do you understand the notion of sovereignty yet?

but forget wacky me

you go on with your bad self

we all know washington dc controls the world like the eye of sauron?

that's a far better way to explain the world we live in, right?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Influence and control are matters of degree (none / 1) (#168)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 10:07:02 AM EST

I, being an Israeli who knows quite a bit about Israeli politics, claim that it's much closer to "control" than to "influence".

You, being an ignorant fucktard, don't have any information on the topic, so you make up that "eye of Sauron lolz" strawman, and point out imaginary contradictions of terms.

Guess what, if the US wants Israel to do something, Israel does it.

If the US doesn't want Israel to do something, Israel doesn't do it.

How do you call this?

[ Parent ]

so say it: (none / 0) (#183)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:26:34 PM EST

the us wanted to start a war with lebanon in july

is that what you are telling me?

put your money where your mouth is


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No (none / 0) (#186)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 02:18:50 PM EST

Just because US can tell Israel what to do or not to do, doesn't mean that everything Israel does is because the of the US.

So no, attacking Lebanon was Israel's idea. However, if US didn't support Israel's decision, there would've been no war.

[ Parent ]

oh i see (none / 0) (#187)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 02:43:54 PM EST

so you think israel acts independently after all (rolls eyes)

so, after all is said and done, what responsibility do you think israel is absolved of by blaming its actions on the usa, oh dear fucktard?

let's see exactly how you construct your worldview: "what happened? not my country's fault. not my country's fault because the usa (insert creative line of reasoning here)"

how about you accept some responsibility and accountability motherfucker?

sorry those are such strange econcepts to you asshole

i don't think israel deserves one fucking cent of american money

it made sense in the cold war, it doesn't make anymore sense

why doesn't the usa stop paying israel money, and leave you to the wolves?

or do you want to continue getting an undeserved benefit from the usa... AND blame the usa for your predicaments

is that what you want you fucking shallow thankless turd?

i would think the only fucking words that are valid coming from your mouth is "thank you"

or: "gee, no thanks for the billions anymore, we'll go our own way now"

but you can't fucking take the billions, and be thankless, and expect anything but a stream of piss from my zipper to your face you fucking thankless pointless piece of shit

fuck israel

let it disappear under a storm of angry arabs

there's the rewards you reap from your sentiments about how the usa is to blame fror what israel does you thankless useless fucking turd


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

My god you're an idiot (none / 0) (#188)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 03:27:15 PM EST

Absolve Israel from responsibility?

Dear moron, read two comments earlier in this thread. I explicitly stated that I'm not absolving Israel responsibility.

This whole "let's blame America for Israel's actions" is something you made up.

Want to argue with yourself? Fine. Just don't drag me into your little psycho-drama.

Btw, fuckface, I don't own you shit, except for a warm recommendation to seek psychiatric help (or, conversely, choke on horse semen and die).

[ Parent ]

so please explain: (none / 0) (#190)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 03:35:43 PM EST

"So no, attacking Lebanon was Israel's idea. However, if US didn't support Israel's decision, there would've been no war."

please explain that comment, if not an attempt to absolve responsibility

i'm just so stupid you see to figure things out myself, i need your hand to hold mine

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

god... (none / 0) (#193)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 03:40:56 PM EST

This whole Lebanon war idea was yours, remember.

I answered the question.

And then I tried to explain how it relates to my original point, since you keep ignoring it.

Your conclusion, that the US is responsible for the Lebanon war is because:

a. It's more important for you to prove some other point than to listen to what I'm saying.

b. Your deductive skills are shit.

And that's not my fault

[ Parent ]

my head asplode (none / 0) (#194)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 03:56:18 PM EST

the war with lebanon is israel's fault, 100%

meanwhile, you are attempting to escape israeli repsonsibility by blaming it on the usa, saying israel can't do anything without the usa's permission... which is pure responsibility avoiding bullshit

that's what i think is happening in this thread

meanwhile, what you just wrote above is like from another universe

try working on your communication skills, or take less lsd, k thx

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Yeah, "like from another universe" (none / 0) (#202)
by nidarus on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:54:37 AM EST

Damn my poor communication skills! I mean, there was absolutely no way for you to understand my real opinions...

Oh wait..

"I wasn't absolving Israel of responsibility"

COULD I BE ANY CLEARER??

But hey, why read what I ACTUALLY WROTE, when you have such concrete opinions as to "what is happening in this thread".

[ Parent ]

you'd make a great politician (none / 0) (#205)
by circletimessquare on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:02:48 AM EST

"So no, attacking Lebanon was Israel's idea. However, if US didn't support Israel's decision, there would've been no war."

"I wasn't absolving Israel of responsibility"

kindly thread the needle between those two statements, oh great slippery one


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Sure, I'm so slippery (none / 0) (#231)
by nidarus on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 07:58:30 AM EST

I said something outrageous about the Lebanon war, and then backpedaled by saying that I don't absolve Israel of responsibility...

Only that I said that I don't absolve Israel of responsibility before writing that Lebanon comment (a topic that you brought up).

Guess what moron, you're not going to prove that you know my opinions better than me.

Why can't you admit the obvious - that you were more interested at debating with yourself than actually reading what I said?

In any way, if you think that the fact that the US could've theoretically stopped the Lebanon war means that the US is responsible for the war, and Israel isn't, then you are just the kind of moron you're screaming against.

I mean, it's not like the US told Israel to go to war. It just said it can go to war if it wants.

And it's not like it saw a horrible crime and didn't stop it. EVERYBODY, including the Europeans said Israel had a right to retaliate. The only problem they had is with what they saw as over-reaction, but that was days into the war.

The thing that should bother you is the warped logic that leads to such moronic conclusions, and not the obvious facts of international politics.

[ Parent ]

btw (none / 0) (#189)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 03:35:26 PM EST

Does it mean that you're stopping US aid now?

