Israel/Palestine
In reply to the discussion: WATCH: IDF Soldier Screams At Israeli Activists: 'You Are Worse Than The Arabs' [View all]delrem
(9,688 posts)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?" ?