HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Foreign Affairs & National Security » Israel/Palestine (Group) » WATCH: IDF Soldier Scream...

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 07:48 PM

 

WATCH: IDF Soldier Screams At Israeli Activists: 'You Are Worse Than The Arabs'



Israeli Ta’ayush activists who were accompanying Palestinian shepherds in the southern West Bank village Umm al Amad on Saturday were confronted by a soldier who lost his cool, to say the least.

According to Guy, the Israeli activist who filmed the video below, this is private Palestinian land (the Otniel settlement is nearby) that the IDF and settlers routinely try and keep the Palestinian residents out of. In the video below, the soldier can be seen first approaching the Palestinian shepherd, screaming in his face in Arabic: “You better watch it!” Then Guy tells the soldier not to scream at him and to leave him alone, to which the soldier turns to Guy, screaming: “Get out of here you Israel haters, I’ll kick the crap out of you. You are worse than the Arabs.”

He then turned to one of the female Israeli activists and said: “Shut up, Israel hater who goes to bed with Arabs.”

MORE...

http://972mag.com/watch-idf-soldier-lashes-out-at-israeli-activists-you-are-worse-than-the-arabs/70037/

142 replies, 11355 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 142 replies Author Time Post
Reply WATCH: IDF Soldier Screams At Israeli Activists: 'You Are Worse Than The Arabs' (Original post)
Purveyor Apr 2013 OP
TheMadMonk Apr 2013 #1
pelsar Apr 2013 #2
TheMadMonk Apr 2013 #4
shira Apr 2013 #6
TheMadMonk Apr 2013 #21
shira Apr 2013 #27
TheMadMonk Apr 2013 #39
delrem May 2013 #112
pelsar Apr 2013 #8
Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2013 #10
oberliner Apr 2013 #16
shira Apr 2013 #19
bravenak Apr 2013 #33
shira Apr 2013 #35
bravenak Apr 2013 #38
shira Apr 2013 #40
bravenak Apr 2013 #41
Shaktimaan Apr 2013 #69
King_David Apr 2013 #74
Shaktimaan Apr 2013 #64
TheMadMonk Apr 2013 #22
shira Apr 2013 #24
TheMadMonk Apr 2013 #31
shira Apr 2013 #36
TheMadMonk Apr 2013 #42
pelsar Apr 2013 #46
TheMadMonk Apr 2013 #54
pelsar Apr 2013 #55
TheMadMonk Apr 2013 #77
pelsar May 2013 #79
TheMadMonk May 2013 #82
pelsar May 2013 #85
TheMadMonk May 2013 #86
pelsar May 2013 #87
shaayecanaan Apr 2013 #34
pelsar Apr 2013 #47
delrem May 2013 #113
pelsar May 2013 #114
Post removed May 2013 #115
delrem May 2013 #116
HangOnKids May 2013 #117
King_David May 2013 #119
Ken Burch May 2013 #101
delrem May 2013 #102
pelsar May 2013 #105
Ken Burch May 2013 #122
pelsar May 2013 #123
Ken Burch May 2013 #124
pelsar May 2013 #126
Ken Burch May 2013 #127
pelsar May 2013 #128
Ken Burch May 2013 #129
pelsar May 2013 #130
Ken Burch May 2013 #131
pelsar May 2013 #132
Ken Burch May 2013 #133
pelsar May 2013 #134
Ken Burch May 2013 #135
pelsar May 2013 #136
Ken Burch May 2013 #137
pelsar May 2013 #139
Ken Burch May 2013 #140
pelsar May 2013 #141
Ken Burch May 2013 #142
Ken Burch May 2013 #138
delrem Apr 2013 #3
shira Apr 2013 #5
Israeli Apr 2013 #11
shira Apr 2013 #13
Israeli Apr 2013 #17
shira Apr 2013 #18
Israeli Apr 2013 #60
shira Apr 2013 #61
shaayecanaan Apr 2013 #37
shira Apr 2013 #62
Israeli Apr 2013 #63
shira Apr 2013 #75
azurnoir Apr 2013 #76
Israeli May 2013 #80
shira May 2013 #83
Israeli May 2013 #88
shira May 2013 #95
Israeli May 2013 #96
Israeli May 2013 #81
shira May 2013 #84
Israeli May 2013 #89
shira May 2013 #94
Israeli May 2013 #97
shira May 2013 #98
Israeli May 2013 #99
shira May 2013 #100
Israeli May 2013 #107
shira May 2013 #108
Israeli May 2013 #110
Israeli May 2013 #109
delrem May 2013 #111
Israeli May 2013 #90
HiPointDem Apr 2013 #57
Israeli Apr 2013 #65
HiPointDem Apr 2013 #67
Israeli Apr 2013 #68
TheMadMonk Apr 2013 #23
delrem Apr 2013 #20
shira Apr 2013 #25
delrem Apr 2013 #26
shira Apr 2013 #28
delrem Apr 2013 #29
bravenak Apr 2013 #30
delrem May 2013 #103
pelsar Apr 2013 #9
delrem Apr 2013 #14
pelsar Apr 2013 #44
delrem Apr 2013 #45
pelsar Apr 2013 #48
delrem Apr 2013 #52
pelsar Apr 2013 #56
delrem Apr 2013 #66
pelsar Apr 2013 #70
delrem Apr 2013 #71
pelsar Apr 2013 #72
delrem Apr 2013 #73
oberliner Apr 2013 #78
delrem May 2013 #104
oberliner May 2013 #118
bravenak Apr 2013 #32
pelsar Apr 2013 #43
bravenak Apr 2013 #49
pelsar Apr 2013 #50
bravenak Apr 2013 #51
pelsar Apr 2013 #53
bravenak Apr 2013 #58
pelsar Apr 2013 #59
shira Apr 2013 #7
azurnoir Apr 2013 #12
Israeli Apr 2013 #15
azurnoir May 2013 #91
Israeli May 2013 #92
azurnoir May 2013 #93
Israeli May 2013 #106
azurnoir May 2013 #120
Israeli May 2013 #121
azurnoir May 2013 #125

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:08 PM

1. But, but, but Arab kids throw rocks. This I'm told excuses everything. /nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 01:06 AM

2. obviously you are confused

throwing rocks at moving cars...is what is excused or perhaps more precisely is not condemned with simply words, like a simple condemnation, even though they have killed and wounded people.

screaming at them doesn't anything

perhaps you would like to excuse those who throw rocks?...

or perhaps you agree with the israeli reporter? Hass
“Throwing stones is the birthright and duty of anyone subject to foreign rule,” she wrote in the Haaretz daily on Wednesday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 07:37 AM

4. And no Israeli ever has killed or wounded anyone?

 

Last time I looked the casualty exchange rate was approximately 100 dead Palestinians for every Israeli. And that number almost certainly more than doubles if you include those Palestinians who have died prematurely over the decades, due to lack of access to decent medical care.


Strikes me that if YOU don't agree with that sentiment, then perhaps Israel should not exist at all, since without the continental resistance forces "throwing stones" to slow and partial occupy Germany's attention, it's highly doubtful Britain would have survived until the US entered the war. No Britain, no liberation. Germany gets the Middle East and at the very least Northern Africa, and quite possibly prevails against Russia.

Which would have pretty much reduced the Jewish population of the world to those few in the Americas and Australia.


That's where you'd be, if the occupied, foreign ruled nations of Europe had simply rolled over and meekly accepted occupation and German colonisation. If they hadn't fought back with sticks and stones, and home made guns and bombs. If they hadn't risked their own lives: hiding Jews from the Germans; smuggling Jews out of Europe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 08:01 AM

6. Don't change the subject. You cheer on palestinian rock-throwing child militants.....

 

You deem their "resistance" against Jewish moms and their baby children legitimate.

And then you get all upset at IDF soldiers screaming at their defenders.

========

If this conflict were simply about Israel getting out of the OPT, that'd be one thing. But it's not. It goes well beyond that. The resistance vs. occupation you support is against Israel's very existence - including their occupation of Tel Aviv, Haifa, and West Jerusalem.

That's the resistance vs. occupation you support, right?

Because if not, explain...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #6)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 07:52 PM

21. Just how much of that rock throwing takes place OUTSIDE the occupied...

 

...territories? And how much against settlers within them? Serious question, I don't know, although I strongly suspect.

===

And what do you have to say of the many times numerous high level members of the government and military of Israel have expressed like thoughts about the elimination of Palestine in any form, in their official personas, without once ever having their on record statements being officially repudiated?

Difference between the two. Israel has the power to make it happen, and to all external appearance, seems to be working hard towards that end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #21)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 08:55 PM

27. Quite a bit takes place outside the territories, in Jerusalem, around the holy places....

 

Do you think it's okay to do so vs. settlers, their children? If so, is it because they're considered sub-human?

And what do you have to say of the many times numerous high level members of the government and military of Israel have expressed like thoughts about the elimination of Palestine in any form, in their official personas, without once ever having their on record statements being officially repudiated?


Against it.

Difference between the two. Israel has the power to make it happen, and to all external appearance, seems to be working hard towards that end.


If Israel were working hard to that end, it wouldn't have agreed to the Clinton Parameters at Taba in 2001. Olmert wouldn't have made an even better offer in 2008. Both deals were rejected w/o counter-offers by the Palestinians. Both would have ended the occupation and settlements, split Jerusalem, given the Palestinians near or equal to 100% of pre-'67 territory, and fair compensation for refugees.

No counter-offer whatsoever.

What do you say to that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #27)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 10:21 PM

39. And I've repeatedly said it's unacceptable, but you keep asking, because...

 

...you hope to damn me with the question, whatever answer I give.

Let's see: A balkanised Palestine; and Palestinian refugees to become the rest of the world's problem to deal with and resettle.

Barak wanted to discuss increasing that balkanisation by asserting sovereignty over roads linking Israeli settlements.

Arafat expressed concerns about the viability of a Palestine diced up into several pieces.

Barak's request was considered acceptable, Arafats concern's were not.

    I could go on, but the simple facts are:
  • BOTH SIDES ACCEPTED the Clinton Parameters in general;
  • Both sides expressed concerns about certain elements of the Parameters;
  • Barak was permitted to add his concerns to the discussion;
  • Arafat was essentially told, "Take it or leave it."


On the Annapolis Conference, Olmert may well have been acting in good faith, however:
"On November 27, 2007, Ovadia Yosef, the spiritual leader of the Shas party, announced that his party would leave the government coalition, thereby ending the coalition's majority in the Knesset, if Ehud Olmert agreed to divide Jerusalem." (wikipedia)


Palestinians protested, Israelis threatened to bring down their own government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #39)

Tue May 7, 2013, 10:22 PM

112. Interesting sub-thread

Remember, though, that the video in the OP showed only one group of people who were armed, and that group was an IDF patrol. The IDF patrol was conducting business as usual in militarily occupied territories wherein the occupying gov't denies the existence of any state rights to the occupied people. The occupying gov't denies the existence of a Palestinian state, and it claims that acknowledging the existence of a Palestinian state is detrimental to peace.

Putting this in more colloquial terms, the IDF in this vid are paying their dues to the Jewish state by observing their duty to serve a state that denies the very existence of the occupied Palestinian people, except as pests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 12:46 PM

8. i was just asking....

if I do understand your answer, you do agree that throwing rocks is acceptable and its consequences of killing civilians is also acceptable.

did i understand correctly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #8)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 04:36 PM

10. Throwing rocks at soldiers is fine, throwing rocks at civilians is unacceptable.

Throwing rocks is a form of violence - usually a relatively limited one, but sometimes lethal, as was tragically demonstrated recently.

Targetting any kind of violence against civilians is unacceptable.

The Palestinians are well within their right to use any kind of force they choose against the IDF, up to and including killing every soldier who won't lay down their arms, and until the occupation ends the IDF have no right to defend themselves, other than by taking off the uniform. That's not to say it's the right decision - given the power disparity, it clearly isn't - but it's entirely legitimate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #10)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 06:42 PM

16. "killing every soldier who won't lay down their arms"

 

One of the most chilling posts I've seen here in a while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #16)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 07:32 PM

19. Jews must surrender, let Hamas rule over them. That will end well. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #19)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 09:14 PM

33. Palestinians must not resist Israel's right to rule over them.

 

There I fixed it for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #33)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 09:55 PM

35. That's Intifada 1. The late 1980's....

 

It was effective back then b/c Israelis mostly saw that as an attempt to end the occupation and settlements. It led eventually to Rabin being elected.

Too bad that Intifada 2 proved conclusively that the resistance wasn't against occupation and settlements, but against Israel's very existence.

Big difference, don't you think?

Let's not pretend Palestinians have the right to resist Israel's very existence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #35)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 10:02 PM

38. They have a right to resist Israel's illegal occupation.

 

All day, every day. Resist!

Why don't you think they have the right to resist illegal occupation?

No state has an inherent right to exist.

Even empires fall.

Governments fail.

Why is Israel the only state with a god given right to exist?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #38)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 10:22 PM

40. But they're not only resisting occupation....

 

It goes well beyond that. Where do you draw the line? Do you support them to a point and then start condemning? Who do you condemn? When?