Oh dear, what have I done.

I just wanted to respond to some stupid article, and now my country will have to face certain annihilation!





Idiot.

[ Parent ]

israel is pretty hardy (none / 0) (#192)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 03:37:51 PM EST

you'll take care of yourselves just fine

but i'd like to see you go one bit further with your sentiment and admit that the us shouldn't being paying israel a cent

should the us be paying israel anything?

i await my enlightment

:-P

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I was referring to this (none / 0) (#204)
by nidarus on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:00:20 AM EST

there's the rewards you reap from your sentiments about how the usa is to blame fror what israel does you thankless useless fucking turd

I must've missed the part where you were made the Emperor of The United States.

But that too went right over your head.

How surprising.

[ Parent ]

yes, i am the emperor of the usa (none / 0) (#206)
by circletimessquare on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:05:57 AM EST

as a citizen of the usa, my country serves me

i am it's emperor. there are 300 million emperors of the usa

my tax dollars go to causes us emperors/ citizens deem worthy

dear slippery israeli: kindly cease form defelcting my question: justify my tax dollars being spent on your country

put your money where your mouth is: say israel does not need american money, or justify its continued contribution, 15 years after the end of the cold war, and decades after egypt/ syria's alignment with the ussr

now, again, be careful: if you reply to this post, you cannot avoid the topic, understand darling?

xoxoxoxoxox


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

First of all, you're going on a tangent (none / 0) (#230)
by nidarus on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 07:42:28 AM EST

So don't make it look like this is what we were talking about.

I mean, it could've been what you were talking about, since I am only an excuse to have imaginary arguments with yourself.

But if you asked:

I don't think Israel has some kind of a God-given right to receive US aid.

If the US wants to spend it's money on having better control over the Israelis while helping the American arms industry, it's the Americans' choice.

Contrary to the article's thesis, stopping US aid to Israel won't help the Palestinians, because Israel would have more freedom to do what it wants. I don't think it would help the peace process either, because the main thing that hinders it is not Israeli military might, but Palestinian unwillingness to accept Israel's existence.

To be honest, I think the article's author kind agrees with me on that.

If you don't like the Americans meddling in world politics, or don't like to pay for other nations' armies, it's your right. Write to your congressman or something, I don't care.

[ Parent ]

I like how the rest of the world knows it too (3.00 / 2) (#94)
by LilDebbie on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 04:39:12 PM EST

So no one bother to lobby Israel, Lebanon, or even the UN to end the war; just the US.

That must've been kinda cool for Secretary Rice. When you boil it all down to its essence, it was hers to decide when the war ended.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

these views explains 9/11 too. kinda cool eh? (nt) (none / 0) (#131)
by vivelame on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:49:09 AM EST



--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
That and our military presence in Saudi Arabia (3.00 / 2) (#139)
by LilDebbie on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 03:57:46 PM EST

which I understand pissed off bin Laden a lot more than our support for Israel.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Indeed. (none / 0) (#263)
by vivelame on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 02:48:32 PM EST

And then, the USA, land of the brave, and so on, bolted out of the Saudi Kingdom.
Bunch of appeasers, if you ask me.

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
the usa isn't the center of the universe (none / 0) (#208)
by circletimessquare on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:09:04 AM EST

yet those who hate the usa the most have the belief that the usa controls everything as the central assumption in every one of their agendas and statements

therefore, those who hate the usa the most do more to promote the usa as the center of the world than the usa does

it's an absurd comedy


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I doubt it (3.00 / 4) (#78)
by khallow on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:52:21 PM EST

The "pro"-Israeli lobby is extremely powerful (I gather it's the most effective individual lobbying sector) in the US. I don't know who really controls who. But it's not as simple as a big US-owned leash on Israel.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

Second most powerful (none / 0) (#222)
by vectro on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:54:21 PM EST

After AARP.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]
-1 because it's -1 day (1.25 / 4) (#56)
by actmodern on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 10:55:40 AM EST

enjoy.


--
LilDebbie challenge: produce the water sports scene from bable or stfu. It does not exist.
Since I'm rather busy (2.00 / 5) (#59)
by ljazbec on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:34:18 AM EST

and didn't read the whole article, I will, instead of posting my own opinion, give you something controversial instead:

Kill 'em all, let God sort them out.

first -1 (1.44 / 9) (#70)
by cDiss on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:10:54 PM EST

feel free to zero this comment to help game teh autopost

second -1 (2.14 / 7) (#73)
by LilDebbie on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:15:01 PM EST

see above comment for rating suggestions

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
boy do i hate israel and america (2.16 / 6) (#84)
by ditkis on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 03:05:39 PM EST

also, bulgaria.

bosnians (3.00 / 4) (#89)
by Jobst of Moravia on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 03:43:48 PM EST


---
              __
   .,-;-;-,. /'_\ ---Did this Negro say "Street Moor"?
 _/_/_/_|_\_\) /
'-<_><_><_><_>=\
 `/_/====/_/-'\_\
  ""     ""    ""

[ Parent ]

f*** those f***ing palauans! nt (none / 0) (#107)
by circletimessquare on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:39:38 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
obligated to express hate toward England now (none / 0) (#124)
by nostalgiphile on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 04:47:41 AM EST

GB sucks balls, is less important (in geopolitical terms) than Venezuela, and all the men there r ghey and the women unpretty. Oh, and Enguland is my country's bitch. Gee, it is somewhat refreshing to get all that hate out...ror

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
^ antisemite (none / 0) (#104)
by Ruston Rustov on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:33:22 PM EST


I had had incurable open sores all over my feet for sixteen years. The doctors were powerless to do anything about it. I told my psychiatrist that they were psychosomatic Stigmata - the Stigmata are the wounds Jesus suffered when he was nailed to the cross. Three days later all my sores were gone. -- Michael Crawford
Maybe tomorrow. -- Michael Crawford
As soon as she has her first period, fuck your daughter. -- localroger

hasn't this story died yet? (1.00 / 6) (#109)
by actmodern on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 10:31:01 PM EST

fucking piece of garbage

die already.


