Senate Israel/Palestine

Discussion in 'Community' started by Obi-Wan McCartney, Jan 4, 2009.

  1. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Smuggler, if you were actually informed on this issue, which you clearly are not, you would probably want to avoid bringing 'genocide' into any discussion of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, given Israel's well documented history of ethinic cleansing and violations of human rights and humanitarian law against Palestinian people. I'm afraid Israel's 'genocidal' record far surpasses that of Hamas.

    There are regular calls by Jewish religious leaders in Israel for the Israeli government to "wipe out" the Palestinians. None of these calls are ever condemned by Israel. Here is a recent example, but I assure you that such calls are published regularly:

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/erekat-israeli-religious-figure-urging-genocide-of-palestinians-1.310876

    In Hebron, the orthodox Jewish settlers have called for a "final solution" of the Arabs for decades, again without condemnation by the Israeli government.

    Here are some of the photos of Jewish settler graffiti in Hebron which calls for "Arabs to the gas chambers", "Gas the arabs" and "die Arab sand******". (from the Breaking the Silence exhibition):

    http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2009/01/nazi-mentality-of-zionisms-devotees.html

    http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/

    There is a very active, religious extremist component of Israeli society which persistently lobbies for the IDF to "cleanse" all of the West Bank and Gaza (biblically known as Judea and Samaria) of its Arab occupants. Does this sound familar? The Israeli government funds these settlers.

    Smuggler, do you recall what happened to Yitzhak Rabin? He was assasinated by a Jewish religious extremist who opposed any compromise with the Palestinians, believing that all of Israel was the "Promised Land" of the Jews and there will be no peace until all of the Arabs are eradicated. This view has gained a certain currency in Israeli politics, hence the rise of Sharon and Bibi and of the Likud party generally.

    The reality is that Hamas happens to be a resistance movement which has formed a government. Its charter reflects its inception as a resistance group. Clearly this must change. But the idea that Hamas will never compromise with Israel is utter nonsense and is contradicted by the facts. Hamas has negotiated ceasefires and has offered to recognise Israel on the basis of 1967 borders. Nobody here is a fan of Hamas (least of all me) but please don't play the 'Hamas bad'-'Israel good' card because they are both as bad as each other.


  2. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Shouldn't such a statement be based on their actual behavior? Hamas has been able to abide by truces in the past, and has offered such long term truces with Israel as part of future agreements. How can you say there is "no real way to compromise" when they have, in fact, compromised?
  3. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    Take a good look at this picture:
    [image=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1987-004-09A%2C_Amin_al_Husseini_und_Adolf_Hitler.jpg/785px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1987-004-09A%2C_Amin_al_Husseini_und_Adolf_Hitler.jpg]

    It was taken in 1941. The guy on the left is the Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the "Father" of Palestine, for lack of a better term, given his role in 1948. The person on the right needs no introduction.

    Here are details of that conversation:
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/mufti2.html

    In case you think that was a one-time deal, check out this photo from 1943:
    [image=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101III-Alber-164-18A%2C_Gro%C3%9Fmufti_Amin_al_Husseini%2C_Heinrich_Himmler.jpg]

    The guy on the left is the same Mufti. The guy on the right is Heinrich Himmler - head of the SS.

    Here's the telegram Himmler sent that Mufti:
    http://media.photobucket.com/image/anniversary%20wishes/family_guy94/222px-Himmler_to_Mufti_telegram_194.png?o=88

    Here's the Mufti with some SS recruits from the Balkans:
    [image=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1980-036-05,_Amin_al_Husseini_bei_bosnischen_SS-Freiwilligen.jpg]

    Maybe you haven't seen the salutes that Hezbollah use - do they look familiar to you?
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574400532495168894.html

    Here's a timeline of the events surrounding the Mufti:
    http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2543

    Here's info on Hamas, an offshoot of the Moslem Brotherhood:
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/hamas.html

    Oh, and background on the Moslem Brotherhood:
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/muslimbrotherhood.html

    I'll just repeat something for emphasis:
    The Brotherhood's founder, al-Banna, was a devout admirer of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. During the 1930s, the Brotherhood became more political in nature and an officially political group in 1939. Over the years, the organization developed an apparatus through which to provide military training to its followers and to engage in political terrorism against Egyptian Coptic Christians and government officials.