Also, the occupation is legal. UNSCR242 states quite clearly Israel is to retain the territories until a peace deal is finalized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #40)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 10:28 PM

41. That's why there will never be a deal.

 

Tit for tat. Israel has been off the hook for a while. I'll be supportive until its no longer necessary.
One state solution, two state solution, I don't care. As long as there are equal rights for all, good.
I mean equal, not Israeli equal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #38)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 08:12 AM

69. Why?

All day, every day. Resist!

Why don't you think they have the right to resist illegal occupation?


Because the occupation is entirely legal. And because no such right exists anyway. Violence on the part of the occupied civilians violates many statutes on the Geneva conventions actually, and may result in their families and friends all losing the crucial protections afforded to 'protected persons' as the GC defines it.

No state has an inherent right to exist.


So then where do the Palestinians draw their legitimacy from to attack Israeli soldiers? From defending an as yet non existent state that lacks truly functional government, from the non-invading force of soldiers who only bother you if attacked themselves?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #38)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 03:57 PM

74. " Why is Israel the only state with a god given right to exist? "

Classic ...thank you for this very revealing thought,it goes to motive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 07:10 AM

64. Interesting ideas you've got there.

The Palestinians are well within their right to use any kind of force they choose against the IDF, up to and including killing every soldier who won't lay down their arms
,

My main question is just to find out what right you're referring to here. Is it a legal right or more like one of those personally held type rights? Is it from anywhere? Or did you just make some photocopies after inventing it?

Because exercising this right of yours means violating some others, like the Geneva conventions among others.


and until the occupation ends the IDF have no right to defend themselves, other than by taking off the uniform
.

Actually they have an obligation to do whatever is necessary to ensure public order so they actually are forbidden from deserting in the face of public disorder.


No right to fight an occupying army exists. And this is a legal occupation so unless your rock throwers belong to the army and are wearing uniforms then they are in breach of the Geneva conventions and laws of warfare, leaving them with very few rights of their own at all.

At the very least, they must be arrested. But the IDF is well within their rights to shoot them if they so desire. Thankfully they use less lethal means to do their job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #8)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 08:15 PM

22. No it's not acceptable, but it's bloody well understandable.

 

Now how about you address a 100 to 1 casualty exchange rate.

And perhaps you can tell me why a resistance force that benefitted Jews 70 years ago was a good thing, but is bad when the boot is on the other foot?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #22)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 08:37 PM

24. Killing innocents is understandable. Appreciate the honesty...

 

Seeing a lot more of it here lately.

No pretense anymore towards human rights, etc...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #24)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 09:05 PM

31. No, lashing out like a wounded animal at anything within reach...

 

is understandable. The fact that "innocents" are sometimes hurt is simply the inevitable outcome of those "innocents" taking themselves within reach.

And, time and time againe you make it perfectly clear you think Palestinians have no rights at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #31)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 09:59 PM

36. If it were only about resisting the occupation and settlements....

 

...then you'd have a point. Intifada 2 proves you wrong. The response to the Gaza withdrawal of 2005 proves you wrong.

Do you think the Palestinians had a right to Intifada 2 after Israel agreed to the Clinton Parameters in 2000-01? Or a right to send thousands of rockets after Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005?

If you are correct, resistance should have subsided both times. The opposite occurred and things got worse, however.

How do you explain this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #36)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 10:47 PM

42. See my post 39 re: Clinton Parameters.

 

AND IIRC, the timeline for the Gaza withdrawal went something like this.
  1. Israel withdraws. Yay!
  2. Hamas get's elected. Uh oh!
  3. Israel, backed by the US, refuses to accept legitimacy of one of the most heavily scrutinised elections in history. WTF
  4. Israel (cheered on by the US) refuses to even acknowledge Hamas, let alone talk to them. Game Over.
  5. Hamas resumes "diplomacy" by other means. Why should you expect anything else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #42)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 12:33 AM

46. you skipped the most important numbers..

1a:
PA takes control: attacks against israel increases,
attacks against its cities, its border posts, its import posts.

1b the PA and affiliates increase the import and manufacture of local rockets and start importing military manufactured rockets and arms

2a, 3a, 4a,..attacks against israel continue on an almost daily basis, egypt keeps it border closed with limited openings

4b: hamas increases its import of military grade rockets

5a hamas expands it attacks on israel via egypt, egypt still keeps it border closed with limited openings

___

so....lets ask...why did you skip those aspects?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #46)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 03:33 AM

54. b. b. b. b. Israel responds with precision strikes orders of magnitude...

 

...more powerful than the niggling and essentially ineffectual attacks coming from within Gaza.

The rockets from Palestine did almost zero damage and disrupted Israeli life to the tune of a brief soujourn in a quite comfortable shelter for a few. (You might want to ask a BLITZ SURVIVOR how they had it with entire neighbourhoods packed into a few tens of yards of soot caked railway tunnels.)

The Palestinians were permitted neither warning, nor shelter. And somehow or other a hell of a lot of those presicion strikes managed to hit a lot of schools, clinics and homes, and kill a lot of women and children. How often were ZERO, NONE, NADA post pubescent male (possibly, let alone demonstrably militant) bodies extracted from the rubble? Any such were long gone from the point of impact by the time a shell or warhead arrived, if they'd ever been there at all. And wouldn't all those women and children be long gone too, realising that one outgoing absolutely guaranteed that one incoming was only minutes away.

Are you going to double down on your claim that miltants are hiding behind women and children, by also suggesting they are deliberately inviting Israeli retaliation and then with equal cold blooded and depraved deliberation are, KETTLING THEIR OWN WOMEN AND CHILDREN at the anticipated point of impact to make martyrs of them.

You excuse this colateral damage as unavoidable, even though "Gone in 60 seconds" applies as much to launching man portable rockets as it does to stealing motor vehicles, but when Israel locates legitimate military targets such as munitions plants and arsenals in the middle of towns, any attacks on them are decried as deliberate attacks on the civilian population.

And yet Israelis have the hide to complain about how badly traumatised the attacks left them.

Just how the bloody hell do you justify that? Really? Israelis had become so accustomed to tranquility, that any assault was beyond the pale, whilst, Palestinians should be so used to it, that they should have no trouble sucking up some more of the same old same old. Shame about your kids.

Whether it's true or not, I absolutely guaratee you, that that is exactly how a great many Palestinians feel.

Couple that with the very simple fact that there are over 3 million Pallestinian refugees living entirely on the sufferance of host nations, and well over a million more living in camps where a third generation is growing up as displaced persons, having a cultural identity, but no nationality and no freedom of movement within the nation where they were born.

FFS, don't you think this might be why, in the face of a 100 to 1 casualty exchange rate, Palestine still fights back?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #54)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 03:54 AM

55. you still keep "forgetting facts"

Last edited Mon Apr 29, 2013, 04:43 AM - Edit history (5)

the timeline...what your avoiding, what you must avoid....

how many Palestinian attacks must occur before israel responds? Whereas the attacks from the Palestenians have been almost constant, almost daily (I believe something 6,000 kassams before israel responded with force)

perhaps you didnt write it because you believe israel should not respond to cross border attacks,
answer goes here____________________________________________________(lets see you spell it out)


*warning warning warning** reality in next paragraph:
Are you going to double down on your claim that miltants are hiding behind women and children,
nothing to double down about, shooting rockets from an open field is sucidal for the hamasnikim, they learned its better to shoot from hidden built up areas where people naturally live, if they want to stay alive and hide their rockets better.
(you actually believe they setup their rockets and shoot from open fields?)
_________________________________

FFS, don't you think this might be why, in the face of a 100 to 1 casualty exchange rate, Palestine still fights back?
i'm sure you can find a zillion of reasons why its justified that they can keep on fighting, they have the choice of being either a zero sum game or a compromise:

depends whats more important you: a culturally defined "nationalistic justice" or a working compromise. I get the impression by your time line that your far more interested in your version of "justice' rather then the two societies living together

just a side thought: if the Palestinians, as per your writing, have chosen to keep on fighting, that means they also have the ability to chose not to fight as well....meaning they are responsible for their actions....(this respect for the Palestinians ability to make choices is rare in these parts)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #55)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 04:02 AM

77. Why must: Israel pay back stones with bullets?

 

Raze entire neighbourhoods in retaliation for a scorched stoop?
Lash back with precision munitions against glorified bottle rockets?

Why must Israel return every "insult" done it, ten, twenty, even a hundredfold and more?


Allowing that to be true, the IDF must also be absolutely aware that any militants will be long gone before any response of theirs can possibly arrive and yet knowing that they will hit the guilty only by the sheerest of mischances, AND will almost certainly maim and kill the innocent in job lots, your brave soldiers choose to respond to ineffective indiscriminate fire with murderously effective indiscriminate fire.

What working compromise? Israel gets to set all the terms, Palestine can accept them or put up with continuing occupation? That's what I saw in your Clinton Parameters, and in your Annapolis Conference.

AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SEE IN YOUR FINAL PARAGRAPH. That calm expectation that first Palestine must make all the concessions demanded by Israel, and then and only then will Israel consider what it might offer in return.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #77)

Wed May 1, 2013, 02:14 AM

79. facts are not your strong point....

what would happen to both your opinion and view point, if you actually had to stay with the facts and not lash out with an emotional laden post?

is your opinion based on fact and events or is your opinion and view point based on an ideology (a definitive injustice" as per your definition) and afterwards do you look for events and actions to justify your viewpoint, and modify the events if need be to better fit your preferred narrative.
_______

for instance, if I tear apart your post above sentence by sentence and show how each one of your claims is factually wrong, filled with false statements will it, in any minimalistic way affect your opinion?

i suggest not, but lets see you write it....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #79)

Wed May 1, 2013, 02:39 PM

82. Believe it or not, I was once damned near 100% pro-Israel.

 

One sided TV gave me the impression that it was the "terrorists" leveling whole neighbourhoods in Lebanon/Beiruit, and elsewhere throughout the conflict zones.

Indoctrinated by my thouroughly English grandmother, I also hated the IRA with a passion, until I was exposed to the other side of that story, and I discovered just how badly my English ancestors have treated the Irish for centuries.

And still I hated "ragheads" right through the First Gulf War, until I finally learnt how thoroughly that situation had been manipulated to justify the US "intervention" and I started paying a little attention to more of what was going on in the Middle East.


Facts are slippery things. I don't believe there is anything patently false in what I've said, although I can certainly see how interpretations can differ.

Quite frankly I doubt, there's going to be any meeting of the minds between you and I. And I'm probably going to really piss you off with the following observations.

Israel gets a lot more traction out of monsterising the Palestians, than Palestine could possibly ever hope to gain from martyrising its own people.

Whatever evils the Palestinians might commit against Israelis, Israel's practice of massive "collective responsibility" is absolutely abhorent. Best face you can put on Israel's strikes into the Occupied Territories, is that you just plain do not care how much collateral damage gets done in pursuit of those actually responsible for attacks on Israel. (And I've heard more than a few Israelis express such sentiments on YouTube vids.) Worst case... Well I think you can figure it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #82)

Wed May 1, 2013, 05:46 PM

85. i just care about factual reporting....

Facts are slippery things. I don't believe there is anything patently false in what I've said, although I can certainly see how interpretations can differ.

actually facts are not slippery..its the interpretations that are..when facts are ignored.


Quite frankly I doubt, there's going to be any meeting of the minds between you and I. And I'm probably going to really piss you off with the following observations.

no, ignorance really doesn't piss me off...willful ignorance bewilders me
I dont understand making up facts, pretending they exist, to support an opinion that requires lies......
_____

two examples of your false information, i guess (you tell me) in an attempt to demonize israel, why else write it?
any particular reason you feel its necessary to demonize a whole country? or at least a citizens army?

1) Raze entire neighbourhoods in retaliation for a scorched stoop?
2) Lash back with precision munitions against glorified bottle rockets


well, which "entire neighborhoods were razed in retaliation for a single bottle rocket? (the scorched scoop) or is this a "fact" that you just made up

bottle rocket are now equal to military grade grad rockets in your world?
so i assume you believe they carry the same amount of explosive and fragmentation aspects?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #85)

Thu May 2, 2013, 02:01 AM

86. I say glorified bottle rocket because that is about how accurate...

 

...the vast majority of muntions used against Israel are. It's something Israel has more or less boasted about in the past, not quite taunts of: "Couldn't hit the broad side of a barn", but certainly acknowledgement of the inaccuracy and ineffectuallity of those munitions.

Glorified bottle rocket, is also a pretty fair characterisation of the design of the Qassam rocket.

I'll admit to some hyperbole in what I said. But, I might also point, that with no provocation at all, one community has already been razed to the ground in (or in conjunction with) live fire exercises this year, and another is about to suffer the same fate. No bloody brownie points for ordering those people off their land before you shot it to shit either.

Where there is provocation, schools, clinics, and apartment buildings have been blown up by Israeli responses.