--
LilDebbie challenge: produce the water sports scene from bable or stfu. It does not exist.

zeroing your comment (none / 0) (#143)
by cDiss on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 07:07:24 PM EST

gaming teh autopsot

[ Parent ]
Absolutely (none / 1) (#110)
by foon on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 10:40:10 PM EST

Lets cut off all aid to Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, a country where Muslims by law have full equality with Jews and people of any other religion, and let the Iranians, Syrians, Saudis etc. keep giving as much money and arms as they can to Hezbollah, Hamas, and other extremist groups, who won't even recognize Israel's right to exist. Lets just keep condemming Israel while the Palestineans don't even allow Jews to own property within the territories they control, and have refused all of the many reasonable peace offers Israel has made over the years. There is never going to be peace unless the Islamic world recognizes they've lost the war and have to accept the facts on the ground, and weakening Israel isn't going to make that happen any more quickly.

Muslims have full equality with Jews in Israel? (2.00 / 2) (#129)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:30:12 AM EST

That's the biggest lie or the worst troll I've seen on this site in a while.

--
Keep banging those rocks together, MMM!
- Kasreyn


[ Parent ]
Arabs in Israel... (none / 1) (#134)
by thejeff on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:19:16 AM EST

actually are very close to equal. It may be more true legally than in practice, but there are Muslims on the Knesset, etc.

Israel's treatment of Muslims in the occupied territories is atrocious, of course, but Arab citizens are very close to legal equality.

[ Parent ]

IGTT 2/10: I bit the first time /nt (none / 0) (#136)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:48:56 AM EST


--
Keep banging those rocks together, MMM!
- Kasreyn


[ Parent ]
Believe what you will... (none / 1) (#137)
by thejeff on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:03:44 PM EST

I'm not trolling, though.

[ Parent ]
Actually he's right (none / 1) (#156)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:41:28 AM EST

But hey, your ignorant sarcasm works too

[ Parent ]
a better system than k5 employs (1.33 / 3) (#111)
by circletimessquare on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:03:10 PM EST

would allow this story to go front page

notice how the voting is going: lots of votes for, and lots of votes against

at the same time, this piece is garnering a ton of comments

me, personally, i think the story's thesis is stupid. but i appreciate the discussion, so i vote +1 fp. i did the same thing with hung fu's stories all time: what hung fu concluded was stupid, but the subject matter was important, and the discussion was heated. therefore +1 fp from me, all the time for hung fu

this is voting virtuously. but most people don't vote this way. they vote ideologically. a crap story they agree with will go +1 fp for them, and a conclusion they disagree with, yet accumulates a ton of comments because the subject IS IMPORTANT, will go -1 to them... just because they don't agree with the author... even though the story compels them to comment!? that's pure fucking bullshit

the life of a site like k5 is in the comments

if you have a bunch of fluff stories no one could care about to comment on, what the fuck is that?

far better: a series of grammatical and thematic trainwrecks, consisting of the most stupid and/ or demented ideological conclusions... and yet the story moves everyone to comment (negatively or positively)

what's the point of what i just said? the COMMENTS. not the bad grammar and demented ideology. get it? if something is ideologically demented and horrible grammatically, but no one cares about, well then: -1, flush it. meanwhile, if someone writes a sparkling write up worthy of strunck and white's elements of style, and explores the topic thoroughly, and MOST IMPORTANTLY MOVES PEOPLE TO COMMENT?: +1 fp

THE COMMENTS ARE KING. ALL ELSE IS BULLSHIT

the life of a site like k5 is in the COMMENTS

so: a system where comment=vote would allow highly controversial stories that generate a lot of comments go front page

don't worry, i'm working on it

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

(1) Pretends politics doesn't exist (none / 0) (#116)
by LilDebbie on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:03:46 AM EST

For sake of argument, let's say that k5 has a lot more influence than it does.

We have an inflammatory article that generates a lot of comments by many users picking apart the author's ideas/grammar/spelling/libido. The author, either out of cleverness or stubborn defensiveness of his work, responds to these comments and generates many threads. Many threads creates many comments and the perception of "discussion".

A system designed to reward "discussion" will find itself with more inflammatory articles getting pushed up and more civil discussions where congruence of opinion limits num_comments pushed down. Soon the site takes on elements of various extremists, which attracts more extremists.

Eventually, you get something resembling dailyKos where an article bravely criticizing Dick Cheney's lunch choices will generate a thousand comments, yet none of the comments, or the article for that matter, will be worth reading to anyone outside the extremist enclave.

To wit, the site you describe already exists. It's called dKos, Free Republic, fark, etc.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

no, this is the opposite of dkos, etc. (none / 1) (#117)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:38:27 AM EST

#1: i said comments

my bad

i meant commentors

so the guy making 100 comments gets counted only once as a vote. your first comment counts as a vote. every comment you make after that counts for nothing. so it's the number of people who comment that counts, not the number of comments (say 40 people made 60 comments... the vote would be 40)

#2: you fail to understand dkos, etc. that's a partisan site. a partisan site ony accepts contributions according to a given ideology. naturally, such niche sites only serve to reinforce beliefs that contributors already have

but how is the site i am proposing going to work? well, any one can post any story, regardless of ideology. you seem to think this is a formula for partisanship like dkos. bullshit. look at this story we're commenting under right now: lots of comments, and lots of votes. but the votes swing 50/ 50. so the story goes nowhere, despite the heated discussion. now imagine if the voting disappeared, and only the # of commentors mattered

you're an old hand here: how many stories have you seen here generate hundreds of comments, and hundreds of votes... but the votes all canceled each other out 50/50 so that hundreds of votes later, the score was stuck at 3, or -2. then, after all that fantastic heated discussion, the story vanishes like a fart in the wind. see the point? does that make any sense to you? bullshit

if it were a partisan site like dkos, the story would get flat out dumped if it didn't tow the party line, even if it was fantastically written... or rocketed to the front page if it was a stupid story but brainlessly towed the party line

that's not what i am proposing!

