 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
TR1985
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 09:33 pm |
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit wrote:
You've acknowledged that Israel does fuc*ed-up things, which is the starting point. What you now have to get over is the fact that the Palestinians' similarly-fuc*ed up acts would not be occurring if they were given their rights & freedoms.
As the American revolutionaries were.
And so it is America or the West's place to intervene on half of this conflict? No, it isn't, especially for America.
Like you said, neither has a high ground on morality.
|
TR1985
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 09:36 pm |
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit wrote: America will not gain by backing either.
So strategic gain is the only deciding factor? I thought we were discussing morals. Why is it not moral to support the Palestinians?
And if we decided that its our goal to lift the oppressed of the world, why draw the line at morally ambiguous Israel as opposed to Tibet?
Quite simply because Tibet is too difficult a task. The means you would have to employ would not justify the ends.
In Israel's case, you can do a good deed merely by turning off the tap (and maybe putting some sanctions/a blockade in place)
I never said your goal is to lift ALL the oppressed of the world. Just the ones within easy reach.
You have me at turning off any aid to Israel. As for enacting sanctions or a blockade, no, I wouldn't support it, its still taking sides.
So Israel and Palestine are easy and reachable fixes? I doubt it. They have been fighting since my mother was a child, and I imagine they will still be fighting when my children have children. I'll ask is that we keep their fighting over there.
As for Tibet, yes, that's difficult, and would be foolish to intervene there as well.
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 09:38 pm |
|
Like you said, neither has a high ground on morality.
Never said that.
Unless you'd like to claim that the Americans had no moral high ground to fight their revolution, you'll have to admit that the Palestinians have the high ground in theirs as well.
In terms of the morality of uprisings and the shaking-off of oppressors, that's the analogy it really comes down to.
Last edited on Tue Oct 6th, 2009 09:39 pm by BushFramedRogerRabbit
|
TR1985
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 09:41 pm |
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit wrote: Like you said, neither has a high ground on morality.
Never said that.
Unless you'd like to claim that the Americans had no moral high ground to fight their revolution, you'll have to admit that the Palestinians have the high ground in theirs as well.
In terms of the morality of uprisings and the shaking-off of oppressors, that's the analogy it really comes down to.
This is nowhere the same as the American Revolution, if anything, its closer to the Mexican American war as two nations fought over the same land.
No. I wont blame one people in this conflict and exonerate the other. If they wanted peace, both of them, the would have it, I'm convinced neither party is willing to sacrifice and to then intervene on either side will do nothing but build resentment. It's best to stand back aloof.
|
TR1985
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 09:43 pm |
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit wrote:
In terms of the morality of uprisings and the shaking-off of oppressors, that's the analogy it really comes down to.
No. It isn't. It's a battle over land and religion, and to take one side over the other is to overreach and to involve yourself in someone else's business. Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson gave excellent advice on this issue, friendship and commerce with all, entangling alliances with none.
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 09:51 pm |
|
If they wanted peace...
"Peace is not merely the absence of unrest. It is the presence of justice."
- MLK
The Palestinians do not want peace. They want their human rights, they want the settlers out, they want their independence.
Is that such a terrible thing to fight for?
The atrocities faced by them on a daily basis have been listed in this thread.
Are they such terrible things to fight against?
You needn't take a side over true issues of religion, like Jerusalem - an international city would be a good solution on that particular issue.
Those issues are secondary to the human rights issues, however. And on those issues, you must take a side, even if you don't necessarily support intervention as well.
Again: the grievances of the Palestinians, which far outweigh those of the colonists, have been listed. Are they of a sufficient level of oppression to justify a violent uprising?
You say the uprising is not about oppression, yet the oppression quite clearly exists - and very severely as well.
Last edited on Tue Oct 6th, 2009 09:52 pm by BushFramedRogerRabbit
|
TR1985
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 09:55 pm |
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit wrote: If they wanted peace...
"Peace is not merely the absence of unrest. It is the presence of justice."
- MLK
The Palestinians do not want peace. They want their human rights, they want the settlers out, they want their independence.