And direct, head to head conflict aside, there is no denying that Israel is overly harsh in its punishment of non-Jews, for even the most minor of offences, and all too often flattly refuses to prosecute all but the most egregious of offences committed by Israelis against Palestinians and/or their property, not to mention the odd foreign national or two. Furthermore what punishment it does mete out, is almost always far, far less than if the offense had been committed against another Israeli.

There is no denying that over the years, Israel has driven half the population of Palestine from their lands entirely and internally displaced a huge proportion of those that remain; That it has set as one of its minimum non-negotiable bargaining positions, that those people not be allowed to return to the lands from which they were driven; and to all intents and purposes, that the rest of the world take all responsibility for their final disposition.

Nor can it be denied that Israeli practices, (official policies notwithstanding) are having the effect of continuing the displacement and fragmentation of the Palestinian People. Again, more than a few prominent Israelis have openly expressed a desire to complete the ejection of all Palestinian from the lands currently under Israeli control.

Realistically, why should Palestinians acknowledge the liegitimacy of Israel as a sovereign state, when Israel actively denies them their own Identity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #86)

Thu May 2, 2013, 02:35 AM

87. some hyperbole?

Last edited Thu May 2, 2013, 09:22 AM - Edit history (1)

lets just do one thing at a time...thats the best way to tear your argument apart piece by piece rather than let you move on to the next grand hyperbolic arguement.

heres the plan: we expose everyone of your hyperbolic argument and if your still willing to continue you'll have to stick as closly as possible to relevent facts (cleary this will be difficult for you)...than a discussion can take place. But if I have to stop everytime and expose every exaggeration, evey hyperbolic statement, than nothing of interest is accomplished.

so I"m still back on the first post (i dont skip the old hyperbolic for the new ones)


Lash back with precision munitions against glorified bottle rockets

the comparison is between military made grad, WS-IE and fadjr-5 rockets

are they also "glorified bottle rockets"
did you not know they exist? or do your prefer to pretend they do not exist?

and are you suggesting in the interest of "fairness" israel should not use precision munitions but use the older and simpler iron bombs or artillery and also shoot randomly into gaza neighborhoods? or perhaps not shoot at all...i'm not quite sure of what your trying to say...

and the word "lash" (note the emotion laden word) lash is considered not precise, which is the exact opposite of a precision munition.
so are we to conclude that israel is wasting precision munitions by not using their precision guidance systems?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #8)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 09:52 PM

34. I can only presume so...

because according to Beth Din, only two settlers have ever been charged with stone throwing at Palestinians, despite copious video evidence of settlers engaging in stone throwing against Arabs.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=settlers+throwing+stones#q=settlers+throwing+stones&source=univ&tbm=vid

Apparently, stone throwing, when committed by Arabs, is sufficiently serious to preclude the possibility of a Palestinian state.

When committed by settlers (usually with IDF soldiers standing by their side to make sure the Arabs don't throw any back), apparently its not so serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shaayecanaan (Reply #34)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 12:35 AM

47. whereas i disagree with your conclusion...

i do not disagree with your those facts.......the settlers are rarely charged with anything an do get away with virtually every crime they commit..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #47)

Tue May 7, 2013, 10:28 PM

113. Explain: what do you make of those *facts* nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #113)

Wed May 8, 2013, 12:18 AM

114. shouldn't you put me on ignore?

when you develop the basic respect for other opinions and refrain from such childish remarks as 'shut up"...and calling other posters names, i.e. basic tolerance and respect for others, then i'll consider answering

in the meantime, put me on ignore....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #114)


Response to Post removed (Reply #115)

Wed May 8, 2013, 12:58 AM

116. I'm waiting for the results of the "alert" on this intolerant response!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #116)


Response to delrem (Reply #116)

Thu May 9, 2013, 09:57 PM

119. I agree,stop name calling and respect are important nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #2)

Sun May 5, 2013, 07:35 PM

101. Does the rock-throwing justify keeping Palestinians away from Palestinian-OWNED land?

 

Does Israel really have to keep Palestinians off of land they have the deeds to?

How does doing that help? It clearly doesn't stop the rock-throwing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #101)

Sun May 5, 2013, 09:16 PM

102. Perhaps some rock throwing, at some time, justifies any IDF action against Palestinians anytime?

Last edited Sun May 5, 2013, 11:29 PM - Edit history (1)

That seems to be the message, since there was no rock throwing mentioned in the OP.

On the other hand only very selective rock throwing, burning and destruction of land and property counts in the "rock throwing" calculus of justification.
e.g.
http://972mag.com/watch-israeli-soldiers-stand-by-escort-settlers-as-they-attack-palestinian-villages/70350/
illustrates an incident that doesn't count.

Perhaps a reason for this asymmetry re. what counts/doesn't-count, is/isn't terrorism, etc, is suggested by the question of exactly what (fictitious? no longer existent? loser?) jurisdiction granted the deeds to this so-called "Palestinian owned land"? Israel doesn't recognize a Palestinian state; Israel occupies the land where any such state is proposed; and Israel is settling that land in a perfectly legal and above board manner according as several very prolific (self-described "left wing liberal" Zionist posters to this group. According as that argument Israel never once initiated a war of conquest and in every single instance Israel acted in self-defense to defend against enemies intent on genocide, so expulsion of those genocidal people is/was/will-be justified. Axiom 1: Israel never initiates a conflict, Israel always acts in self-defense. When Israel annexed then divided up the lands of the Palestinian refugees after the cleansing of 1948, it was perfectly moral and just, and since nobody much is willing to challenge that precedent there's little reason to change the program. Herding and concentrating the Bedouin into easily manageable and controlled ghettos while annexing their lands is no different in kind. The Palestinians in general, so long as they don't willingly transfer themselves the hell out of Israel, just have to learn their place - and that place doesn't correspond with any large scale contiguous parcel of land. The very idea is an existential threat to Israel, as currently defined.


eta: Here's an example of argument by a self-described "Zionist" contributor to this group.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=40497
This post is by no means an anomaly. Nor is it an anomaly that no so-called "Zionist" contributors to this list interfered to complain that those descriptions in that tone repeated almost identically for the n'th time might be a bit over the top. Uh uh. No, that *never* happens.
Tell me, how can a reasonable person respond to the concluding question "don't you agree?" ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #101)

Mon May 6, 2013, 04:49 AM

105. no

but rockets, mortars, blowing up busses, attacking high school children, bar mitzva parties, weddings, bashing a childs head in.....the concept of intentionally killing holocaust survivors and their children is pretty abhorrent....

thats justification for the prevention of a unstable non democratic state on our borders.....land ownership, by itself is a capitalistic value...that i dont agree with (though you obviously do). Land ownership requires some responsibilities as well.

when they apologize for targeting civilians, holocaust survivors, sportsmen, etc, that will be their first step in the peace process......

start with them please

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #105)

Mon May 13, 2013, 08:25 PM

122. You know perfectly well that I don't approve of any of the things you listed there.

 

And that no decent human being condones attacks on holocaust survivors. It's totally inappropriate to imply that anyone would.

As to those things as a justification for prevention of a non-democratic state...the problem is, preventing the creation of a state won't actually STOP any of those things from happening, and will ultimately only cause worse tactics to be used. Oppressed peoples almost always switch to more extreme methods of resistance the longer they are kept repressed(that's why the tactics in South Africa took the direction they took....the people tried nonviolence first, and got nothing but brutality in exchange...thus making it impossible to argue, in that situation, that nonviolence ever COULD have worked. Sad, but true, and part of the reason why outside onlookers have little right to make judgmental comments on the tactics of the oppressed, especially since such outsiders have little better to offer for ideas, ever.)

And the Israeli side has just as much to apologize for as the Palestinians, since Palestinians suffered just as much as, if not more than, the Israelis...and especially since it was never just violent Palestinians who suffered. Will your country ever apologize for the insane and completely unjustifiably provocative decision to invent, out of whole cloth, a West Bank settler movement that never would have existed if Ariel Sharon hadn't decided it should exist? Or about the murder of people like Tom Hurndall(whose only crime was trying to keep innocent, unarmed Palestinian children from being shot in cold blood just because of where they were running?)Or about the water theft? Or about any of the rest. Your side are NOT innocent victims here.

Finally, I'm not much of a private property freak, but it's damn cynical of you to try to cite socialist values as a justification for an occupying army to keep occupied, oppressed people off of their land. The IDF was never barring Palestinian farmers from working their farms out of commitment to the proletarian struggle, for God's sake...it was doing to simply to maintain the status quo, if possible forever. That's about as socialist as anything the British Empire ever did in India or Africa.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #122)

Tue May 14, 2013, 12:05 AM

123. failure does not excuse their attempts.....

Last edited Tue May 14, 2013, 01:15 AM - Edit history (5)

And the Israeli side has just as much to apologize for as the Palestinians, since Palestinians suffered just as much as, if not more than, the Israelis

really?....the Palestinians were so suffering in the 1940's, that they just had to attack Israel? What exactly were they "suffering from? besides a selfish need to control land and restrict people who needed a safe place to live from coming home with dreams of creating a new democratic country?

seems to me, the whole thing could have been avoided if the arabs (they weren't call Palestenians in the 1940's the jews were) and their neighbors weren't so selfish......

perhaps, unlike all the other countries of the world, they should have welcomed the jews "home"..... (as infact some did, but were clearly "overruled" by others)

perhaps thats where the apology should start?

____

As to those things as a justification for prevention of a non-democratic state...
well i'm always against the creation of dictatorships, theocratic regimes, since by their nature they are anti civil rights, anti everybody and only cause more suffering and many times killing on a far greater scale than a temporary occupation-not to mention potentially causing regional instability with all the violence that may cause....

clearly you prefer "land ownership/nationalism" over civil rights and security for citizens that democratic states do provide (or at least have a better chance of it).....you actually promote the creation of a anti democratic state...occupation simply under a different "boss" with the proper genes. (but then you can ignore their abuses and there will be no real pressure for any change, since it will be 'their country' and their business....)

I personally dont understand why hamas, for example has a right to rule with indirect (and direct) support from the left while israel doesn't. Is it a gene thing? if so just write it out? perhaps you believe that hamas supports more civil rights during its present ruling than israel did?

I'm not going to argue that israel as an occupying country is good, but i'm just curious how hamas is better...you do prefer hamas over israel correct?

and yes it turns out that when israel left, history has shown that in fact those were the two actual choices, limited, not very good, but thats it, just 2.

israel or hamas......
(yes i know you wont choose, as i understand you dont believe in limited choices, you seem to ignore that reality that the avg gazan has to live with, be it hamas or israel and pretend that they some how have another option...as they make sure their daughters have new potatoes sacks to wear before going out...

actions and 'inactions" have real consequences for real people.....pretending there are choices that dont exist result in real consequences, not always for the better, that is partially why libya now has shari law in place, why the MB has taken over Egypt, why hamas owns gaza, why areas of syria are now under shari law, why jordan maybe next on the list....

political fantasies can make life worse for real people....


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #123)

Tue May 14, 2013, 03:36 PM

124. I don't have to choose between Israel and Hamas

 

Last edited Tue May 14, 2013, 04:09 PM - Edit history (2)

I am not Palestinian, and it's not my place to make any choices about the country.

Furthermore, it's not as if Hamas would be gone today if only Israel had stayed in Gaza. It would still be there, and it would still be able to do everything its doing now.

We both know that nothing MORE democratic would be happening in Gaza if Israeli troops had stayed. Israel had never encouraged democratic local governance anywhere in Palestine(ask all the officials in local Palestinian government who THOUGHT they'd be allowed to actually take up the offices they'd been democratically elected to, only to be arrested or in some cases badly injured or even killed instead, as some elected West Bank mayors were in the 1980's). And any group that did end up in power in Palestine BECAUSE Israeli troops were still there would automatically be permanently discredited in the eyes of the Palestinian people, which would make anything negotiated with said group useless from the start. You can't really dispute that particular point.

Hamas, an organization I despise, rose in influence precisely BECAUSE of the Occupation, precisely because Israel stayed and refused, for decades, to negotiate with the leadership the Palestinian people had indicated they wanted Israel to negotiate with...therefore damaging that leadership, making it look useless(to go along with the other serious flaws it had)and giving Hamas, a group that was previously totally irrelevant in political terms, the chance to say "if you back us, we can get what the PLO couldn't get". You could, in fact, compare it to the way that Hitler got his big break in show business precisely because the French and British governments of the day did everything they could to strangle the Weimar Republic in its cradle...destroying democracy in Germany just because that democracy had come to power as a result of the people of Germany overthrowing the Kaiser(the French and the Brits didn't want to set the precedent of rewarding a European country for overthrowing its heriditary monarch and establishing a non-aristocratic society, so they enabled the worst tyrant in the 20th century instead).

The problem here goes back to the thing you most obsessively defend...the Israeli governments' obsession with trying to decide by itself who the "acceptable and recognized" Palestinian leadership would be...a strategy that was always doomed, because it was simply never going to happen that the groups Israel WOULDN'T negotiate with would simply vanish. You STILL think the world should have accepted the Israeli leadership's idea that destroying the PLO and artifically creating a different leadership was anything close to an effective strategy, and that it could have worked, somehow, if only everyone else had accepted the Occupation and said nothing about how your troops were treating Palestinians(including nonviolent Palestinian civilians). The problem is the armed groups were always going to be there, and were always going to have arms. Therefore, they were always going to be the groups the Israeli side would HAVE to engage. The Palestinian people were never going to accept any leadership the Israelis imposed on them from without(which is what the leaders you speak of were always going to be, since they were never going to have any personal popularity among Palestinians, which is actually quite unfair to those leaders, since they could have been effective if only YOUR side hadn't obsessively meddled).