i'm proposing that that story, that split 50/ 50 down partisan lines, would get front page, because it got heated discussion

do you understand now?

nothing like dkos at all

imagine a hypothetical story about libertarianism, how it sucks

the sotry would get lots of comments. and lots of voted. but the voted would split 50/ 50 according to libertarian haters and libertarians

and the story would go nowhere on k5

but in the system i am proposing, it would go front page: just becase a lot people commented. lots of commentors=lots of interest int he subject, BOTH FOR AND AGAINST

how the heck is that a formula for daily kos?

if anything, what i am proposing is the OPPOSITE of daily kos: the severely contentious, divided along party line stories would go +1 fp. say a conservative wrote a story about how gays were bringing on the apocalypse: all the bible thumpers would say "yeah man" and all the libs would cry "fuck off!" and all those comments would make the story go front page. then say a liberal wrote a piece about how the gw bush is repsonsible for aids. all the tree huggers would say "yeah man" and all the cons would cry "fuck off!". again: front page

commentors, BOTH FOR AND AGAINST, make a story go front page

that's a formula for the anti-daily kos!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I wholeheartedly agree $ (none / 1) (#128)
by nebbish on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 07:25:58 AM EST


---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

CTS doesnt your idea of comment = vote (none / 1) (#130)
by 1419 on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:44:49 AM EST

amount to an unlimited, no-registration dupe voting system?

[ Parent ]
what do you think we have here? (none / 1) (#133)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:47:43 AM EST

i don't pretend to know the solution to dupes. i figure a person will be unable to have comment=vote until a certain threshold of comments/ time on the site/ activity level is reached. yes, that approach has its downsides (elitism), but it does mean someone cant just register and vote in 2 minutes flat


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Here we have a slightly lagged, registration (none / 1) (#135)
by 1419 on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:19:57 AM EST

required dupe voting system.

[ Parent ]
One thing you shouldn't forget (none / 0) (#153)
by ljazbec on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:44:01 AM EST

is that some stories, while not generating much discussion, are simply well written and enjoyable to read, even if you have little to comment about it. For example, Psycho Dave's recent 'the Contest', which was fun to read but, comparing to this story, had 1/3rd the number of comments (app. 50 vs. 150).

How would that work with your comment=vote system?

[ Parent ]

it would bomb (none / 0) (#184)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:50:44 PM EST

i have no love for the low comment count feel good prattle

my aim is to elevate the gladiatorial ideological bloodfest


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Some articles (none / 0) (#229)
by nidarus on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 07:24:21 AM EST

Are meant to be gladiatorial ideological bloodfests.

Some, I'd even say most, aren't.

Your system is heavily biased towards the former. The current system is somewhat biased towards the latter.

Maybe there should be a (better) hybrid?

[ Parent ]

Looks like the changes are being incorporated (none / 1) (#175)
by Enlarged to Show Texture on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:24:29 AM EST

At just +11, this one has to be about the lowest scoring article I've seen survive the autopost roulette, as I've seen +20 stories crash & burn before...


"Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." -- Isaac Asimov
[ Parent ]
I'd like to make a point (3.00 / 2) (#122)
by psychologist on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 04:25:27 AM EST

In exchange for the 2 captured israeli soldiers, sirael offered to exchange 1000 imprisoned persons. The Palestinians said no, because Israel only wanted to release the women and children.

I thought to myself: WHAT? Women and Children? 1000?

Right (none / 0) (#164)
by heathlander on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:12:53 AM EST

In fact, Israel shouldn't have to be forced to release its prisoners. The Palestinians shouldn't have to resort to hostage taking to get their prisoners returned. The fact is that Israel has no right to hold the vast majority of the Palestinian prisoners at all. Close to a thousand are administrative detainees - they are being held without charge or trial. The majority - perhaps all - of the rest are convicted based on evidence extracted by torture.
On top of that, many prisoners are held inside of Israel, which is illegal under international law.

That's the crucial point: the Palestinian demand for the prisoners to be released is absolutely legitimate. It therefore follows that the capture of Shalit was also legitimate. Israel's war of 'self-defence' - Operation Summer Rains - was thus an aggression, an offensive, illegal war.

[ Parent ]

Wow, great logical thinking here (none / 0) (#179)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:55:15 AM EST

So, let's say the Palestinians' demands are justified (that's bullshit, and many of the people in Israeli prisons actively participated in suicide bombings and such, but let's ignore that for a second).

Even if what they want is justified, the act of kidnapping a soldier is an act of war, no matter how you spin it.

And a retaliation to an act of war cannot be an aggressive, offensive act by definition.

You know, if I were you, and I arrived to such a bizarre conclusion, I would see that a sign to re-evaluate my opinions.

But I'm too optimistic. You'll probably just go on with your war on basic logical reasoning. Oh well.

[ Parent ]

+1FP, even though I disagree (none / 1) (#127)
by nebbish on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 07:24:19 AM EST

Israel is rogue, agressive and a pain in the arse but it does have the right to exist, something which it would quickly lose if it had no way of defending itself against the other pains in the arse in the region.

Any solution to this conflict will be political and multi-state. Yes, the west should treat Palestine with more respect, but that doesn't necessarily mean a concurrent lessening of respect for Israel.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee

It has nothing to do with respect for Israel (3.00 / 3) (#138)
by heathlander on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:14:34 PM EST

and everything to do with respect for the law and for human rights. It's basic morality to say that you shouldn't give or sell weapons to someone who will then use them to oppress or to murder.