Is that such a terrible thing to fight for?
The atrocities faced by them on a daily basis have been listed in this thread.
Are they such terrible things to fight against?
You needn't take a side over true issues of religion, like Jerusalem - an international city would be a good solution on that particular issue.
Those issues are secondary to the human rights issues, however. And on those issues, you must take a side, even if you don't necessarily support intervention as well.
Again: the grievances of the Palestinians, which far outweigh those of the colonists, have been listed. Are they of a sufficient level of oppression to justify a violent uprising?
You say the uprising is not about oppression, yet the oppression quite clearly exists - and very severely as well.
Be that as it may, and however true it may be, it isn't America's place to intervene in this. To go off and involve ourselves in the internal politics of the middle east has been a disaster, and going deeper is no solution at all.
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 6th, 2009 10:16 pm |
|
Be that as it may, and however true it may be, it isn't America's place to intervene in this. To go off and involve ourselves in the internal politics of the middle east has been a disaster, and going deeper is no solution at all.
Fair enough. From a purely strategic viewpoint, isolationism may be the best course of action for the U.S at this juncture in history.
But we can at least agree that in this situation, the Palestinians are certainly justified in struggling against the daily injustices & oppression of their lives.
That was my main point anyway...
Last edited on Tue Oct 6th, 2009 10:18 pm by BushFramedRogerRabbit
|
Mazel Schlimazel
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 8th, 2009 05:41 am |
|
Well, as a Faithful Jew, I'll definately agree that Israel, like any other country, should be held responsible for any and all human rights abuses that it may commit.
And I don't have anything against the future possibility of a Single-State soution that protects the democratic rights of both all the Jews and Muslims (including re-absorbing the palestinian refugees as full citizens of such a new single state) residing there, under a a common binational/multicultural government.
human rights should be universal and unconditional for all. ![[usa]](/forums/themes/default/usa.gif) even the torah says in one of its passages, "Love the alien residing in thy land as thyself."
the Mishnah and talmudic teachings also instruct Jews to value and respect the property of all neighbors, be they Jew or Gentile.
For me as a Diasporic Jew who is becoming more observant religiously (who also has relatives in Israel), Judaism for me is really in the heart, soul, mind, and practice. While I'm STRONGLY committed to practicing Judaism communally and being involved in the Jewish community and the Jewish faith..... I've also lately dissociated myself from being involved in siding exclusively with either side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to steer away from debating the territorial disputes of both sides, in both private and public.. as difficult as that may be to come by, in many Jewish circles.
Judaism to me should remain more spiritual as well as communal, and less political/territorial, etc..
Sure, why not have a single country called "Israelistine/Palisrael"? I know it isn't realistic concerning the asymmetry of the current order of things, as well as tensions built up on either side, but I'd support such a transition into a common country where both Jews and Arabs are Citizens of such a secular state, with fully enumerated rights.
Now that I've opined, I will now desist from the thread, and let you guys continue having your conversation in peace.
Last edited on Thu Oct 8th, 2009 05:46 am by Mazel Schlimazel
|
TD
S. Moderator
|
Posted: Thu Oct 8th, 2009 07:04 am |
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit wrote: Well now lets see.
The Palestinians have had their human rights abused countless times, their homes knocked to the ground in the thousands, unchecked violent/extremist settlers placed into their midst (living on top of their knocked-down homes no less) Water supplies diverted to said settlements. Said settlements getting extra protection from the IDF, and exclusive roads criss-crossing the west bank, further dividing the land that they used to own anyway.
Violent uprisings have been triggered for less weighty reasons. The American revolution, for example!
But no, of course, the Palestinians are supposed to be superhuman! People who, even faced with such an appalling situation, nonetheless select nice, peaceful, negotiating political parties into government, parties that play by the international rules that have been ignored by their oppressors so many times.
And of course, the act of not electing a nice peaceful government that is to our personal liking is enough justification to allow their oppressors to continue with said abuses!
As liberals who are suppoed to care about human rights.... perhaps the "f*** them both" standpoint needs to be reassessed.