If you want to end a war and you know that a World War II-style "unconditional surrender" peace was impossible(as Israel always DID know regarding the Palestinians), then you HAVE to negotiate with the people who are actually fighting against you, not the people you'd rather negotiate with. That is the choice YOU refuse to accept.

To accept the choice you want to force me to accept(unconditional, unquestioning defense of the Occupation as an eternal fact of life)is to agree that the conflict could NEVER be resolved and that life could never be changed for the Palestinian people. It's the same to accept the OTHER things you want to force me to accept...the conclusion that the whole conflict is solely the responsibility of the Arabs, that the Arabs and the Palestinians are inseparable, that there is no real Palestinian identity, that Palestinians have no real grievances, and that the Palestinian resistance was never based on anything other than hatred for hatred's sake.

Sorry, but I can't accept every single delusion of the Israeli right. A lot of Israelis don't accept those things either...why should I accept them if THEY don't?

I disagree with a lot of the tactics the Palestinian side, but let's be real...they could have been totally Gandhian and everything would still be the same....because YOUR country's leaders care more about denying the Palestinian people a homeland and a life, and about trying to force the world into unquestioningly defending them on this out of guilt for horrific past events that no Palestinian or other Arab bore any guilt for and that almost nobody living in Europe, the UK or North America had anything to do with.

It would be right-wing for me to do what you want...to do nothing but shriek denunciations at the Palestinian side and to accept the arrogant Likudnik insistence that everything is about what the Palestinians do and nothing at all must be asked of the Israeli side. To make that choice, as you want me to, would be to eternally declare AGAINST peace and justice. I couldn't do that and retain any humanity at all.

Both sides are to blame for the situation...it wasn't totally the Arabs fault in 1948, and it was equally both sides fault after 1967. And there is simply no way to use the continuance of the occupation to make Palestine more democratic. If the U.S. wasn't democratic when IT gained independence(and it clearly was far more repressive in 1789 than the West Bank and Gaza are today if you happened to be black, Native American, a woman, a non-Christian or gay in that era) than I have no right to demand that any OTHER country be totally democratically pure BEFORE it can get a foreign army off of its soil. Jordan is just as much an anti-democratic
nightmare as the West Bank and Gaza, as far as that goes, and you never make any sanctimonious comments about them, for some reason.

As for the other countries...what are you saying? Do you really think the U.S. should have sent in troops to stop the old Arab regimes from falling(I assume that's what your comments about those places means)? Exactly what would THAT have achieved? And the U.S. DID intervene in Libya so what would you have preferred there? A fight to save Ghadaffi, for God's sake?

When an entire country has risen against a ruler, it's over. It's impossible to keep that ruler in power. And, as events in Iran after 1979 showed(those events were the direct result of the U.S. and the U.K. having made one of your so-called "hard choices" and reinstated the Pahlevis after everyone in Iran had made it clear it wanted them out forever in 1950. the year Mossadegh came to power and moved Iran towards democracy)restoring a tyrant never has any results but making life worse. Everything would be worse in Egypt if Mubarak had survived. Everything in Tunisia would be worse if their old tyrant had been saved, and the same in all the other places.

There IS no such thing as a "good" dictator. There's only a dictator. And there can't be any such thing as a leader that still has any right to lead when the people of her or his country made it clear they wanted that leader out.

So stop already with the "we should have saved the lesser evils everywhere" thing. There are no lesser evils. All evil dictators are the same in the end and none can truly provide stable allies for anybody.

There is NO CHANCE that keeping the Occupation in place can make Palestinians more liberal-and if it can't do that, it can't make anything safer for Israelis. That's not me saying that...it's the logic of your own argument saying it.

People are only going to take a liberal path if its on their terms...they can't be made to take it as a spoil of someone else's conquest. What's happened in Iraq proves that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #124)

Tue May 14, 2013, 04:32 PM

126. why do you make up stuff?

why do you make so many wrong assumptions?

why dont you learn about history...specifically the process and leaders of intifada I? and its implications?

and why do you use the phrase "we both know"...when infact your wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #126)

Tue May 14, 2013, 05:22 PM

127. I didn't make up anything in that post.

 

It's simply not true to say that your side is totally right and the Palestinians are totally wrong, or that keeping the IDF in Gaza would have stopped Hamas. Hamas wasn' GOING to be stopped militarily....it could only be dealt with, through the imperfect process of negotiations.

And it's simply not true that Gaza would be freer if the IDF were still occupying it. The IDF(and you aren't reflective of most IDF people)just wanted to "preserve order". That's all any occupying army ever wants to do. Occupation doesn't produce liberal results(and if you're talking about Japan, the U.S. actually REVERSED all the MacArthur liberalization when it reinstated the old warlords in power as corporate leaders and invented the "Liberal Democratic Party", and most of it war reversed in Germany when the U.S. put defense of the "free market" above all else by having the CIA invent the Christian Democratic Union(the party with more former Nazis than any other party in German history) and by letting most of the business types that had profited off of the Holocaust keep every pfennig they made.

What I wrote about the U.S. in its early years was true. There was no freedom in the U.S. in 1789 for anyone but a handful of white males who happened to own property and believe in the most accepted form of the dominant religion. Everyone else was just as persecuted as gays and secularists are in Gaza today. Freedom ONLY came to the U.S. because activists, decades after U.S. independence, fought for it from below. It was never inevitable and most of the Founders(including all of the slaveowning ones)didn't want it for anyone but themselves. That's reality, buddy.

You confuse support of freedom and human liberation with support for the notion that the West has a right to claim inherent moral superiority over everybody else. That's not liberalism...it's "American Exceptionalism" on bath salts.

People who want a free world must work for it from below, and without deluding themselves about any region, any culture, any religion or any nation being entitled to lecture everybody else. Only those detached from the fight for geopolitical advantage, only those unconcerned about which nation "wins"winning being useless in this day and age)can work for any form of human liberation...it can never be achieved by any nation saying to any OTHER nation "obey your 'betters'". There's no such thing as being an Imperial Democrat.

I'm for everybody having the life they want, for all being free, for all living as equals and having easy access to the building blocks of life-to all having dignity and respect. None of those things can be achieved through one country keeping another under military occupation.

Your, not me, are invested in a "religious" belief...you are certain that keeping the bad pre-Oslo status quo was the only realistic choice. You have the right to believe whatever you believe. What you don't have the right to do is to demand that people choose either between that belief and another belief that anyone would find reprehensible. You don't the right to demand that people choose only between evils, because accepting evils as the only choice in the short term means accepting evils as the only possibilities for the futures. Good is never born from the choice of a lesser evil. It is only born of the will to reject evils entirely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #127)

Tue May 14, 2013, 05:59 PM

128. who claimed this?

It's simply not true to say that your side is totally right and the Palestinians are totally wrong


and you know this?..please explain to me how......
The IDF(and you aren't reflective of most IDF people)
____

my favorite
I'm for everybody having the life they want,
so please state clearly that you support members of the taliban (hamas) culture with their definition of justice and rights....they are after all people are they not? and they want to live a religious life..... that is the life they want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #128)

Wed May 15, 2013, 12:46 AM

129. I don't support Hamas OR the Taliban.

 

I simply reject the idea that the ONLY way a person can prove they don't support that is to agree with your notion that the IDF should have stayed in Gaza and should stay in the West Bank indefinitely.

Keeping the IDF in Gaza wouldn't have stopped Hamas. They were pretty much doing everything they do now when your army was there. And keeping the IDF in the West Bank can't lead to Hamas being stopped. In fact, since the IDF was still more or less in the West Bank when Hamas won the election, it DIDN'T stop them.

And no good would have come of your army overthrowing the PA by force to stop Hamas from assuming the legislative seats it had won. All doing that would have achieved was to massively increase Hamas support, with Palestinians that hadn't backed them before backing them now, even though those people didn't and don't back the fundamentalist agenda, BECAUSE an IDF-led coup against Hamas would have given them universal anti-Occupation street cred in the 'Bank. That's what always happens to the faction the occupying troops use the most brutal force against.

The way to stop Hamas is to give the people of Palestine a chance at a life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #129)

Wed May 15, 2013, 01:23 AM

130. well you should support them...as per your initial claim

Last edited Wed May 15, 2013, 06:02 AM - Edit history (2)

I'm for everybody having the life they want

or

I don't support Hamas OR the Taliban

this has nothing to do with the idf..just your conflicting viewpoints

so why are you against the members of the taliban belief and the members of the hamas belief having the life the want to lead?

They apparently have members who are willing to die for their beliefs, to live the life they want..and your against it?

why?, you wrote previously that you believe everyone should have the life they want

so which is?
1) you support the taliban/hamas members, (believers) to live their lives as they see it or
2)your against them living the lives they want - which makes you pretty arrogant in deciding how people should live their lives...

you dont get both, its a one or the other kind of thing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #130)

Wed May 15, 2013, 05:15 PM

131. Stop doing that. You're using illegitimate debating tactics.

 

You're trying to make me make a choice that I don't HAVE to make....and you have no reason to try to make me do that, because making either of the choices you insist I choose from would mean I could never stand for anything progressive or humane or positive in ANY debate. You can't be stragegically repressive on one issue and still be civilized on any others at all.

I already proved that the options aren't limited to backing jihadis or defending the Occupation(since I proved that the Occupation does nothing to stop jihadis and can't ever make them go away). So give this a rest already.

You make it sound like the survival of your country depends on forcing me to give in and give up my humanity on this one. It doesn't. Hamas is bad and the Occupation is equally bad . The fact that the Occupation has never produced previously non-existent liberal Palestinian groups proves already that it never can. To believe otherwise is to follow the sign line of lethally false logica that causes ancient U.S. militarists, to this very day, to argue that South Vietnam would eventually have become a real democracy if only the U.S. had kept slaughtering the Vietnamese people.

The answer is to try to work for a more humane world, not settle for lesser evils. Lesser evils have already been proven to never lead to a greater good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #131)

Thu May 16, 2013, 12:19 AM

132. you may not have to make those choices....

Last edited Thu May 16, 2013, 02:46 AM - Edit history (2)

You're trying to make me make a choice that I don't HAVE to make

you may not have to make them...but i do...

I'm just showing how hypocritical your stance is:
you claim that you just want everyone to live the lives they want to live
then you claim you dont believe people like hamas and the taliban should live the lives they want to live

thats holding two conflicting beliefs.....i have no idea how one does that


___________________________________
you have the luxury of first having your belief and anything that might cause some disruption in it, you dismiss as (how did u call it?) an illegitmate debating tactic

thats really a cool idea, take the ugly reality of a conflict, analyze each of the existing political/social groups and then instead of working with those very real people within their actual values, you pretend they dont really have any social influence, political, or military power.

.....of course when you ignore reality, one does get surprised, and real people get hurt.

i guess that is why you were shocked to see that hamas actually took over gaza and made the peoples lives even more miserable than it was

i guess that is why you were shocked to learn that the MB has taken over egypt and has been implementing shari law.

guess that is why you were surprised to learn that Libya has now been implementing shari law

guess you were surprised to learn that the jihadniikim attacked Mali after looting kaddafis arsenal

surprised that the "revolutionaries" are now implementing shari law in syria where they control the land....

(on second thought, maybe you believe that the implementation of shari law is good, some people living like they want to (and the others...well, they dont get that right....)
__________________________________________


I could never stand for anything progressive or humane or positive in ANY debate.
thats not really the problem, you can believe anything you want, just dont pretend you can prove thats its true.

that only works with people of the same belief as yours, people who believe in the "Exceptionalism" of their belief..that your belief is better than what the hamas or taliban believe.
__

go on write it out...that you believe your progressive/humane or position is the Exceptional one, better than the other beliefs.... i dare u

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #132)

Thu May 16, 2013, 03:34 PM

133. As to Egypt and those other countries, what would YOU have done?

 

Did you actually want the U.S. to send in the Marines to save the old dictators? Do you actually think those old dictators COULD have been saved, once it was clear that almost the whole country was against them?

Or do you wish the IDF had been greenlighted to occupy the entire Arab world?

What exactly are you saying when you reference those states?

And how, exactly, could maintaining the Occupation in Gaza have made anything better? Hamas would still have all the power there it has now if the IDF were still there, and nothing liberal would be happening.

You see the Occupation as a lesser evil, but you neglect the part where, ultimately, at some point, the evil you see the Occupation fighting against becomes even more evil and ultimately takes over, because the anger and desperation of those oppressed by the occupation has become overwhelming. You forget that life would never have improved for those people had the Occupation taken place, and that the Occupation's perpetuation could never have produced new secular forces, because those forces(wrongly)would be seen as lackeys of your country's leaders.