If I walked down the street and saw someone getting beaten up, wouldn't it be wrong of me to then give/sell the person beating him up a crowbar?

[ Parent ]

More like (3.00 / 2) (#144)
by nidarus on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 07:19:36 PM EST

You're walking down the street and see someone swinging a crowbar at another person. Then that person pulls out a handgun, and shoots the crowbar guy's kneecaps off.

In your opinion, the gun store that sold that guy the gun is evil.

I disagree.

[ Parent ]

This is so lame it's funny (none / 0) (#159)
by xaccrocheur on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:00:40 AM EST

The crawbar guy was prolly pursuing his daughter's rapist & murderer, you twat. Pff, gun nuts, a nuisance ever since the start of the plot.

[ Parent ]
That would suggest (none / 1) (#161)
by heathlander on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:05:33 AM EST

that a) Israel is using its weapons lawfully, which it isn't, and b) that Israel is using them in self-defence, which it isn't.

[ Parent ]
Lemme see (none / 0) (#169)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 10:33:25 AM EST

a. Shooting people in the kneecaps is not "lawful". Besides, "lawful" is a stupid term when it comes to armies. No one cares about these laws. Not the US, and certainly not the Palestinians.

The only question here is whether it's moral. While it's not always moral, and innocent Palestinians do get killed, it's certainly more moral than any other country in that position. You think you know better how to fight this kind of war?. The Americans don't. Neither do the Russians. I won't even mention the French, and what they did in Algeria.

I can't think of any country in that position that dealt with it in a more humane manner.

b. Israel is using them against people who want to destroy Israel. How is that not self defense?

Oh, wait, I forgot - existing is just a secondary goal for Israelis. Being demonic beasts, what they really want is to torture and murder Palestinian babies for the fun of it.

[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 1) (#195)
by heathlander on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:34:45 PM EST

"a. Shooting people in the kneecaps is not "lawful". Besides, "lawful" is a stupid term when it comes to armies. No one cares about these laws. Not the US, and certainly not the Palestinians."

Well, I assumed you used the analogy of shooting in the kneecaps instead of, say, in the face in order to show that it was not excessive use of force. Use of reasonable force in self-defence is legal. It is very interesting that you think using the term "lawful" is stupid when it comes to armies. You are certainly in the minority when it comes to that opinion. It is most definitely not true that "nobody cares about these laws". The majority of the people on the planet do care. What would be accurate is to say that those people who fight the wars - the generals, the warmongering politicians and so on - often do not care about the law. This isn't surprising at all, since it is not the warmongerers who generally have to suffer the consequences of war. The law is designed to protect the weak by placing restrictions on the uses of power. It is to be expected, then, that the weak will be in favour of the rule of law whilst the powerful - those usually involved in waging and starting wars - will oppose it.

"The only question here is whether it's moral."

But if you want a world governed by a common code of conduct - a system of law - and not simply dictated by the law of the jungle, where the strong prey on the weak and where might makes right, the legality of an action plays a huge part in deciding whether it is moral or not.

"You think you know better how to fight this kind of war?"

It's not a war, it's an occupation. People who are interested in justice should be asking how best to fight a resistance, not how best to perpetuate the oppression.

"I can't think of any country in that position that dealt with it in a more humane manner."

Even if that were true, it wouldn't make occupying a people illegally for close to four decades using brutal military force in any way 'humane'.

"Israel is using them against people who want to destroy Israel. How is that not self defense?"

Israel is using its weapons to secure and perpetuate the occupation. The primary victims of these weapons are innocent Palestinian civilians. Do not the Palestinians have a right to 'self-defence'? It is they who are being attacked - if an occupation is not an aggressive act, nothing is. By your logic, this right to 'self-defence' would justify Palestinian militant groups invading Israel, occupying Israel, shelling Haifa and Tel Aviv with hundreds of powerful missiles daily, arbitrarily 'arresting' Israelis and taking them back to Palestine never to be seen again, systematically torturing Israeli citizens, building a 'security wall' that splits Israeli towns and villages in half and separates Israeli farmers from fields and relatives from each other, and so on.

The reality is that whilst everyone has the right to self-defence, that self-defence must fall within the law. Hence, I am not justified in shooting someone in the face just because they punched me and hence, Israel is not allowed to commit war crimes, regardless of any 'security needs' it produces to justify them.

[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0) (#228)
by nidarus on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 07:20:12 AM EST

What would be accurate is to say that those people who fight the wars - the generals, the warmongering politicians and so on - often do not care about the law.

And that is what I meant. I didn't mean what liberal bystanders think. My question was whether anyone who those laws actually apply to, cares about them. And you agree that probably not.

Well, then your argument is pointless. A law that no one follows is not a law. Basically, every war is illegal (and btw, it is, according to the UN) so saying that one war or the other is "illegal" is bizarre at best.

But if you want a world governed by a common code of conduct - a system of law - and not simply dictated by the law of the jungle, where the strong prey on the weak and where might makes right, the legality of an action plays a huge part in deciding whether it is moral or not.

Maybe I would like it in a theoretical sense, but it's certainly not the way it is right now. The international arena is ruled by the rules of the jungle, and the strong can get away with just about everything. The fact that you imply otherwise just shows your deep ignorance and naivety.

Btw, speaking theoretically, wanting a civilized world doesn't mean that law dictates morals, just like wanting a civilized society doesn't mean that everything illegal is immoral (and vise versa).

By your logic, this right to 'self-defence' would justify Palestinian militant groups invading Israel, occupying Israel, shelling Haifa and Tel Aviv with hundreds of powerful missiles daily, arbitrarily 'arresting' Israelis and taking them back to Palestine never to be seen again, systematically torturing Israeli citizens, building a 'security wall' that splits Israeli towns and villages in half and separates Israeli farmers from fields and relatives from each other, and so on.