Yeah, great points - let's see, the American revolution and past human rights abuses make it just fine to repeatedly fire rockets into civilian areas and then cry when there is an armed response.
Maybe you need to reassess the idea of supporting terrorists.
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 8th, 2009 07:28 pm |
|
And I don't have anything against the future possibility of a Single-State soution that protects the democratic rights of both all the Jews and Muslims (including re-absorbing the palestinian refugees as full citizens of such a new single state)
I think that would be the best solution as well. The world is divided enough as it is. However, the influx of all those Palestinians would ensure that the Israelis would become a minority in the new state. The government would have to be very de-centralised for such a solution to work.
TD wrote: BushFramedRogerRabbit wrote: Well now lets see.
The Palestinians have had their human rights abused countless times, their homes knocked to the ground in the thousands, unchecked violent/extremist settlers placed into their midst (living on top of their knocked-down homes no less) Water supplies diverted to said settlements. Said settlements getting extra protection from the IDF, and exclusive roads criss-crossing the west bank, further dividing the land that they used to own anyway.
Violent uprisings have been triggered for less weighty reasons. The American revolution, for example!
But no, of course, the Palestinians are supposed to be superhuman! People who, even faced with such an appalling situation, nonetheless select nice, peaceful, negotiating political parties into government, parties that play by the international rules that have been ignored by their oppressors so many times.
And of course, the act of not electing a nice peaceful government that is to our personal liking is enough justification to allow their oppressors to continue with said abuses!
As liberals who are suppoed to care about human rights.... perhaps the "f*** them both" standpoint needs to be reassessed.
Yeah, great points - let's see, the American revolution and past human rights abuses make it just fine to repeatedly fire rockets into civilian areas and then cry when there is an armed response.
Maybe you need to reassess the idea of supporting terrorists.
I'm having trouble extracting a point from all that sarcasm.
Are you saying that the desperate tactics of an oppressed people justifies branding them as being as bad as their oppressors?
How depressing, I thought that the days when people assumed the word "Terrorists!" could end a debate were over....
Last edited on Thu Oct 8th, 2009 07:32 pm by BushFramedRogerRabbit
|
TD
S. Moderator
|
Posted: Thu Oct 8th, 2009 11:11 pm |
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit wrote:
TD wrote: BushFramedRogerRabbit wrote: Well now lets see.
The Palestinians have had their human rights abused countless times, their homes knocked to the ground in the thousands, unchecked violent/extremist settlers placed into their midst (living on top of their knocked-down homes no less) Water supplies diverted to said settlements. Said settlements getting extra protection from the IDF, and exclusive roads criss-crossing the west bank, further dividing the land that they used to own anyway.
Violent uprisings have been triggered for less weighty reasons. The American revolution, for example!
But no, of course, the Palestinians are supposed to be superhuman! People who, even faced with such an appalling situation, nonetheless select nice, peaceful, negotiating political parties into government, parties that play by the international rules that have been ignored by their oppressors so many times.
And of course, the act of not electing a nice peaceful government that is to our personal liking is enough justification to allow their oppressors to continue with said abuses!
As liberals who are suppoed to care about human rights.... perhaps the "f*** them both" standpoint needs to be reassessed.
Yeah, great points - let's see, the American revolution and past human rights abuses make it just fine to repeatedly fire rockets into civilian areas and then cry when there is an armed response.
Maybe you need to reassess the idea of supporting terrorists.
I'm having trouble extracting a point from all that sarcasm.
Are you saying that the desperate tactics of an oppressed people justifies branding them as being as bad as their oppressors?
How depressing, I thought that the days when people assumed the word "Terrorists!" could end a debate were over....
You were having trouble extracting the point long before I became sarcastic.
I'll try to do this slowly and hope for the best.
Ok, regardless of how or why the Palestinians are feeling oppressed, they are resorting to tactics of terrorists (just because the word was over used, doesn't meant it isn't ever valid). They are targetting civilians in Israel and electing terrorists organizations (Hamas - that means bad guys in your moralistic little view), so I have no sympathy for them.