That's your blind spot. You think your lesser evil is actually effective. History has proven that it isn't. And history has proven, over and over, that backing a bad situation in the name of ultimate good NEVER produces that ultimate good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #133)

Fri May 17, 2013, 01:17 AM

134. you keep trying....but i'm not buying....

i get the impression that you don't want to talk about the "exceptionalism" of your view point...why not?

I'm referencing those states, those events, to show you, just how your belief blinds you to see the reality of the environment. If your blind to those obvious events, because you refuse to acknowledge the actual power of the various groups, why do you believe you know what "will happen" with the Palestenians because you 'proved it" if only israel does the "right thing" as per your beliefs? (beliefs which many of the Palestinians disagree with, but you dismiss them because your beliefs are the "real ones", the ones that count, the "exceptional" ones.)

how about a "double dare"?.....do you believe that your beliefs of progressivism/humanism are better than the other beliefs? makes your view exceptional?

seems to me, part of your belief is that you can't admit that you belief is better than the others, while at the same time...you believe it is better than the others...

damn, thats weird

well, you've been double dared to admit it...
_____

which as i think about it....you belief states that your progressive/humanism is the exceptional belief, the best one, yet at the same time you also believe that your belief can't be called exceptional, since you believe that everyone should live as they want to, including what they believe, unless of course it contradicts the progressive/humanism values, in which case its to declared "non acceptable" because its not based on your progressive/humanism belief...which is the exceptional belief, but you can't accept it as the exceptional belief because you belief does not allow for any exceptionalism.....

hows that for a summary? reminds me of a pretzal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #134)

Fri May 17, 2013, 06:38 PM

135. The problem is, you see YOUR belief(that is, defense of the "lesser evil" by any means necessary)

 

to be "realism". It isn't. It's delusional, because the lesser evil, in the end, usually can't be sustained. The U.S. saw itself as trying to sustain the "lesser evil"what Jeane Kirkpatrick saw as "authoritarian" dictators versus "totalitarian" dictators, as if there was truly a difference)in Vietnam.

And your view on the other situations matters...you seem to sneer at anyone who thought(or still thinks)that good could come of the "Arab Spring". Personally, I suspect this is because an indigenous democratic movement(which may still emerge out of all of this)among Arabs(or, if we could the "Green Movement" in Iran)Muslims in general discredits your narrative about Arabs and Muslims. It seems to be, if I read you right, really important to you to be able to argue that those people are utterly incapable or utterly unwilling to create a non-repressive life for themselves-because, if they do, that means you can't cast them as the mustache-twirling villains in your own personal inner melodrama. That is the problem with depending on a "it's the status quo or nothing" argument...the inflexibility pins you down behind your own lines of logic and leaves your position as nothing but rhetorical collateral damage...destroyed by itself to save itself. You are a good person, from a country that deserves better than its leaders give it...don't do this to yourself.

What you see as hard-eyed practicality is anything but...all you and your fellow soldiers are doing, in staying in the West Bank, is temporarily preserving an untenable situation. Your occupation isn't stopping the "Islamists"assuming "Islamism" is a real thing), it's actually helping them recruit.

Also, you assume that everyone in Palestine who backs Hamas does so because they agree with its entire agenda on every issue. In a situation in which an oppressed people are feeling desperate about ever ending their oppression, they will very often back a group(the Communists in China and Vietnam, for example, the mullahs in Iran, the MB in Egypt)that seems like it has the best practical chance of overthrowing their oppressors(with the thought that, afterwords, they can get end the tactical alliance they made and take control of events on their own terms). That, rather than some atavistic desire to make their lives MORE oppressive, is likely the main reason that Hamas gained support among Palestinians(as well as the fact that Hamas, unlike either the PLO or the hand-picked "better" leaders you think the Occupation was going to produce if only Oslo hadn't happened somehow, ran a strong and effective social service network).

So it's not as simple as saying that they back Hamas because they supposedly WANT more repression. They could live under Sharia right now, voluntarily, if that's what this was about, and, were Hamas to make a peace deal, neither you or your fellow troops would give a damn about how backwards they supposedly were. The way to stop them is to, somehow, make it possible for a secular, progressive Palestinian leadership that STRONGLY defends the Palestinian peoples' right to self-determination and is utterly independent of Israeli influence to emerge. But, frankly, I doubt that's what the politicians who give your army its orders ever want to see happen.

In a path forward, people will sometimes come to the conclusion that they have to take a step back to ultimately go forward. That doesn't mean that those people are inherently evil, just that the situation leads them to choices that don't really reflect their ultimate hopes and desires. Israelis are as guilty of that as Palestinians(clearly, for example, the settlement movement was never about the ideals of Zionism, but rather about teaching the Palestinians "a lesson" and putting them in their place. And it was never about ending the war, but rather intentionally prolonging it, keeping it going by goading the Palestinians and increasing their sense of desperation and rage. Those are the only possible reasons why the younger Ariel Sharon, a man of hatred and death at that age, would have come up with such an insane idea.

Finally, stop referring to progressive, humanistic values as "my" thing. This isn't about me as an individual, about my ego, about my alleged belief in my own moral superiority(trust me, I don't think that way about myself, I'm as much of a moral and personal screwup as any other ordinary schlub). I believe that those ideas are ultimately universal, but not that I as a person have anything to do with creating them. It's truly baffling why you are so fixated with painting me as a moral snob. I'm not trying to paint you as a monster. It's just that you and disagree(and there are Israelis who disagree with you even more than I do, so what do you say about THEM?)
Some ideas are obviously better than other ideas, some beliefs better than other beliefs, but that doesn't mean that that automatically makes it justified to use what you see as a better belief as a rationale to immiserate other people. And an idea imposed from without, on the terms of a conqueror, won't ever really take hold in the minds of the conquered...that's why Japan's postwar "democracy" was corrupted and made meaningless so early on, and why the homegrown democrats in Japan AND Germany were knocked out of the political discussion so early on...because the conqueror in those countries preferred them to not have true, bottom-up democracy, but rather moderate authoritarianism with a democratic veneer.

There is no excuse for you to try to personalize this discussion and to act as an interrogator seeking to extract a confession, or an Inquisitor demanding that the heretic recant. Neither is necessary. OK?

I'm willing to admit it when I'm wrong...It's just that I'm NOT willing to admit that this means I have to agree with things that are ugly and deplorable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #135)

Sat May 18, 2013, 12:04 AM

136. wow....finally were getting somewhere..

Last edited Sat May 18, 2013, 04:24 AM - Edit history (2)

It's truly baffling why you are so fixated with painting me as a moral snob. I'm not trying to paint you as a monster.

its simple, once we understand, what your values are and how they relate to the environment, we then have a better understanding of them. You are a moral snob/elitist.....nothing special about it, we all are, but once one admits it, it put things into a more realistic perspective and explains things better, for instance, why you had no idea what was happening with the arab spring, why you were wrong about it making "democracy" and why you still believe your not wrong...that ultimately it will produce a progressive society....

your beliefs are classic and contain the foundation of all religions:
I believe that those ideas are ultimately universal, but not that I as a person have anything to do with creating them

I hope you realize how that line/belief mimics just about every religion on this entire earth? and that your belief is in competition with just about every religion to "take over the earth"....

at least we got that settled..which brings us to its "twin belief" that every step taken by anybody, brings us that closer to fulfillment of ones belief: (be it the holocaust, the nakba or the arab spring)- the core of any religion: every action/event is simple one step closer to their own "nirvana". Which is why you and the MB and Hamas are in 100% sync: you all believe that the "arab spring' is just one step closer to those universal values (i personally thing that the MB has got you beat, but thats just my opinion)
_____
from my point of view, that puts your beliefs right next to hamas, the settlers, the taliban, religious christians, etc. You guys should all stay far far away from international politics......when you guys have influence you just mess things up, get people killed since your belief simply negates what others believe and habitually makes things black and white, which does not work in intl politics very well if ones goal is peace on earth, or at least having different societies with different values living side by side (you'll note i wrote different values, i.e. non progressive).

for instance, to "prove" i'm wrong, you constantly make things up about me,
if I read you right, really important to you to be able to argue that those people are utterly incapable or utterly unwilling to create a non-repressive life for themselves

if you actually read other posts that i've written, you would know that this is utter crap, but clearly you need to believe it, since i have a different view of the environment that contrasts your, and furthermore i have actual history on my side that does not negate my views...but that is your religion/belief talking, it has to negate any opposing viewpoint and cannot accept anything less than full capitulation....otherwise your belief is weakened, hence the need to make things up.

________________________________________________________
I'm willing to admit it when I'm wrong

really?

And an idea imposed from without, on the terms of a conqueror, won't ever really take hold in the minds of the conquered
i realize this is your beliefs foundation, thats why you should be challenged on it.

do you want to be proved wrong? and you wont be able to prove otherwise? of course the requirement is,when you try to show i'm wrong, you'll have to actually show links, information that backs you up from real new sources and when you can't...i'll accept your apology.

well?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #136)

Sat May 18, 2013, 06:15 PM

137. You're going to cite Germany and Japan again.

 

Germany didn't need Western occupation to "create" democracy after the war. The anti-democratic elements had already been crushed. All that was needed was to let the democratic exiles come back and have their chance. But that would have meant taking the risk of electing a Left government, and the U.S. was committed to preventing that above all else, because the U.S. even when led by FDR(a figure I admire in many ways)still saw ALL forms of the Left as "Communist".

And the U.S. effectively STOPPED democratic renewal in Japan in the early 1950's, by inventing the "Liberal Democratic Party" and letting the old aristocratic classes regain power as corporate leaders. Japan hasn't had a real election or anything close to democracy since 1955.

Thus, Germany and Japan are irrelevant as examples for the modern world, and no comparable examples appeared in Palestine during the 1980's occupation(no democratic forces ever grew as a result of Israeli troops being there, and the handful of people you mentioned as alternative leaders, while nice folks, were never going to supersede the PLO, because those people has no armed supporters.)

It is impossible to get Palestine to be democratic and secular by perpetuating the Occupation. If that were possible, then why hasn't Netanyahu's reinstitution of the Occupation in the early 2000's caused new elections to be held? Why hasn't it led to improvements in human rights? Why hasn't it made the place MORE secular, rather than far less? All of those points prove that "democracy" can't be imposed by outside force anymore. The Palestinians are never going to be moved by being told by your side "listen to your betters".
This is why your "practical" program is totally impractical.

And you haven't illustrated any possible scenario whereby the Occupation can cause peace, OR lead to people with different values co-existing. Co-existence also can't be made to happen by force, because if force is involved, what you have clearly ISN'T co-existence. If it hasn't, after being reinstituted for ten years now(and never really being all that de-instituted in terms of the West Bank), how could it ever do so in the future? And how can you seriously argue that it helped secular forces in Gaza when, sadly, no such forces ever emerged there at the time? Hamas won Gaza because it took care of the poor. No seculars anywhere in Palestine were even thinking about offering to do that. That is the reason there is no significant secular force in Gaza...not because the people are religious crazyheads, but because the religious actually offered something TO them. If the seculars had set up their own social service network, had they reached out to the poor, things would be a lot different.

You issue a great insult to most of the human race by calling me an elitist. You imply that most of them are living under dictatorships because they are personally willfully evil, that they collectively CHOSE that somehow. And you imply that I see myself as above them. I don't, and I don't see myself as above you. Why isn't it enough for you to just accept that a person can disagree with you on the merits of the situation, and on a clear-headed analysis of reality? YOUR "lesser evil" isn't achieving anything. Reality proves that.

Your view reminds me of a story a relative told me about an encounter with an Israeli. When asked about the situation with the Pals, the Israeli in question said "we're going to BEAT them into liking us". That seems to encapsulate your view. Am I wrong about that?

And I do know what is happening with the Arab Spring(which isn't over). It's just that you and I disagree about it. Nothing that has happened yet has proved that it would have been better for the Spring not to have happened(clearly the Spring didn't happen because those people wanted to be MORE repressed)and we both know it couldn't have been stopped by people in the West collectively dismissing it. The regimes that fell were doomed to fall by then...and the U.S. couldn't have saved them. And, since you reference Libya, are you now saying you'd have preferred to see Qadaffi STAY in power? What good would that have done even if it had been possible?

You're still, in the end, arguing that the U.S. should have sent in the Marines to save the Shah. That would have morally killed my country for the rest of eternity and made it impossible for my country to ever have done anything positive in the world again. Same for trying to save the Tsar in 1917(Kerensky was unsalvageable).

And you're still arguing that Arabs and Muslims can only be democratic if someone MAKES them be, when the truth is that trying to MAKE them be is the best way to prevent them from being. Iraq, once again, proves that, being a country where democracy is a meaningless sham and armed resisters still blow things up on a daily basis.

So stop acting like you have to silence me. You don't. I am not your enemy. I just disagree with you. Why can't you accept that there's no more here than that? I want YOU to live in peace and justice and freedom. And your wife and kids. And your buddy the general down the street that you're so touchy about(the guy's been in the army for years...you think he doesn't hear worse than what I wrote every day of the week in the command meetings?) All I am is an ordinary, fallible, rather plain-looking guy that simply doesn't buy into your view. You must hear far more confrontational things and more radically different things than I say from folks at the coffee shop or maybe the guy at the falafel stand most days. Do you obsess about silencing them the way you do about me?