All of those things have obvious security reasons. I'm not saying that all of those are moral means, but what are you saying, that they do it just for fun?

I should also note that the Palestinians shoot rockets at Israel, blow up buses an nightclubs, and torture and publicly execute Palestinians who they suspect are Israeli collaborators (or homosexuals, and other "undesirables"). What's your point?

It's not a war, it's an occupation.

There is a simple way to end the occupation: two states for two peoples. Palestine and Israel.

The Israelis stated in every possible way that this is what they want.

The Palestinians (as in, the ruling party - the HAMAS) state on every occasion that they can't allow Israel to exist.

What's do you suggest Israel should do? Unilateral withdrawal? This is what they did in Gaza. And what was the result? The HAMAS used the freed territory to launch hundreds of rockets at Israel.

Really, what do you suggest?

[ Parent ]

So why (none / 0) (#152)
by nebbish on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:39:58 AM EST

Just apply it to Israel? Why not write a piece about not selling arms to Burma, Indonesia, Pakistan etc? Why have you singled one place out?

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

That's a silly question (none / 0) (#162)
by heathlander on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:08:05 AM EST

and irrelevent. We shouldn't debate the reasons why I wrote the article, we should debate the article.

In any event, by your reasoning, we shouldn't really write about anything. For instance, why write about Guantanamo? The U.S. isn't the only human rights abuser in the world, so why single them out? Why write about Darfur? Darfur isn't the only place where so many people are suffering? Why single it out?

And so on.

[ Parent ]

If you want to debate the article (none / 0) (#170)
by nebbish on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 10:34:27 AM EST

Then debate the article, instead of giving me some nebulous crap about the morality of the arms trade. I originally raised the point that without arms, Israel would be unable to defend itself and would cease to exist. Is this desirable from your viewpoint?

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

The morality of the arms trade (none / 0) (#196)
by heathlander on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:41:58 PM EST

bears a direct relevence to the argument I made in the article. If, for example, we were to decide that it is a moral act to give a murderer a loaded gun, then the argument I laid out in my article could not stand up. Thankfully, people living in a noram moral universe think otherwise.

As to your question: this is not about Israel's existence. Israel exists, and faces no threat of not existing. The weapons we sell it are used not to defend Israel's existence (who needs F-16's to 'defend' themselves against a few small groups with some homemade rockets?) but to carry out war crimes. Unless we are to argue that it is morally acceptable to sell a gun to someone who is in the process of beating someone else up, there is logically coherent way of arguing that it is a moral act to sell Israel F-16 jets. It can't be done.

[ Parent ]

"Israel exists, and faces no threat of not (none / 0) (#214)
by circletimessquare on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:14:40 AM EST

existing"

you just lost touch with reality


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Why? (none / 1) (#216)
by heathlander on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 09:48:25 AM EST

From whom do you think Israel, the fourth ranking military power in the world backed by the world's unrivalled military superpower, faces an existential threat?

[ Parent ]
gee, i haven't the foggiest (none / 0) (#218)
by circletimessquare on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 10:09:11 AM EST

i guess no one of sufficient power to follow up with their threats wishes israel ill will

how could i have been so silly

thank you for showing me the way to the Real Truth (tm)

clearly israel builds up its military because they like shiny things that go boom, and for no other reason

you've truly enlightened me

i mean, it's not like you've written an article about how arms supplies to israel must stop... and then use the existence of the exact same arms to suggest it is therefore immune from its many determined and openly hostile enemies, right?

i mean to do that would be silly of you, right?

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Oh dear (none / 1) (#224)
by heathlander on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:36:41 PM EST

Listen: Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel. Not even a little bit. Unless you can justify saying otherwise, that's how it remains.

Israel uses its arms not for self-defence, because it has long passed the military capability needed to defend itself. It uses the arms sold to it to perpetuate the occupation. Hence, we should stop selling it arms until it shows that it can use them lawfully.

[ Parent ]

man this tired old bullshit from ignorant fucks (none / 1) (#226)
by circletimessquare on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:00:05 PM EST

let me enlighten you you ignorant twat:

you're very keen to see all of the viciousness of the israelis, which i don't deny

but you have a colossal blindness about the viciousness of those who oppose the israelis

this is what i say: i don't support israel. fuck israel

but saying that doesn't mean i somehow think iran is some sort of glowing beacon of peace and goodness and reason

no: iran is just as much of an insane threat as israel. really you ignorant twat

REALLY

THAT'S THE TRUTH

why do we have to love either israel or iran?

can't we hate both?

why do retards like you think that hating israel means you have to embrace a fucking censoring nuke pursuing theocracy like iran?

i said THEOCRACY

you know, no freedoms? you know, ultimate power resides in a bunch of grumpy old men who think god speaks through them?

really, imagine that. a fucking THEOCRACY. it's in the fucking CONSTITUTION

so can't you hate both israel and iran?

did that ever occur to you fucking retard?

you hate israel... ok, fine... so therefore, you must think iran is a beacon of perfect serenity?

WHAT

THE

FUCK

see, i thought life was about principles. you know, a principle: a theocracy is NOT a fucking country we want to have nukes! silly fucking me for thinking that crazy fucking thought, right?!

see, my problem is i didn't know the world was retarded teamsports like you think it is

silly me

we hate israel... therefore we have to suppor the other fucking assholes

NO RETARD

you hate israel AND iran

understand?

you see NO FUCKING VENOM FROM IRAN?!

WHAT

THE

FUCK

how much of a blind fucking propagandized tool are you exactly?

man i hate the fucking blind fucking partisan tools of this world


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You've got some serious problems (none / 1) (#240)
by heathlander on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:16:04 AM EST

but ignoring all the crap, there are a few 'arguments' hidden in there, so I'll address those.