    In 1942, during World War II, Hassan al-Banna set up more Brotherhood branches in Transjordan and Palestine.


    So really what is a "compromise" with Hamas? Nothing different in an ethical or moral sense than the "compromise" with Hitler made at Munich in 1938.

    All your links show me is that there is a small segment of people in Israel who have come to see the situation as one of "kill or be killed" - and are of the mindset that "it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by six." The only moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel exists in bizarro world or some parallel reality.

    Quite frankly, you have no idea who you are sticking up for. I hope you will reconsider.
  4. DarthIktomi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2009
    star 4
    The Mufti was also appointed by the British. No more representative of his people than any other despot, especially one appointed by foreigners. Seriously, you'll have to do better.

    It should also be noted that the Israelis supported the South African government. The one which, in the 1940s, was run by Nazi collaborators? Hitler actually planned to give southern Africa to South Africa, northern Africa to Italy, and keep the "Mitteland" for himself.
  5. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    Oh man
    You know you've got a weak case when you're debating current events with black-and-white pictures...
  6. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    So the Israeli genocide of Palestinians is a-okay because a despot met with a Nazi 70 years ago? And this is an acceptable argument for you? Either you're just trolling very effectively or you actually believe the feces you're spouting. I think the latter is scarier, but the former is kind of stunningly epic. I'd bow out now and admit I was an epic troll if I were you.
  7. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Smuggler, was there a soundtrack which was supposed to accompany your last post? Something dramatic with cellos?

    The activities of the Mufti are well documented and well known. There is nothing new there. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make?

    What is less well known is that Yitzhak Shamir, one of the "founding fathers" of Israel and also one of the founders of the current Likud Party also sought an accomodation with Hitler in 1944 when he was a prominent member of Irgun Zvai Leumi (the Zionist terrorist organization known as "Irgun"). In a letter written by Avraham Stern, one of the founders of the Zionist terrorist offshoot of Irgun known as the "Stern Gang" or "Lehi", Lehi offered to "actively take part in the war on Germany's side" in return for German support for "the establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich".

    Check out the "Lehi" Charter:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)

    The actual text of the offer is as follows:

    "The NMO, which is well-acquainted with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its authorities towards Zionist activity inside Germany and towards Zionist emigration plans, is of the opinion that:

    1. Common interests could exist between the establishment of a new order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO.

    2. Cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed folkish-national Hebraium would be possible and,

    3. The establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.

    Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the condition the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively take part in the war on Germany's side."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner1223.html

    The document itself is sourced from The Stern Gang: Ideology, Politics, and Terror 1940-1949 by Joseph Heller who is a professor in the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

    You may recall that two prominent members of Irgun and Lehi, Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin, subsequently became Prime Ministers of Israel. As previously noted, Shamir is a founding father of the Likud party which currently leads the Israeli government.

    Smuggler, the reality is that the state of Israel was founded by militant Zionists many of whom were also members of militant terrorist organizations with Charters not unlike that of Hamas. Groups like Irgun and Lehi carried out bombings and other terrorist activities in Palestine against Arab and British civilians. This is well documented.

    Here's a picture of Menachem Begin, Israel's sixth Prime Minister, kissing the Irgun flag (note that Irgun was declared to be an outlaw terrorist organization by the British at the time):

    http://stanvanhoucke.blogspot.com/2010/06/irgun-jewish-terrorism.html

    So quite frankly, I think it is you who has no idea who you are sticking up for. Like I have said a hundred times in this thread, I am no supporter of Hamas, but the current Israeli government and its predecessors also have links to a terrorist past which sought an accommodation with Hitler to achieve its ends, so your entire line of argument is somewhat hypocritical. I'd also say it is entirely irrelevent.