It's simple, really. These idiots in the gaza strip need to quit killing civilians and then the international community could come to their aid - force Israel to treat them better, and even recognize them as a state.
Or they can keep up their terrorist ways - elect known terrorists (people who kill innocent civilians, if the term terrorist is still messing you up), and they can keep supporting suicide bombers (they are rockstars over there), and then cry when Israel responds.
Let me make it even simpler for you. Two choices for the Palestinians:
Behave like they might actually be civilized (which I highly doubt) = support from the world
or
Kill innocent civilians = get their butts handed to them by Israel
It's really their choice. Why do you feel sorry for them for making their choice?
Why don't we just go ahead and recognized them as a state, force Israel to put up with having their civilians killed, and while we're at it, go ahead and give them nuclear weapons so those mean old Israelis will leave them alone? We're getting bored with Iran and Pakistan being the only religious nuts in the nuclear game anyway, aren't we??? (If you have trouble extracting the point from the sarcasm this time, I'll bust out the crayolas and draw you a picture).
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 06:08 pm |
|
These idiots in the gaza strip need to quit killing civilians and then the international community could come to their aid - force Israel to treat them better, and even recognize them as a state.
So, thanks to Palestinian tactics (which began AFTER the abuses listed started) you think Israel should NOT be forced to "treat the Palestinians better"
So the destruction of Palestinian homes is ok.
After all, they're terrorists.
Building settlements on top of said homes and populating them with abusive, unchecked religious extremists, who maim Palestinians with impunity.
That's all A-ok.
After all they're terrorists.
Refusing to prosecute abusive soldiers, restricting the press/UN from brining more abuses to light....Of course it's ok. They're fighting terrorists.
Diverting water supplies...A-ok, they're terrorists.
Dividing the west bank with checkpoints, walls, settler-only highways. It's A-ok, they're terrorists!
So where is the line drawn, TD? Exactly how far are the Israelis allowed to go, in your book?
Genocide?
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10th, 2009 08:49 pm |
|
Replying to your post on another thread:
The Palestinians are filth because they glorify sending their children to blow themselves up along with civilians on buses. They think it is cool to be a "martyr", when all they really need to do is to stop attacking civilians and then appeal to the world community. When they can't be civilized, then why should we feel sorry for them or care what Israel does to them? I don't.
Again, your logic seems to be as follows:
The Palestinians use "X" distasteful form of resistence, therefore the reasons for their resistance are null, and Israel can do whatever they want to them.
Again I ask the question - how far, in your eyes, is Israel allowed to go?
Demolishing the homes (of innocents) protecting soldiers (who abused innocents) diverting water supplies (from innocents) letting settlers run riot (and abuse innocents).....
That far? Or further? (Completely disregarding the fact that it was the abuses that triggered the distasteful resistance tactics in the first place!)
Last edited on Sat Oct 10th, 2009 08:52 pm by BushFramedRogerRabbit
|
TD
S. Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10th, 2009 09:21 pm |
|
It's simple, really - if someone murders someone, we then put them in prison or perhaps execute them.
If an entire group of people glorifies the murder of innocent people, then I'm fine with whatever happens to those people.
I don't think Israel should be allowed to build settlements on land that is supposed to belong to the Palestinians, or engage in any other abusive tactics. However, the appropriate response to murder, committed and sanctioned by a country or people, is war. Now, are you going to tell me the Israelis aren't being nice enough in how they wage war?
I could support the Palestinians 100% and be happy to see Israel forced to live up to their agreements, but not when they murder civilians by blowing up buses or shooting rockets into settlements.
Now, let's examine your logic, shall we? You seem to be saying that it's ok for the Palestinians murder Israelis because the Israelis knocked down houses, built settlements full of religious nuts, and diverted water supplies? If an Israeli soldier is abusive, should he receive the death penalty? If Israel builds a settlement on Palestinian land, then they should die? Should the US just bomb Israel? Where do you draw the line?