We just see things differently. You don't need to discredit me. You don't need to silence me. Just accept that I can disagree with you without being "religious" or a moral snob. I'm as messed-up and fallible as anybody else and proud to admit it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #137)

Sat May 18, 2013, 11:45 PM

139. I just asked if you wanted to be shown to be wrong?

Last edited Sun May 19, 2013, 02:30 PM - Edit history (3)

And an idea imposed from without, on the terms of a conqueror, won't ever really take hold in the minds of the conquered

do you want to be shown where your wrong?

its a simple question, instead of going off on a long explanation of why i am wrong, filled with wrong assumption after wrong assumption after wrong assumption, wrong historical facts one after the other after the other after the other...

just answer the question....then i'l go and show where your are wrong....but you have to read what i write and not ignore it so that you can't make false arguments to justify your beliefs.

________________________
I get the impression that you believe western democracy, your version, is clearly the ultimate end, is the superior governing system, i.e. its better than theocratic regimes, dictatorships, communist systems etc

is that a fair assessment of your view of the various systems in existence today?....what you believe is "the best."

I'll make this even clearer: when you define other governing systems as 'repressive" that means you believe they are bad governing systems, and yours is a better one.

________________________


and this is one of my favorite sentences:
So stop acting like you have to silence me.
why would i want to silence you...i'm educating u, that requires dialogue

( i could say that is another example of your elitism, being challenged is equal, in your mind, to an attempt at being silenced)
___

and just for fun...

How is it not "religious" to believe, as you appear to, that Arabs and Muslims will prefer dictatorship UNLESS FORCED TO MAKE SOMETHING ELSE BY SOMEONE ELSE?

you keep writing this as if i believe it...its not and I believe this is the 100th time i mentioned it, hence the question, why to do you keep on writing it?.....a short answer will do

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #139)

Sun May 19, 2013, 06:07 PM

140. How can you say you don't believe that Arabs and Muslims

 

to be forced to accept democracy by outside coercion when that belief, clearly, is what your defense of the Occupation is based on? You clearly believe your army's presence on their soil can force the Palestinians to make different choices, despite the fact that so far, it never has.

And let me say this about Gaza...I wasn't the one who had the idea to JUST leave Gaza. That was Ariel Sharon's idea. He was the one who thought the Palestinians would be grateful for what was, by itself, a meaningless gesture. And Gaza was at that point Hamas' power base, so it was natural that they'd end up running it(even if they'd had elections, which they should have). It was just to be expected that Palestinians would regard Sharon's so-called "gesture" as an insult and that it would antagonize them.

I would never have said "just leave Gaza". I'd have had your troops pull back to the Green Line and take the settlers with them. That idea has nothing in common with what Sharon was talking about. At the same time, it's problematic to believe that anything would be much different if your troops were still in Gaza.

And you've already shown me every example you could possibly have of benevolent, allegedly liberalizing occupations(none of which have anything in common with the one you are helping enforce). So post what you're going to post...but it won't be anything new.

I believe in democracy. I just don't believe that "the West", especially the ruling classes of "the West" are entitled to act like they invented it and no one else can claim to believe in it on their own. Why is defending Western arrogance so important to you, anyway? Hitler was a product of Western arrogance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #140)

Mon May 20, 2013, 01:26 AM

141. wow.....are you ever wrong....

where did you get this from? Because its not what i believe....

How can you say you don't believe that Arabs and Muslims to be forced to accept democracy by outside coercion when that belief, clearly, is what your defense of the Occupation is based on?

ok....this you got to explain:
I would never have said "just leave Gaza". I'd have had your troops pull back to the Green Line and take the settlers with them. That idea has nothing in common with what Sharon was talking about

are you aware that the troops pulled back to the old intl border and took the settlers with them?......If I recall, you believe sharon insulted them and they were so paralyzed by his words they simply couldnt do anything but shoot rockets over the border and try to murder people....is that it?
____________________


Why is defending Western arrogance so important to you, anyway?
Its called honesty...if you believe that western democracy is the superior system and that it does in fact reduce wars, suffering, etc than I believe it is ones duty to help spread it, whenever possible...

.your calling it "arrogance" is just a cop out of ones responsibility to "fix the world" where possible but at the same time very very very hypocritical

i bet your one of those that believe in recycling and even promote it, how about global warming? do you also promote/educate those who dont know it? Why are you trying to convince me (others) about your version of what has to be done in the I/P, why not let us simple "believe it on our own?

this promotion of ideas to change israel is as your wrote: arrogant and elitist

why not lets us simple "learn on our own"? it may take time, but just as you believe the arab spring is not over, that gaza, iran etc will all sooner or later become democratic as they "learn on their own...wont us israeli's learn that the occupation is bad? why are trying to "force us" to change? .....it is you that are arrogant and hypocritical
_________

and now...where your wrong:
1) democracy was forced upon israeli arabs, who at first lived under military rule, had democracy forced down their throats and apparently its taken hold given a new muslim political party whos platform is restricted to arab affairs within israel.

so guess its is possible....under the right circumstances. Now instead of scrambling and start making up stuff why it couldnt happen anywhere else...accept that it did happen.

2) another example? the confederate south of american....were they not forced to accept the norths version of democracy and free the slaves?

3) and of course Japan had their whole culture turned upside down and had democracy dictated to them, and apparently it worked, (your stories lack names, dates and links, hence they have no credibility)
______

history has shown us in fact that given the right circumstances democracy can in fact be forced.....But that aside, the Palestinians have a different history and many "friends" (like u) that clearly accept their dictatorships.... (with some pathetic excuse that lets them still languish under non stable dictatorships and that you and others like you actually protect)

hence, dont believe it can be done at this point, not because it shouldn't be, but because the attempt will be rejected not by the Palestenians as a whole, but by the elitist like u with your "theories" of "self learning" as well as the usual nationalists, islamist extremists etc

- the great coalition of far left, far right, religious extremists all agreeing upon rejection of pushing western democratic values upon the Palestenians

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #141)

Mon May 20, 2013, 01:51 PM

142. democracy wasn't forced on Israeli Arabs.

 

After it was denied to them for the first eighteen years of Israeli history(on "security" grounds)a protest movement made up of Israeli Jews AND Israeli Arabs forced the government to grant Israeli Arabs the same political rights as Israeli Jews had. For your argument there to be accurate, the Israeli Arabs in question would have to have been demanding to be kept repressed-they weren't.

Thus, the argument that Israeli Arabs had to have democracy "forced" on them is about as accurate as saying slaves in the U.S. and serfs in Russia had freedom from servitude "forced" on them.

There were a lot of people in the South who wanted democracy and favored equal rights for former slaves...it's just that they didn't have as many weapons as the anti-freedom faction there. What actually occurred in the South was that the growing multiracial democracy was forced out of existence by white terrorism and the collusion of both major political parties(it was part of how the disputed 1876 presidential election was resolved).

And the examples you cite are all fairly far in the past...my point is that it's no longer possible to force democracy on a people by making it part of a culture of conquest. Iraq is proving this over and over again.

I don't oppose people becoming democratic...it's just that I reject the "civilizing mission" argument. That argument is inherently right-wing and imperialist, and it usually makes a mockery of "Western democracy", when the "Western" nations overthrow democratic governments(Nicaragua on several occasions, Guatemala and Iran in the early 1950's, Chile in the 1970's, to cite only a few examples)
when those countries democratically chose economic and social policies the "democratic" West wouldn't tolerate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #136)

Sat May 18, 2013, 06:33 PM

138. I didn't say that EVERY step is a step towards the goal of freedom.

 

Last edited Sat May 18, 2013, 08:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Do you really believe that a person has to dismiss the Arab Spring as a dead loss to prove that she or he isn't "religious"? What GOOD does it do to dismiss it? It's not as if dismissing it and insisting that all hope of it leading to something better is now lost? What was the alternative to seeing the Spring as at least a time of possibility?

Would anything be better in your region if the West had said, at the start, that the Spring was going to be a failure? What alternatives were there to seeing it as at least a chance for things to improve?

And how, might I ask, is it going to make it more likely that you'd end up with a humanistic, secular, democratic future by insisting that such a future is something that can ONLY be achieved if "the West" imposes it on everyone through some type of coercion? You appear to think that, yet you've never said how that would be.

Remember, also, that Naziism and Stalinism were also products of "European civilization"and, by extension, so was Maoism, since Maoism was just Stalinism with a drearier wardrobe).

Would you have preferred the West to back Mubarak and the rest to the end? To actually try to keep them in power? Do you actually believe THAT would have created a better chance for democracy? How is that belief NOT religious? How is it not "religious" to believe, as you appear to, that Arabs and Muslims will prefer dictatorship UNLESS FORCED TO MAKE SOMETHING ELSE BY SOMEONE ELSE?

How is embracing Dick Cheney's whole "PNAC" agenda, as you appear to, not religious? How can you call me naive and not see the naivete in believing, unquestioningly, in the whole "civilizing mission" canard? That isn't "realism", it's Kipling on bath salts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 02:23 AM

3. I agree with pelsar that screaming at *them* does piss bloody all.

They obviously deserved the vitriol from the IDF soldier, one of the most moral forces in the world, else why were they even there. People should know their places, and they weren't in theirs. sheesh.

Imagine the IDF soldiers having to endure their presence day after day, 24/7, in a land that doesn't belong to *them*, that properly belongs to the People of Israel. They should go back where they belong! That'd solve all Israel's problem with *them* -- but such a simple and obvious solution is beyond their comprehension.

Screaming at *them* and flooding them with raw sewage is just a simple condemnation, whereas everyone knows they throw rocks! And they *should* be simply condemned, because they are there! If the fact that they are *there* can't be condemned, what can? They throw rocks at the innocent Israelis, at their defenseless army, just because the innocent Israelis and their defenseless and moral army are going about their day to day business in *Israel's very own territories* of Judea and Samaria. That land was given to the people of Israel, Israel's true nation, by God, as is written in the people of Israel's holy book, and this proves beyond doubt that the people of Israel are innocent, their army is innocent, that the land willed to them by God Himself is theirs forever, and THEY, THESE ARABS, DON'T BELONG!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #3)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 07:55 AM

5. Be honest now. The IDF soldier was screaming at bigoted, racist....

 

....Jew haters who want Israel gone. They don't want just the occupation gone, but Israel. These ISM'ers and their BDS neo-nazi friends want Jews dead and they'll fight to the last Palestinian child to see that it happens.

It's unfortunate the IDF soldier screaming at them seems to be just as bigoted as they are, but let's not shit a shitter.

========

What's most vile is that there are many so-called progressives here at DU cheering on Hamas and Palestinian child militants who work hard at targeting Israelis, in their ongoing attempts to kill or just rid Palestine of Joooz.

Don't you agree?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 05:06 PM

11. you cant be serious shira , can you ?

The IDF soldier was screaming at bigoted, racist....

....Jew haters who want Israel gone.


?????? !!!!!!!!!!

Guy is a Left wing Israeli Jew shira .
He is not a Jew hater and he does not want Israel gone

Here is exactly what Guy and other Ta’ayush members like him want :


We — Arabs and Jews, Israelis and Palestinians — live surrounded by walls and barbed wire: the walls of segregation, racism, and discrimination between Jews and Arabs within Israel; the walls of Apartheid, closure and siege encircling the Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip; and the wall of war surrounding all inhabitants of Israel, so long as Israel remains an armed fortress in the heart of the Middle East.

In the fall of 2000 we joined together to form “Ta’ayush” (Arabic for “living together”), a grassroots movement of Arabs and Jews working to break down the walls of racism and segregation by constructing a true Arab-Jewish partnership. Together we strive for a future of equality, justice and peace through concrete, daily, non-violent actions of solidarity to end the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and to achieve full civil equality for all.

http://www.taayush.org/?page_id=61

you have a problem with us living together or maybe its the bit about a future of equality and justice that gets up your nose ????..... or maybe its the and to achieve full civil equality for all that really gets you going ?????????
you and yours being so derned superior to the rest of us ???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Israeli (Reply #11)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 06:05 PM

13. Those who work alongside the ISM, BDS'ers, Hamas, etc....

 

....and believe targeting Israeli civilians, moms, & babies is legitimate cannot be considered part of the peace camp.

Reminds me of your beloved Machsom Watch comforting the family of the Fogel killers rather than showing any mercy or compassion towards the surviving Fogels.

Really sick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #13)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 06:56 PM

17. whatever shira

reminds me of Yigal Amir ... and just who supported him and why .

and if you think for one moment we will ever forgive Rabins assassination by one of yours ....then you have another thing coming .

Never forget .. and never forgive shira .

What goes around comes around .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Israeli (Reply #17)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 07:18 PM

18. Your lot is just as bad as the Yigal Amirs....

 

Birds of a feather.