  8. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    So if the tables were turned, and the Palestinians were living in a prosperous state and oppressing the Jews, as well as denying them a homeland, would you feel the same way?

    Your argument feels an awful lot like "they're both thugs, but the side which won the fight is worse and therefore worthy of more condemnation".

    Yes, Israel's founders participated in terrorism before the country was established. So did America's founders, from the British point-of-view. I'm sure the American Indians would have something to say about the US and terrorist policies.....


    ....so my point becomes: the "who's worse" argument is useless, and has no place in the debate. The issue here is how to settle the conflict, and I have laid that out in a quasi-recent post a page or two back.

    Israel:-

    1. Stop the settlements
    2. Halt collective punishment
    3. Allow supplies in the territories with reasonable inspection
    4. Commit to a two-state solution that shares Jerusalem (not on Netanyahu's radar at the moment).

    Palestinians-

    1. Stop rocket attacks and civilian bombings
    2. Stop using aid to buy weapons
    3. Acknowledge that they may have to give up the right of return as part of a broader peace deal which would include fair compensation for lost territory.

    UN/World-

    1. Condemn terrorism equally on all sides of the conflict
    2. Commit to a multinational force to police a shared Jerusalem
    3. Call out proxy support by Arab governments for terrorist funding/activities under the guise of humanitarian aid
    3. Call out the US for being a roadblock to implementation of resolutions condemning Israeli overreach


    Not a complete list by any means, but a good start. Certainly better than the endless cycle of "who started it" and "who's worse" that tends to bog down this thread ;). Also, does anybody really sincerely believe that Hitler would have honored the creation of a Jewish state?

    I mean, really. It just seems to me that he was trying to herd as many Jews as possible into one place so it would make it easier to wipe them out. Kind of like pacifying Stalin until he was ready to go after him.

    Peace,

    V-03
  9. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    I don't believe anybody has said that one side is to blame or the other. We've all pretty much acknowledged that both sides are terrible. However, at the moment Israel is holding all of the cards. So what they look like is international bullies--and what they are are international bullies. Think of the US with dwarfism and you've got Israel.
  10. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    Vaderize, I can dig your idea of focusing on the solution rather than the problem, but what you're proposing is shoddy at best. Because where are the maps? What borders will the two states share? How many settlements will you allow to remain? How many Israeli roads will cut up the Palestinian state? A vital matter. The.

    Check Rahm Emanuel calling out Obama for talking crap about this.
  11. LordNyax113 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 2007
    star 3
    In what part of his post did he say the genocide of Palestinians okay?
  12. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Of course. Why would you think I wouldn't?

    Both sides are worthy of condemnation but Israel happens to have a world class public relations machine working on its behalf which has over the years managed to spin a story/myth which is totally inaccurate. Even in Israel the advent of the "new historians" has brought about a national interest in critically analysing Israel's "official" history. In that history, the persecuted Jews of Europe peacefully settled in their empty biblical homeland and made the desert bloom. Israel is built on the myth of "A land without a people for a people without a land". Many people believe this nonsense today.

    But the reality is that there were people there and they did not just "melt away into the desert" as the offical Israeli narrative would lead you to believe.They were forcibly removed according to a specific military plan (Plan Dalet) the objective of which was to ethnically cleanse all of Palestine of Arabs so that the way could be paved for an exclusively Jewish national homeland. Since 1948 there has been an active movement within pro-Israeli circles to distort the historical record . Since I'm well read on the subject, the purpose of my participation in this thread is to point out those distortions when they are sprouted as incontrovertible "facts".

    So you may consider my participation to be one sided, but that is simply because the pro-Israeli propaganda machine has attempted to create a false history and a false reality as to why there is currently violent conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Now I'm more than happy to discuss Palestinian thuggery and idiocy (as there is much to discuss) but I am not going to ignore the fact that the Palestinian position has been formed in the context of historical realities.