I'm all for forcing Israel - by restricting our aid - to treat the Palestinians better. But not as long as they are murdering civilians and glorifying suicide bombers. If that is their value system, then I don't see them as worth protecting. I see them as uncivilized filth and I couldn't care less how Israel deals with them.
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit
Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 11th, 2009 01:06 pm |
|
however, the appropriate response to murder, committed and sanctioned by a country or people, is war.
And the appropriate response to occupation & oppression is ALSO war.
And the appropriate response to war is to examine whether it's justified or not. Israel obviously can't do that - but we can.
War was the American response to British oppression - oppression on a far smaller scale than Israeli oppression. War was the French peasantry's response to the oppression of their rulers. War was the resistance's response to the Nazis
War is rarely nice, and depending on how desperate the warriors in question are, the tactics get less and less nice. You yourself acknowledged that.
(Why did the US drop nukes on Japan and firebomb Tokyo & Dresden, by the way? They knew they were killing masses of civilians, surely? I guess desperate times call for desperate measures, eh?)
I'm all for giving the Palestinians more support either military, economc or political, so that they needn't fire their rockets. But untill that happens, I'm not going to call them "filth" for using the exact same tactics that WE would if placed in their situation. We'd glorify our resistence fighters as well, just like we did in WWII.
And good god man, throwing words like "barbarous" and "uncivilized filth" around? Is this the 1800s? Are you really that short-sighted? Borderline racism is what that is.
|
Low n Slow
Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 11th, 2009 05:36 pm |
|
I want to thank BushFramedRogerRabbit for such an impassioned and accurate portrayal of the conflict. While like TD, I feel disgust with the tactics of the Palestinians and their glorification of suicide bombers, unlike him, I also feel the same about the Israeli’s treatment of the Palestinians.
We had our own problem with suicide bombers a relatively short time ago and if we had treated the Japanese (who also glorified their bombers) like the Israeli’s treat the Palestinians for decade after decade rather than rebuilding their country, they would still be at it.
Outside the US, the rest of the entire world feels as much disgust for the Israeli’s as the Palestinians, to attribute that entirely to anti-Semitism is just laughable.
|
Hughmac
Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 11th, 2009 07:53 pm |
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit wrote: Replying to your post on another thread:
The Palestinians are filth because they glorify sending their children to blow themselves up along with civilians on buses. They think it is cool to be a "martyr", when all they really need to do is to stop attacking civilians and then appeal to the world community. When they can't be civilized, then why should we feel sorry for them or care what Israel does to them? I don't.
Allow me to jump in, if you don't mind, mr BFRR and respond to Mr TD's surprising comments:
How many Palestinians glorify sending children to blow themselves up, Mr TD? Some (perhaps just one, in fact) lunatic did it and therefore the entire Palestinian nation glorifies blowing their children up as suicide bombers? I really am amazed by the ease that Americans slip into this kind of blanket brain-lockdown logic.
Are the Israelis filth because they put bombs on buses and in cinemas, as well as crowded market places during there little 'terrorist jaunt'? One of those Israeli terrorists became the freaking Israeli President in the 80's by the way. Are the Israelis filth because their terrorist units blew up American property in Egypt and tried to blame it onto Arab communists?
As for the Palestinians appealing to the world community - what a joke! Ever heard of the US veto at the UNSC?
It appears increasingly evident that pro-Israeli Americans need to dehumanise the Palestinians so as to be able to self-justify your appauling support of Israeli actions in the occupied territories.
If you took the label of the "Israeli attrocities can" and put the name of any other nation in its place, you self-same Israeli apologists would be screaming about the barbaric nature of the offenders, but the moment you re-stick the name "Israel" back on that can of worms and you go into a zombie lock-down mode and start bleating, "Israel has the right to defend itself."
You beat your breast and talk about Hamas rockets pouring down on innocent Israeli civilians yet remain shamefacedly mute before the far, far higher death toll to Palestinian civilians. How many of those rockets actually killed somebody - their inaccuracy does not justify their being launched, but, how many, just the same. You want to know how many Palestinian civilians die each time the Israel deliberately shell Palestian residential areas?