"but saying that doesn't mean i somehow think iran is some sort of glowing beacon of peace and goodness and reason"

You are correct. If you read above, I never said otherwise. Iran is a repressive theocracy and no progressive person could support its values. I'm afraid you're arguing with an imaginary person inside your head.

"no: iran is just as much of an insane threat as israel. really you ignorant twat"

No, it isn't. Iranian citizens have far more reason to feel afraid of Israel than Israeli citizens have to feel afraid of Iran. Israel is the military superpower, Iran is not. Israel has made clear it will use prempetive force - nuclear if 'necessary - whereas Iran has not. Israel has a history of using aggression, Iran does not. Israel is backed by the unrivalled world superpower which has equally made clear it retains the right to use preemptive force and has openly threatened Iran. Iran is not.

Simply saying you hate the way Iran is run - which I think every sensible person would agree with - is not the same as saying that Iran poses a threat.

"why do we have to love either israel or iran?

can't we hate both?"

It's not about 'hating'. We were talking about law and about who poses a threat to whom.

If you're under any illusions about me supporting Iran's theocracy, check this out. It's a statement by the Campaign for Peace and Democracy I posted on my blog, entitled 'IRAN: Neither US Aggression not Theocratic Repression'. You really are arguing a straw-man here.

So my advice is: before you get all worked up and start insulting people, read what they actually said.

[ Parent ]

oh. my. fucking. god. (none / 0) (#255)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 12:32:55 AM EST

i do have serious problems

the existence in this world of blind deaf and dumb fucktards like yourself

this is what iran says about israel

you talk alot about a lack of an existential threat

kindly tell me what a nuclear seeking theocracy that openly questions the continued existence of another country has to do with an "existential threat"

and the really wonderful twist on your glorious position is that israel is really not under threat... even from a theocracy seeking nukes whose president multiply and clearly states his agenda on the continued existence of israel... why?

because israel has a powerful military and the usa supports it

therefore... no one should be selling anymore arms

WHAT THE FUCK

can you THINK you fucking retard?!

here, an allegory, maybe through which you can understand your own blindness: north korea just tested a nuke. therefore, japan is now militarizing as it hasn't in decades. why? why is japan doing that? gee, i dunno, maybe when an unstable wackjob, who has been belligerently addressing you for decades starts testing horrible weaponry, you tend THINK a little bit about increasing your security

ya think!?

now take this wonderful allegory, and make some stunning, groundbreaking far reaching conclusions about israel and its armaments, being as it is in a world where all of its neighbors wish for its annhilation, have tried many times to do exactly that in the past, and continue to openly express that desire

but it's not going to happen... because the usa supports isreal, and they already have a lot of armaments

got it!

am i supposed to laugh or cry you blind fuck?

gee, i dunno einstein, you think maybe that israel is interested in purchasing some arms?

huh?

and they'll get it ANYWHERE THEY FUCKING CAN?

BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER THREAT OF ANNHILATION?

i see, they are not under existential threat, even when a fucking

NUKE SEEKING

THOECRACY

OPENLY EXPRESSES AN "existential threat"... clearly, openly, multiply!

use your vast powers of intelligence and FIGURE IT THE FUCK OUT YOU BLIND TWAT

kindly parse your loopy delusional circular logic, and get back to us

you are seriously fucking stupid


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

no, your're actually fuckin' stupid (3.00 / 2) (#266)
by vivelame on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 03:13:00 PM EST

but i'm enjoying this immensely.

You know, i feel some sympathy for you. Being in NY on 9/11 seems to have scared the living shit out of you.
So, you supported the violent overthrow of Saddam Hussein, at the cost of the life of >600k iraqis. And since you can't wrap your head around the fact that your beloved country and his misguided policies -policies your heavily supported, so neocon-enthralled were you-, you believe now that Iran is exactly the same.
Guess what: Iran's president is all hat, no cattle, playing for a home audience. Should he one day have nuclear weapons, he certainly won't nuke israel, because, guess what, Israel has nukes, and, Israel has submarines, and Israel has the combination of both, and no matter what he says, he doesn't want Teheran, Qom, and so on, vaporized in nuclear mushrooms. So, no, Iran is no existential menace to Israel's existence. No matter what the likudniks say. Same goes for Hizb'Allah, by the way.

Fuckin' moron shiting his pants.
WHY DON'T YOU GO IN YOUR GARDEN AND BUILD A FUCKIN' NUKULAR SHELTER JUST LIKE YOUR GRAND-FATHER USED TO DO IN THE 50'S AND LEAVE THE REST OF THE WORLD ALONE, FOR A CHANGE, INSTEAD OF SPREADING BASELESS MASS HISTERIA? OOOH THE COMMIES THEY'RE COMING FOR US! QUICK QUICK LET'S SHIT OUR PANTS! THEY WILL ATTACK ANY DAY NOW AND EAT OUR CHILDREN ALIVE! EVEN WORSE I HEARD THEY'D TAKE MY LAWNMOWER AWAY FROM ME!

Land of the Braves, ahah. If THAT's not false advertising, i don't know what is.


--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]

zzz (none / 0) (#267)
by circletimessquare on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 04:20:48 PM EST

when you want to talk to who i really am and what i really say, i'm over here, waiting for you to stop screaming at the bogeyman in your head that has nothing to do with me and what i say

k thx


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

i'll stop talking to the bogeymen (none / 0) (#268)
by vivelame on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 04:21:35 PM EST

in my head when you do the same.
Plzfixkthx.