    This is absolutely true but at least that history is recognised and acknowledged. The Israeli government and the pro-Israeli movement simply refuse to recognise or acknowledge that the creation of the state of Israel had and continues to have catastrophic ramifications for the Palestinian people. The official Israeli policy is to refuse to acknowledge the Palestinian Nakba. As I've said many times before, acknowledging the past frames responsibility. The US has done this in relation to its own indigenous population as has the Australian government towards its indigenous population. This needs to happen in Israel as well.

    You can see how instrinsically linked items 1 & 2 are on the respective Israeli and Palestinian lists. I think the num
  13. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    I'm not sure what the best answer is here, Watto, so I'm not going to speculate. Obviously, nobody is going to get everything they want, and somebody's territory will end up being divided in two (or greater).
    What is clear is that it's probably going to be "two states or nothing". The Israelis are not going to get what the extreme Israeli Right wants, which is to push the Palestinians off onto Jordan and Egypt, and Hamas is not going to get what it wants: Israel proper under total Palestinian control.

    As far as Rahm Emmanuel goes, his comments reflect a reality on the ground in the US, which is that unfriendliness towards Israel, whether real or perceived, is a political albatross. What many non-Americans have difficulty with, I have noticed, is pinning down exactly where Israel's strongest support comes from. There is a perception on this board from many that AIPAC has the lion's share of influence of Israeli policy and is the first group every politician in the US runs to please in relation to the conflict. This isn't really true.

    Yes, AIPAC is a powerful lobby, but demographically, most Jews over the last twenty years have voted Democrat, not Republican, and the democrats have at least been willing to engage in the conflict. President Bush chose to deal with the problem by ignoring it, and focusing on chasing al-Qaeda instead. The real support for the concept of a "Greater Israel" comes from the Christian Right; groups like the Christian Coalition, the Moral Majority, etc, which dominate republican primaries, are made of evangelicals who believe Israel must be undivided before Christ can return. Their support for Israel is not only unwavering, but at times, stronger than that of the American Jewish community. Many, many (but not all) American jews support a Palestinian state and disagree with Israel's actions.

    This comes in part because the majority of America's Jews live in the Northeast, in or close to cities, and are more liberal-leaning. AIPAC is generally conservative, and made up of the very rich, but even amongst very wealthy Jewish Americans, support is split between the two political parties and philosophy towards Israel.

    The heat Obama is taking on Israel is more political theater than anything else. "Anti-Israel" is one of several typical republican rallying cries when taking on the President.

    Lost on Hoth, I agree with a lot of what you said. I think Israel needs some serious introspection, and hopefully, that process will occur in the near future. On the other points, you and I are in general agreement.

    Peace,

    V-03
  14. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    Greece shuts down the second Gaza flotilla. I say good riddance....I'm not a fan of Israel lately, but these people are just trying to create a lot of drama. If the Gaza blockade is excessively harsh, then governments and people should pressure Israel to relax it somewhat. But trying to ram an entire fleet of ships through is not responsible, and could be outright dangerous as the previous attempt showed.

    In any case, I think the real reason to be angry at Israel shouldn't be the blockade, it should be that they're attempting to annex East Jerusalem and chunks of the West Bank by force.
  15. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Israel prohibits Free Expression and Boycotting that's in opposition to Israel's West Bank settlements


    Israel passes law punishing settlement boycotters

    Advocating a boycott of West Bank settlements could lead to financial penalties in Israel under a new law passed on Monday with the blessing of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    Critics of the bill pushed through parliament by right-wing lawmakers called the measure anti-democratic and a blow to free speech.

    Parliament's Speaker, Reuven Rivlin, said he had appealed unsuccessfully to Netanyahu to seek a rewording of the legislation after the assembly's legal adviser issued an opinion that it "impinges on political expression" in Israel.