An Palestinian child is worth the same as an Israeli one to everybody accept the Americans.
Palestinians are filth, you claim. All those families where fathers worry how they are going to put some meagre helping of food on the plate on their children, where the mothers worry themselves to death that their children will return from school (what freaking school, you may ask), all those kids that only want to study and get a decent job or lasses that want a family of their own - all these people... according to you, Mr TD, want to slap an explosive belt around their 9-year-old child and blow him up on a bus. I mean... really... just how willingly obtuse can you people get?
Nobody is asking your country to intervene, Mr TD - it would be nice, however, if you just tried to refrain from screwing it all up. Don't intervene. Stop sending arms to Israel. Stop vetoing the UNSCR. Stop giving money to the corrupt Egyptian regime for being friends with Israel. Just for once, if you insist in doing something in the Middle East, break 60 years of being biased and be bloody fair - nothing else.
But beside all that, me ol mate, TD, how the devil are you?
Cheers
Hughmac
|
TD
S. Moderator
|
Posted: Mon Oct 12th, 2009 12:09 am |
|
Explain to me why Palestinian families get money when one of their kids blows up a bus.
Explain to me why the people who murder civilians (no matter what the reason) are viewed as rock stars and have their pictures plastered up all over the place.
I'm really sick of the comparison of the colonists making war on England to form their own country, and the Palestinians. The colonists declared war and fought the British troops - they didn't go over to England and murder English civilians.
And you can call me a racist, if you like, but that just makes you sound stupid. The Palestinians are not a race. They are Arab. I don't have a problem with all Arabs - that would be racist. I have a problem with the Palestinians in the gaza strip. I'm ok with the Palestinians in the west bank - they don't have Hamas as their government. If you are going to call me a name, take a moment and look up the definition. Otherwise, you just sound ridiculous and you bolster my argument.
Here's my point - I'll try to do it as simply as possible so no one gets confused.
If you think it is ok to blow up a bus full of civilians - you are filth and I don't care if you are oppressed or even killed.
I apply that to Israelis, Palestinians, or any other sack of crap that believes that is ok. The gaza folks just seem to glorify that behavior and don't seem to mind sending their kids to die. So no, I have no use for those people.
I'm not saying Israel is completely justified in their treatment of the Palestinians. I'm saying the Palestinians haven't shown me anything that suggests they deserve any help.
Stop aid to Isreal? Really? Then you would see genocide. Israel is hated by pretty much all their neighbors and the situation has been a cluster f- since the UN created Isreal. If we stopped aiding them, they would be wiped off the map by their neighbors. I don't think a policy of non-interference is wise.
If the entire world is turning a blind eye to the plight of the Palestinians, maybe ask yourself why. They aren't getting anywhere with their terrorist tactics, and apparently the world doesn't care, so they are screwed.
My other point - I don't care that the Palestinians are being oppressed. 10 million people in Africa were slaughtered and no one seemed to care about that - I don't think those people were antagonizing another country by blowing up buses or shooting rockets at them.
|
TD
S. Moderator
|
Posted: Mon Oct 12th, 2009 12:36 am |
|
The US started 2 wars after 9/11. While some of us aren't feeling the Iraq war, and object to us attacking a country that clearly had nothing to do with 9/11, no one seems to care about the Taliban. No one is crying that we are oppressing them.
We attacked Afganistan, toppled their government, and are now occupying that country while trying to prop up a government of our choosing. Maybe that's what Israel should do. They could claim they are trying to bring democracy to the Palestinians or some garbage like that.
From 2005 to 2008 less than 2000 Palestinians have been killed in this "conflict" while we have 10,000,000 people dead in Africa. I'm going to go ahead and give a crap a bit more about the 10 million, than the 2000 from the group who likes to blow up buses.
BTW, for those of you who demonize the Israelis for their part in all of this, but give the Palestinians a pass for their tactics, maybe you are the racists.
|
Current time is 07:25 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...   |
|
|
|
|