Whether it's the hard Left or extreme Right, Stalinists, religious fundamentalists, KKK, neo-nazis...all are fascist hardliners no better than the other. All are enemies of moderates, liberals....

You all need each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #18)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 06:19 AM

60. Nope we are not shira ...

... and please stop with the pretense that you are a moderate ... you are anything but .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Israeli (Reply #60)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 06:58 AM

61. Sure you are. Let's see you rip into the ISM, BDS'ers, Flotillists, etc....

 

All one staters who hate Israel and want it gone, fast.

You won't do it. They're your allies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Israeli (Reply #17)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 10:01 PM

37. However much they hate Arabs, they hate leftist Jews even more...

there used to be a left-wing blogger who posted here, Richard Silverstein. The Kahane Chai faction here used to go crazy batshit whenever he posted here. "Kapo" was one of the milder perjoratives. It was quite revealing. You get the feeling that they essentially view any left-wing Jew as a race traitor.

Reminds me of a line from an admittedly mediocre movie:-

"You can't blame a n***er for being a n***er, no more than you can blame a dog for being a dog. But a whore like you, co-mingling with mongrels, betraying your own. That makes you worse than a n****r."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Time_to_Kill_%28film%29

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shaayecanaan (Reply #37)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 07:00 AM

62. Leftists who side with far Right fascists deserve all the contempt they get. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shaayecanaan (Reply #37)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 07:09 AM

63. there was a Kahane Chai faction on here !! ???

shame I missed that

Kach ... born in America and imported to here .

Yeah they hate us shaayecanaan .... but since Rabin's assassination we have learnt how to hate them back .
They crossed the red line ... now in our society they are the indefensible .
They brought it upon themselves .... and there will be a price to pay for that mistake , have no doubt on that .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Israeli (Reply #63)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 04:43 PM

75. Rabin is not one of yours. Barak's offers in 2000-01 went much further....

 

....than what Rabin was ever willing to concede. Here is Rabin in Oct 1995, right before he was killed:

We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.

And these are the main changes, not all of them, which we envision and want in the permanent solution:

A. First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev -- as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths, Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in their holy places, according to the customs of their faiths.

B. The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.

C. Changes which will include the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the "Green Line," prior to the Six Day War.

D. The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

http://www.fmep.org/reports/archive/vol.-5/no.-6/PDF


I think you live in some fantasy-land where you pretend Rabin was more leftwing than you give him credit for. Can you really see him going further than what Ehud Barak offered in 2000-01? I cannot. Yet you see Barak as rightwing and Rabin as left, despite Barak going much farther in his offer towards peace than Rabin ever would.

You claiming Rabin as one of your own is as humorous as Gideon Levy or Amira Hass doing the same. I wonder what you make of Gideon Levy, another one-stater? You're probably a big fan of his too, despite his leanings towards the end of Israel.

It's hard to take you seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #75)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 05:12 PM

76. The statement is double talk as the British Palestine mandate included all of the West Bank

and arguably what is now Jordan too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #75)

Wed May 1, 2013, 07:46 AM

80. Rabin is not one of yours !!!!!!!!!!!!

just goes to prove to me how little you know of us shira and how very very little you understand about those of us of my age who are third generation .

both my grandfather and father served under Rabin's command

he wasnt "killed" shira .... he was murdered
shot in the back by a right wing religious coward

I dont live in any "fantasy-land" shira
I live in reality
where one of yours murdered one of mine in cold blood

dont take me seriously then American .... as if I care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Israeli (Reply #80)

Wed May 1, 2013, 04:17 PM

83. Rabin wouldn't bash & demonize Israel & Jews like Gush Shalom does....

 

Last edited Wed May 1, 2013, 04:57 PM - Edit history (1)

He wouldn't side with anti-zionists & mimic all their views in order to "fit in" with jew-hating hard leftists, then pretend he's not really one of them when he's amongst zionists, out of fear he'd be marginalized for being a 1-state hater against peace.

As for Yigal Amir being one of mine, tell me.....do you assign such a position to any Zionist you happen to disagree with? Does that make it easy for you to ignore or mock your opponents? I believe Amir, Kahane, etc... are warmongering freaks who would destroy Israel if given the chance. Why must you associate me with them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #83)

Thu May 2, 2013, 07:49 AM

88. you are very confused shira

Rabin loved the religious right wing American settlers as much as I do , and I quote :

“I am shamed over the disgrace imposed upon us by a degenerate murderer,” he said. “You are not part of the community of Israel,” he continued, addressing the most militant settlers. “You are not part of the national democratic camp which we all belong to in this house, and many of the people despise you. You are not partners in the Zionist enterprise. You are a foreign implant. You are an errant weed. Sensible Judaism spits you out. You placed yourself outside the wall of Jewish law. You are a shame on Zionism and an embarrassment to Judaism.”

I associate you with them because to me you are a right wing American shira and I dont like right wing americans shira .... with good reason .



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Israeli (Reply #88)

Sat May 4, 2013, 08:51 AM

95. Rabin is right. But he doesn't demonize, dehumanize and spew vitriolic hate....

 

...like the anti-zionists and so-called "post zionists" do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #95)

Sat May 4, 2013, 04:25 PM

96. Rabin is dead shira ...

either you are very confused or your english leaves much to be desired .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #75)

Wed May 1, 2013, 08:54 AM

81. another thing American ....

You claiming Rabin as one of your own is as humorous as Gideon Levy or Amira Hass doing the same. I wonder what you make of Gideon Levy, another one-stater? You're probably a big fan of his too, despite his leanings towards the end of Israel.


Both Gideon Levy and Amira Hass are post-zionists... and yes I am a big fan of both of them .
They think as I do that the influx of right wing religious Americans was a curse upon our house .
They are both anti-occupation and anti religious right wing American settlers .... as am I .
But shira ... neither of them want an end to our country ... and its our country American ...its not yours .
They both want peace for both peoples and more than that they want equality for all Israelis
and if you dont get that American I suggest you read this :

Equal rights for gentile troops
@http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4374242,00.html



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Israeli (Reply #81)

Wed May 1, 2013, 04:28 PM

84. Not surprised at all that you're a fan of Gideon Levy & Amira Hass....

 

Hass just recently proved she supports terror (rock-throwing and its consequences) vs. innocent Israelis while Levy was busy not too long ago telling tales about Israelis being pro-apartheid. Both are pathological liars hellbent on demonizing Israel (they say it's an apartheid state) and its Jews (bloodthirsty racists). FTR, Uri Avnery argues Israel is not apartheid....

Just the other day, Levy wrote how he wants a binational state:

If you will it, it is no dream: one just state for two peoples. The establishment of a Jewish State was perceived as something no less crazy less than 100 years ago. Subversive? The establishment of a Palestinian state was considered no less subversive even less than three decades ago....
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/time-to-be-single-minded.premium-1.517887


Anti-zionists do the above. They hate Israel and its Jews with a passion. They say it's apartheid, Jews are racists, and they are for 1-state. Gideon Levy just dropped his mask and it turns out he's no different than them. All zombies walking in lock-step with each other....

I fail to see the difference b/w these so-called post-zionists and the anti-zionists.

How do you defend Levy's call for 1 binational state? How do you defend him calling Israel apartheid when Uri Avnery does not? How do you defend all his lies that only serve one purpose (to demonize, foment hate, & further embolden Israel's enemies against any peace/compromise with Israel)?

On Edit...
Good article you linked to about equal rights for gentile troops. I agree 100%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #84)

Thu May 2, 2013, 08:26 AM

89. why do you defend the occupation shira ?

Uri Avnery argues Israel is not apartheid


Its not shira
but the Wild West Bank is .
Gideon Levy & Amira Hass are not "pathological liars" shira ... they speak the truth that you cant handle .

good that you agree about " equal rights for gentile troops "
so can I ask you a question now ?

if you lived here which political party would you vote for and why ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Israeli (Reply #89)

Sat May 4, 2013, 07:39 AM

94. I take yr question to mean that you want the occupation gone....

 

Last edited Sat May 4, 2013, 08:52 AM - Edit history (1)

....without a negotiated peace deal. Is that right? The occupation leaving Gaza didn't bring the 2 sides any closer to peace. If it did, I'd be all for the same in the W.Bank.

I'd vote Meretz or Labor if I lived there. Tell me, do you really think if Meretz were in power there would be a negotiated peace deal similar to Olmert/Geneva/Gush-Shalom?

Who do you vote for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #94)

Sat May 4, 2013, 04:50 PM

97. then your as much a leftist as I am shira ...

for I have always either voted Meretz or Avoda

so apart from the fact that I live here and you dont .... what do you think the differences in our politics are ?

Here BTW is ' The Story of Meretz ' :
http://meretz.org.il/english/

Shulamit Aloni BTW is yet another of us despicable post-zionists

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Israeli (Reply #97)

Sat May 4, 2013, 05:24 PM

98. Post-Zionists are hardly different than Anti-Zionists. Almost identical....

 

Last edited Sat May 4, 2013, 06:08 PM - Edit history (2)

There's a vast difference b/w Liberal Zionists and Anti-Zionists. For example, Aharon Shabtai once wrote a poem - published in Haaretz - that stated there was no difference b/w Rabin and Netanyahu. Are you aware of that?

Anti-Zionists could care less about peace. That's why they want an end of occupation - and they don't care whether it would lead to more war. That seems to be your position too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #98)

Sun May 5, 2013, 06:47 AM

99. if you say so American ...

then it must be true


"Are you aware of that?"


you trying to teach me about one of my own American ?
dont you see the irony in that shira ?

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/240100

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Israeli (Reply #99)

Sun May 5, 2013, 07:55 AM

100. Maybe I should be as American as Richard Silverstein?

 

He gets it, right?

Guess I have to be the right kind of American.

He'd probably agree Rabin and Netanyahu are the same too. Which kinda exposes your movement for the sham it is (all Jews are the same - the standard antizionist line). Keep pulling my leg about this post-zionist "affection" for Rabin...

You can't fool everyone all the time.

===============

The biggest difference I see b/w your group and the anti-zionists is that you say you're for 2 states. That's it. The hate, vitriol, and loathing is the same. They hate Israel so much they don't mind saying they want it destroyed. They're honest. You guys hate it, say you want 2 states and peace, but your constant accusations of apartheid, colonialism, racism, ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc... only embolden Israel's enemies into agreeing to 2 states for the sole purpose of eventually making it one. If there's so much injustice in 2 states, why does Israel have any right to exist long after an agreement is reached? Israel could be the most liberal nation the world has ever known, and you guys will keep saying its very existence is an everlasting injustice.

It seems you guys are for Arafat's phased plan (accept 2 states but once that's accomplished, go for one). All that hate and vitriol you spew daily just goes to show you don't want the conflict to end peacefully. So long as the injustice of Israel continues, Jew haters will see you all as allies and count on your assistance to annihilate the Zionist entity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #100)

Mon May 6, 2013, 06:21 PM

107. Richard Silverstein...

understands us as much as you do shira

" He gets it, right?

Guess I have to be the right kind of American."

Nope.
you have to be the left kind of Israeli
which neither of you are

the only connection you both have is that you are both American and both share the same religion
politics aside ...
neither of you is one of us and never will be

first rule of post zionism shira ...
Israel for those of us that live here
its our country shira ,
not yours or Richard Silverstein's.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Israeli (Reply #107)

Mon May 6, 2013, 06:54 PM

108. You're right - Israel is for Israelis.

 

You speak for a very small but vocal minority.

Meanwhile, the so-called "right-wingers" here @ DU (meaning anyone who disagrees with you) are typical of the vast majority of Israelis.

Good luck getting that vast majority on your side politically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #108)

Mon May 6, 2013, 08:12 PM

110. nope again shira

I'm not Right
I'm Left

and good luck in getting " that vast majority " outside of anyone that disagrees with you.
we might be the minority within Israel ....but outside in the rest of the world I think we out number you .

PS ..didnt you just say a few posts ago that you would vote Meretz if you could ?
then arent you speaking also " for a very small but vocal minority " ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #100)

Mon May 6, 2013, 07:24 PM

109. nope...

" The biggest difference I see b/w your group and the anti-zionists is that you say you're for 2 states. That's it. The hate, vitriol, and loathing is the same. They hate Israel so much they don't mind saying they want it destroyed. They're honest. You guys hate it, say you want 2 states and peace, but your constant accusations of apartheid, colonialism, racism, ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc... only embolden Israel's enemies into agreeing to 2 states for the sole purpose of eventually making it one. If there's so much injustice in 2 states, why does Israel have any right to exist long after an agreement is reached? Israel could be the most liberal nation the world has ever known, and you guys will keep saying its very existence is an everlasting injustice.

It seems you guys are for Arafat's phased plan (accept 2 states but once that's accomplished, go for one). All that hate and vitriol you spew daily just goes to show you don't want the conflict to end peacefully. So long as the injustice of Israel continues, Jew haters will see you all as allies and count on your assistance to annihilate the Zionist entity."


watch , lisen and learn shira ...

&feature=related



no accident we call each other cousins ...

we are for living together shira
for sharing the land
for peace between cousins
two states or one ...not in our hands
its in the hands of the politicians
Bibi versus Obama
right wing Israel versus ????