    The vote -- carried by 47 to 38 in the 120-seat plenum -- went ahead amid an outcry from opposition legislators and civil liberties groups.

    "What this law will enable is for anybody harmed by a deliberate boycott campaign to seek damages through the courts," said its sponsor, Zeev Elkin, a member of Netanyahu's right-wing Likud party.

    Supporters of the bill said its reference to boycotts based on "geography" was aimed at countering calls in Israel and abroad for cultural and economic boycotts against settlements in the West Bank, occupied land Palestinians want for a state.

    The issue grabbed headlines in Israel several months ago after leading performers said they would not appear at a theater in Ariel, one of the biggest settlements in the West Bank.

    The Association of Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), an opponent of the bill, said that "regardless of one's position on the question of promoting or opposing a boycott, it is unquestionably a protected form of free speech."

    In an editorial, Haaretz, a left-wing newspaper, said lawmakers who voted in favor of the bill were "supporting the gagging of protest as part of an ongoing effort to liquidate democracy."



    They're outlawing all nonviolent opposition to the partisan stances of Israel's right-wing party.

    Why do keep supporting them, again?
  16. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Because of Republicans and their belief in the end times.
  17. DarthIktomi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2009
    star 4
    Yeah, basically when all the Jews are in Israel, and only the Jews are (even if that requires, shall we say, a final solution), Jesus comes back, and then all the unbelievers are sent to hell.

    One of my friends is Jewish, and he told me that when the Jews are forced to go to Israel, he wants me to chase him across Jordan, fighting the whole way, while "Ode to Joy" plays, and then, just at the border, he'll stop, and tell me to kill him.

    Oh, and then someone else enters Israel and the whole thing happens anyway.

    Given the odd amount of ho yay between us, this seems apropos.
  18. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    That can't really be the reason. What sect of Christianity promotes that belief?
  19. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    More or less the same kind that feel US soldiers die overseas because we haven't exterminated the gays yet.
  20. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Yes. The problem is that the type who believe that and believe this nonsense are somewhat more mainstream than the former.
  21. DarthIktomi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2009
    star 4
    It's an eschatology called premillennial dispensationalism. Basically it means that when all the Jews, and only Jews, are in Israel, Jesus comes back.

    And you can find it all over the televangelist networks. John Hagee's fond of it.
  22. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Well, Mr. Abbas is on track to force a vote on declaring Palestinian statehood, first in the Security Council, where it faces a certain American veto, and then in the general assembly, where it will almost certainly pass.

    The French enjoy to Israel was fired after voicing her opposition to the maneuver; everyone from the US to Hamas opposes it (for different reasons, obviously).

    This really speaks to how weak America has become in international affairs. This is basically a thumbing-their-noses at the US by the Palestinian Authority, and this maneuver will allow strongly anti-peace forces in America to gain traction. Congress already has multiple members calling to cut off all foreign aid to the territories, which leaders there acknowledge will likely collapse the government. Hamas is opposed as they see this as official recognition of Israel, ie attempting to deal with them on "equal" footing.

    A mess all around. Emergency talks are underway between Abbas and the Quartet before the scheduled vote on Friday, but I'm not holding my breath.

    Peace,

    V-03
  23. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    It certainly stands out as a stark contrast to everything Obama has accomplished (nothing) in moving the peace process forward. If it is a humiliation to the White House, it is a well-deserved one.
  24. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    It won't be.

    "We don't support unilateral action at this time", your president will say, neglecting to mention his continuing support for Israel's unilateral actions, "It's not constructive to the peace process".

    And my government will ape it, and most West-European governments will. And our news services will mention it as such, and will continue about their daily business.

    And Arabs will hate it, and will plot against the West, and we'll be back in the year 2000.
  25. Jedi Merkurian Episode VII Thread-Reaper and Rumor Naysayer

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 25, 2000
    star 6
    Maybe i'm just really thick, but could someone explain how Palestinian statehood is a bad thing, especially given that U.S. rhetoric has included a "two-state solution?"