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
you're a classic halfwit (none / 0) (#269)
by circletimessquare on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 05:36:55 PM EST

"i'll stop drinking my own piss when you do the same"

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Hang on a sec, lemme get this straight... (none / 0) (#272)
by heathlander on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:31:43 AM EST

first, you go into a long rant about how stupid it is to think that Iran is good just because Israel is bad, and that in actual fact Iran is bad and so poses a threat to Israel. You were very confident in yourself, it seems, because you decided to throw in a lot of insults and CAPITAL LETTERS.

And then it turned out that, in fact, you were talking a load of crap, because a) no-one here was saying that they like Iran and b) not liking a country's system of governance is not the same as saying they pose a threat.

And then, instead of acting a bit humble or, frankly, a bit embarassed, you decide to launch into another long rant with MORE CAPTIAL LETTERS and more swear words. Shameless.

But let's see if your later comment was as full of shit as your earlier one. You say:

"you talk alot about a lack of an existential threat

kindly tell me what a nuclear seeking theocracy that openly questions the continued existence of another country has to do with an "existential threat"

Firstly, Iran is not questioning Israel's existence. Its tinpot President who has no authority over these matters and, going by the recent local elections, is unpopular with the Iranian people has done (although actually, he calls it the 'Zionist regime', which is not the same as Israel).

Secondly, even if we accept the unfounded allegation that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons...so what? States don't commit suicide. Israel posesses the capability to turn Tehran into a radioactive desert, and Iran knows that. Iran wouldn't nuke Israel for the same reason no nuclear power nukes another nuclear power - because to do so would be to commit suicide.

Therefore, Israel faces no existential threat.

"because israel has a powerful military and the usa supports it

therefore... no one should be selling anymore arms"

I think the question is not whether I can think, as you put it, but whether you can read. That exact point has already been made in this thread, far better, and I answered it. Israel already has more than enough weaponry to take care of itself. It had enough decades ago. All the additional weapons we supply it are being used to oppress the Palestinians and to fight aggressive wars (as in Lebanon this summer).

I'll say it again, but it's really quite simple: Israel is using the weapons we give it and sell it to commit war crimes against the Palestinians. Therefore, until Israel starts behaving lawfully, we stop selling it weapons. What could you possibly fail to understand about that?

[ Parent ]

There's a lot of evidence (none / 0) (#227)
by nebbish on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 05:23:49 AM EST

That Iran supplies money and arms to Hezbollah, and it's pretty obvious that Syria does.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

Yes it does (none / 0) (#241)
by heathlander on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:18:41 AM EST

but Hizbullah most certainly does not pose an existential threat to Israel. It doesn't pose any threat of any nature to Israeli civilians unless Israel attacks it first (as in the summer).

[ Parent ]
Hmm (none / 0) (#247)
by nebbish on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 10:14:26 AM EST

I was under the impression Hezbollah fired the first rockets.

(I know Wikipedia isn't the greatest source, but finding info on news sites so long after the fact is a bit tricky).

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

Hizbullah fired a couple of rockets (none / 1) (#259)
by heathlander on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 11:15:13 AM EST

as a distraction. They didn't hit anything and weren't intended to. After the soldiers were captured, Nasrallah went immediately onto Hizbullah's al-Manar TV station and he wanted to negotiate their release (in other words, he didn't want to start a war over it).

Israel wasn't having any of that, and ordered its jets to begin bombing southern Lebanon. Hizbullah didn't retaliate until after some 40 civilians had been killed.

Prior to the war this summer, Hizbullah and the IDF had engaged in many small, minor confrontations - Hizbullah attempted to (or did) kidnap people or fired a few rockets at a military base, and Israel violated Lebanese airspace, assassinated various people and occassionally fired missiles on Hizbullah bases. It was a very low-level conflict. The capture of Regev and Goldwasser was just another act in that low-level conflict - Israel, for reasons of its own, decided to use that as an excuse to launch a full-scale war on the people of Lebanon. Israel was therefore the aggressor.

[ Parent ]

This I think is a big issue (none / 0) (#221)
by levesque on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:42:01 AM EST

Respect for Israelis (and Palestinians) is mandatory and not negotiable

A goverment's policies, their methods and consequences are not subject to the kind of respect that individuals are. I think the respect we hold for Goverment actions should not be confused with the respect we hold for individuals.



[ Parent ]

But their the only democracy in the middle east! (none / 0) (#151)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 12:29:09 AM EST

Well, there is Lebanon.  But Israel conveniently pushed them into Hezbollah control.

Correction:  Israel will be the only democracy in the middle east after the government of the other one collapses because Israel attacked it.  

...And after they are done committing genocide on the Palestinians for trying to have democracy and equal rights.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour

Uh-huh (none / 0) (#155)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:38:01 AM EST

"Genocide" for "wanting to have democracy and equal rights".

Trolls should be less blatant to be any good.

[ Parent ]

Not a troll nt (none / 0) (#185)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:52:56 PM EST



I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
Oh dear (none / 0) (#191)
by nidarus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 03:36:04 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Enemies (none / 0) (#273)
by cdguru on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 03:42:00 PM EST

I believe one of the basic definitions of the two sides to a murderous conflict is that the two sides don't especially like each other. Most conflicts of the last 50 years are also of the sort where it is Humanity vs. Subhumans.

Clearly, looking at Muslim propaganda shows that Jews are in the Subhuman class according to those preparing this. And perhaps rightfully so, many in the West look at the way Palestinians conduct their side of the conflict and say they are subhuman animals.

Any sort of sanctions imposed after Hamas was elected as the leadership of the Palestinian people should be obvious to anyone in the US or Europe. What would the response in Europe be to an election of avowed Nazis to the German leadership? How about the attitude towards the US should David Duke be swept into power as President? Of course there would be sanctions, trade restrictions, financial embargoes, etc. The question might just as well be why Israel has not declared unrestricted war on the Palestinian people in general.

Arms Sales To Israel Must Stop | 273 comments (254 topical, 19 editorial, 1 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!