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Israeli (Reply #99)

Tue May 7, 2013, 09:55 PM

111. poetry

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #84)

Fri May 3, 2013, 12:23 AM

90. great answer there shira , thanks

here is something else for you to read :

http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=59244

enjoy ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Israeli (Reply #17)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 05:07 AM

57. could you explain?

 

i didn't know what you meant by 'one of yours,' & this was all i could find by way of explanation:

During his years as an activist, Amir became friendly with Avishai Raviv, to whom he revealed his plan to kill Rabin. While Raviv posed as a right-wing radical, he was working for Shin Bet, the Israeli internal security service, whose mission was to encourage and fabricate activities of right-wing extremists to discredit them.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yigal_Amir



why would the domestic intelligence services be 'left' and why would they want to discredit the 'right'? what does that mean in the israeli context? who is the left, who is the right?

this is a sincere question, not shit-stirring. i don't know much about israel's politics and i hadn't heard this story before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #57)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 07:21 AM

65. happy to explain ...

.... read :

Murder in the name of God: the plot to kill Yitzhak Rabin
@ http://www.amazon.com/Murder-Name-God-Yitzhak-Rabin/dp/1862072418

get back to me after you have read it .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Israeli (Reply #65)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 07:30 AM

67. i don't have the money to buy a book to get basic information about everything i'm interested

 

in. if you didn't want to explain, better to just not respond.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #67)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 07:45 AM

68. okay

I wont respond .... just like I'm not responding to shira

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #13)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 08:32 PM

23. So sucks to be them, when the IDF shoots into a crowd of women and...

 

...children they think might be harbouring a militant. But people who voluntarily (AND ILLEGALLY) take themselves and their children into what is essentially a warzone are absolutely inviolate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 07:45 PM

20. Pamela Pamela Pamela .... you outdo yourself.

Clearly you have years, decades of practice honing your talent so that now your words jump right off the page, spittle flying and teeth flashing. Baby killers, Joooo haters fighting to the last Palestinian child, targeters of moms, of babies, of bunny rabbits....

This IDF guy provided quite some trigger for your pent up artistic force.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #20)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 08:47 PM

25. Aww, what's the matter? Are you sad no one here wants to play your bullcrap game?

 

You know, the one where you pretend to be a humanitarian, for civil rights, for all that's good, against evil oppression, apartheid, bigotry, etc...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #25)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 08:53 PM

26. Dear Ms. Geller: It isn't me who calls people "Jooooos". nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #26)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 08:56 PM

28. Have a nice night, David. Or do I call you Dr. Duke? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #28)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 08:58 PM

29. Dear Ms. Geller: It is you who use racially charged language.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 09:05 PM

30. I'm back!

 

The soldier was the one yelling racist stuff. I didn't see anyone else getting all crazy on anyone.
When you call everyone a Jew hater, it stops being effective. Lets try keeping it real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #5)

Sun May 5, 2013, 09:34 PM

103. I think you're a provocateur, and that you are everything the IDF soldier represents in this video.

No more, no less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #3)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 12:49 PM

9. so may we see some of that internet cowardice again?

well..

do you believe that throwing rocks is their right, and its consequences of killing civilians is acceptable.....

will we see the "brave" internet warrior here in cyber space actually answer a simple question clearly....or will you crawl away in the world of vague word concepts where answers remain blurry and always vague

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #9)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 06:08 PM

14. It's your nature to be an internet coward, always deflecting. So I don't blame you. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 12:25 AM

44. still dont like answering ......no guts to play?

question for question?
u ask, i'll answer
i 'll ask...you answer


anything u want related to the conflict on policies, actions, morality etc...anything at all,


but you wont go there, i know it, and you know it....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #44)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 12:33 AM

45. play? what kind of a retrograde are you? The OP has nothing to do with rock throwing. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #45)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 12:39 AM

48. tsk tsk tsk

dont like the way I interpreted the environment (yelling vs rocks)....so ignore my posts, there is a button especially added just for that.

or you can be a "big boy" and ask me or others a question and steer the conversation to where u want it to go....try it, instead of "crying" and complaining....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #48)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 02:30 AM

52. You cry, whine, whimper, deflect. And there *were no rocks*.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #52)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 04:04 AM

56. try reading the posts....you'll learn where my response came from...

but now i understand...apparently you have a hard time, simply responding to posts directly, more so as the subjects and discussions vary as per the responses (whats called conversation amongst adults)

. I've noticed that most of your responses are similar to either a 3rd grader or college student caught up in some cause. (my favorite was the "shut up" response)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=40190

so come clean, which are you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #56)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 07:26 AM

66. There were no rocks, pelsar. No such excuses.

I've noticed that your responses are a grab bag from among these three:
If you don't answer my (irrelevant) question, you have no courage.
Are you a 3rd grader?
You're an inferior western liberal.

Am I missing any?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #66)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:22 AM

70. read slowlllllllyyyyy

thats the one your missing...

i was responding to this post:
ut, but, but Arab kids throw rocks. This I'm told excuses everything. /nt

you'll notice the word "rocks"....that then brought a response from me. Whether or not you believe my response was "worthy' or relevant is of no consequence since my response was not directed at you.

now you may show just how much of a "humanist" you are (still dont know what that means) and do the right thing, what humans do.....when shown to be wrong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #70)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:07 AM

71. You ran with your favorite diversion when thrown out in sarcasm. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #71)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 12:19 PM

72. what diversion.....

i have no idea what your writing about:
i responded to a post that interested me....whether or not you agree to what interests me if of no real consequence.

for some odd reason it appears that you believe you have some kind of "power" to decide what should interests the posters or what people write about...you will note that you do not have such power

which is rather bizarre...may i suggest that you put me on ignore, this way you wont be bothered by what interests me and what doesn't?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #72)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 12:57 PM

73. hey pelsar, rocks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #73)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 07:31 AM

78. Israeli girl, 3, injured after car hit with rocks in West Bank

 

JERUSALEM (JTA) -- A 3-year-old Israeli girl is in critical condition after a car accident in the West Bank caused by rocks thrown by Palestinians.

A car driven by a woman and her three young daughters veered off course Thursday night after being hit by a rock, crashing into a truck or bus, Haaretz reported, citing eyewitnesses. Ynet reported that the truck veered off course to avoid the rocks and crashed into the woman's car.

The woman and her other daughters, ages 4 and 5, also were injured in the accident on Route 5 near the West Bank Jewish city of Ariel. A bus also was hit with rocks.

An Israeli man and a 10-year-old boy also were injured by thrown rocks in the same area.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2013/03/14/3122081/israeli-girl-injured-after-car-hit-with-rocks-in-the-west-bank

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #78)

Sun May 5, 2013, 09:37 PM

104. And this has what to do with the OP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #104)

Thu May 9, 2013, 03:38 PM

118. It wasn't posted in response to the OP

 

It was posted in response to a post in the thread above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #9)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 09:12 PM

32. If there is a war going on, and enemy soldiers arrived near my house, armed up.

 

I'd throw rocks too. Soldiers should expect to get attacked. They're soldiers. Unless they are within the borders of their own country. WTF? Now it's a war crime to throw rocks at enemy soldiers? But it's not a war crime to kill civilians. If the soldiers don't like it, they better learn how to duck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #32)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 12:21 AM

43. i see you have more guts than most here...congrats...

Now it's a war crime to throw rocks at enemy soldiers? But it's not a war crime to kill civilians

i'm not asking about war crimes...just asking u about an action, whether u agree or not....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #43)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 01:15 AM

49. If you are a soldier and you can't take rocks being thrown.

 

Better get the f out of the military.
I don't think I would be alone fighting off enemy soldiers if they came to my state.
If you are in military service in an occupied area, you better damn well expect anything.
It is an occupation. People don't like that. They will fight back. By any means necessary. Expect IEDs, rocks, Molotov cocktails, bullets, if you are in uniform in enemy territory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #49)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 01:32 AM

50. its a rather simplistic viewpoint....

but at least its honest.

for instance israel actually left gaza, no more soldiers there to attack..and in return has received missiles, rockets and mortars on its cities, not to mention sniper attacks, IEDs on its soldiers on the israeli side of the fence....

is that also reasonable?...and if not

any suggestions for what israel to do, if anything?

(btw, a few notes:
• gaza is one of the most densest populations on earth
• egypt refuses to open its border to help with gazes economy
• gaza economy has been growing in the last few years
_____

gaza and the west bank are related in terms of the israeli govt and citizens in terms of policies

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #50)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 02:02 AM

51. What is Israel to do.

 

Stop being racist would be a nice start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #51)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 03:30 AM

53. i have no idea what that means...

Last edited Mon Apr 29, 2013, 04:36 AM - Edit history (1)

israel as a society is one of the most diverse societies/countries in the world today, with people from all over the world living in israel of all colors, religions, and sexual orientations.....with the basic civil rights in its foundation laws....

(at the same time you will find examples of racism throughout the society, but nothing that is lawful.)

so how does the racism accusation fit in to the attacks coming from gaza?....please explain
________
just a fun fact:
hizballa (lebanon) actually apologized when one of their rockets hit an arab town and killed two israeli arab children...maybe the racism is on the other side?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #53)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 05:30 AM

58. Oh well.

 

You don't understand racism. Occupation-apartheid. That is happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #58)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 05:44 AM

59. i'm weak on buzz words....

but i'm much much better on explanations and opinions that are based on actual facts...

Gaza has no israeli "apartheid", since no israelis are present in gaza.

Gaza is now blockaded by egypt and israel, but not occupied by either, so how do the attacks from gaza originate as racisim?

are the egyptians racist for blockading gaza or israel or both?
___

note: you'll have to think this one through, i might suggest defining the words first and then attempt to apply them to the environment, I realize that its probably not what your used to, but it is a more precise way of understanding the environment...and u might catch hell from your friends if you use the dictionary for word definitions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 08:05 AM

7. Response from 972...

 

Vadim
Sunday
April 28, 2013

Incredible. How low could these Zionists get? Getting angry and shouting at activists who are there to make them angry? A country that has soldiers that shout has no right to exist…

On a more serious (and sane) note, two things you probably just forgot to mention:
1. The cameraman’s scream of “Don’t scream at him! You are a nobody!*” is not really “Then Guy tells the soldier not to scream at him and to leave him alone”. (* Literally – who are you anyway? I translated by meaning).
2. The cameraman shouts at the soldier to “Come On! Bring it on! Macho! Macho!”

The cameraman does everything he can to anger the soldier because *it is his whole purpose*. I see people purposefully trying to anger armed soldiers. This is unthinkable in other parts of the world, but the activists and Arabs they accompany – are not really scared that IDF soldiers will do anything. I wonder why…

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 05:19 PM

12. Because as seen here-Israeli soldier: 'Cameras are our kryptonite'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #12)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 06:30 PM

15. the truth is the " kryptonite " azurnoir

the cameras just give you angles and shades of a differant perspective
finding the truth is impossible
our right wing distort everything
history is hasbara
we want hasbara to be history
and for the truth to be out there ....shira and those like her can not handle the truth .
the only chance we have for peace is to end the occupation ASAP
Judea and Samaria (or the Wild West Bank )... dont belong to us ...period .
anything else is bullshit ... period .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Israeli (Reply #15)

Fri May 3, 2013, 01:17 AM

91. why is "finding truth" so impossible

you stated it quite nicely yourself

Judea and Samaria (or the Wild West Bank )... dont belong to us (can I presume you mean Israel) ...period .
anything else is bullshit ... period .


that is simply the point most everything else is detail and distraction

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #91)

Fri May 3, 2013, 07:47 AM

92. yes azurnoir...

I mean Israel .

For me our border should be the Green Line or the parts of the wall that follow closest to the Green Line , but there again its not up to me .... the Right wing and Centralist's are in power and they will do everything to continue the status quo or worse, see :

http://world.time.com/2012/12/31/the-west-banks-2012-the-year-of-the-israeli-settlement/

and this today :

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4375553,00.html

My Israel is Israel proper.. I dont include the religious right wing American settlers of The Wild West Bank as part of us .
Read my posts above between #80-90 to shira for further reference .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Israeli (Reply #92)

Fri May 3, 2013, 02:35 PM

93. oh my a referendum

so the people of Israel should be able to decide what kind of state the people of Palestine should have

ya that's sure to work out well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #93)

Mon May 6, 2013, 05:50 PM

106. blocked

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Israeli (Reply #106)

Fri May 10, 2013, 02:57 AM

120. well partially the part concerning East Jerusalem was lleft

and that may well be the stumbling block, the rest though is hopeful

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #120)

Fri May 10, 2013, 08:34 AM

121. Jerusalem has always been ...

and will always be the biggest " stumbling block " azurnoir

the religious from all sides, be they Jewish or Christian or Muslim will happily sacrifice their blood and the blood of their sons and grandsons Ad infinitum ... for a pile of ancient stones .
Thus it has always been and thus it will always be ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Israeli (Reply #121)

Tue May 14, 2013, 03:47 PM

125. yes I've heard that from 'someone else' here too :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread