Why Israel
- Thread starter vimothy
- Start date
vimothy
yurp
Eh? Are you saying that the Israelis actually want Palestinians to kill their children in Pizza shops and and bus stops? Is this some subtle anti-po-mo satire?
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I could just as well ask you why the Palestinians want to blow themselves to pieces in market squares when they could just sit tight in their nice little refugee camps and everything will be hunky-dory in a few years because Democratic Countries like Israel and the US are on the case.
bassnation
the abyss
he is as much an apologist for tyranny as he is accusing others of being.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
vimothy
yurp
Me, surely.
bassnation
the abyss
oops, yes, i was talking about tha vim.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
vimothy
yurp
SO YOU ADMIT IT, THEN?!?!
Yes, it's what we in the business (the Knights of the Order of (Irving) Kristol) call the "neo-lib disavowed disavowal". It's a pretty standard operational manoeuvre, AFAIK.
Nope. And I've never been to America, China, Russia, or Indonesia either.
Do you think that Palestinian terrorism is morally equivalent to Israeli military actions in the occupied territories?
bassnation
the abyss
do you think the actions of the ira were morally equivalent to the crimes committed under british occupation of northern ireland?
vimothy
yurp
I beg your pardon? Do you mean were the crimes of the IRA morally equivalent to the crimes of the British during the troubles in NI?
What were those crimes, please?
vimothy
yurp
"Is the totally unnecessary shooting of a load of un-armed protesters morally equivalent to the totally un-specified crimes of the IRA?"
No - that's not an avenue that's going to lead anywhere, IMO.
Did the IRA deliberately target civilians?
Did the British Army?
How many were killed?
For what reason were boths sides fighting?
Was it coherent?
Did the British Army?
How many were killed?
For what reason were boths sides fighting?
Was it coherent?
Etc...
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Well let's get back to Israel/Palestine, which is the conflict under discussion. It shouldn't be controversial that the awful situation the Palestinians are in is mainly a result of the foundation and subsequent activities of Israel. So it simply isn't fair to compare the actvities of the IDF with those of Palestinian militants* because Palestinians wouldn't be attacking Israel(is) if it hadn't been founded on land taken from them, and hadn't continued to abuse their rights ever since. Israel's draconian security measures are necessary as a defence against people whose animosity towards Israel is a result of that country's own actions.
Forget Ahmedinijad's ravings and the al Jazeera pundits who'd blame Israel for the fact that a man in Yemen stubbed his toe yesterday, and reaslise that are people in the Middle East who have a perfectly justified reason for their antagonism towards the country.
*which I am consciously choosing to use, as oppsed to 'terrorists' as you'd have it or 'freedom fighters' as others would
Forget Ahmedinijad's ravings and the al Jazeera pundits who'd blame Israel for the fact that a man in Yemen stubbed his toe yesterday, and reaslise that are people in the Middle East who have a perfectly justified reason for their antagonism towards the country.
*which I am consciously choosing to use, as oppsed to 'terrorists' as you'd have it or 'freedom fighters' as others would
Last edited:
crackerjack
Well-known member
Yes.
On at least one occasion, yes.
vimothy
yurp
I was only saying that we need to be explicit and not vague in spelling out the crimes under discussion. I am honestly not sure of the levels of civillian death in NI. At the same time, I am naturally predisposed to the favouring the Catholic side, whitewashing the Republican "contribution" to the Troubles, hating the loyalists and blaming the Brits, because that's where my family's loyalties lie and that's what I grew up with.
I didn't want to do that, however. I was trying to be fair.
Anyway...
1967 - did the Israelis just walk in and steal the Palestinian's land then? That's just a knee-jerk assumption, Mr Tea. No one looks good, if you take the long view, and that's the best you can say about it.
So we're back to where we started from: Palestinians terrorists (i.e. non-uniformed warriors dressed as civilians answerable to no authority) intentionally machine gunning babies in their prams is not comparable to Israeli AF attacking military targets.
Really? It's the "draconian security measures" brought in to combat Palestinian terrorism that are responsible for that terrorism? You're just trying not to understand the conflict in any depth. Did multilateralism and the Oslo Accords bring peace? Nope. Is unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip bringing peace? Nope. Why not? Because a significant section of the Palestinians (and the rest of the Mid East) don't want peace with Israel. They don't recognise it. They want to destroy it.
There is a political case on both sides, clearly. But the Palestinians kill without purpose or aim - it's totally immoral. Regarding the rest of the ME, it's impossible to disentangle all that from the ravings of the lunatics. Both sides deserve a state. But the rest of the Mid East states have no right to excoriate Israel for crimes that they have all committed many more times. Anti-Israeli radicals who are fighting to set up tyrannies across the Mid East (incluuding Palestine) have no right either.
Be annoyed, campain, try to find a political solution that satisfies both sides, but don't be stupid, don't be murderous, don't support a pointless struggle with no acheivable end and unthinkable means.
A terrorist dresses like you or me and kills people like you or me. He or she answers to no legitimate state or institution that can be held into account. That's all. Call them what you want.
It might be immoral, but they kill with a purpose and an aim- they know from experience that terrorism does work, that eventually (in situations where the terrorists have clearly defined and achievable political objectives- ie Palestinians, or in Northern Ireland the IRA, rather than Al-Qaeda or Baader Meinhof) governments ALWAYS end up talking, no matter what they may claim. And therefore while again you might consider that they are going about achieving their aims in entirely the wrong manner, (or at least, a deeply sub-optimal manner) they certainly have them and are pursuing them in a historically recognizable form.
vimothy
yurp
I still don't think there's enough infomation there to make a sound judgement. If the British Army intentionally killed civillians in the style of a terrorist group, then there is obvious moral equivalence. Did they? I expect (possibly unfairly) that the answer probably is yes, but as no one is being clear I'm beginning to think no.
One British killing of civillians vs the IRA killing several hundred civillians throughout the Troubles. Doesn't sound like moral equivalence to me, but I don't know if your figures are right. Are you sure it was intended? Are you sure it was only once?
Vimothy doesnt know anything other than what he reads on the internet. That has been shown again and again and again. The moment he met his first Persian in a kebab shop, and actually spoke to him, he felt the urge to post it here. Imagine the overwhelming terror he must have felt walking into there the first time, and his ferocious sense of courage walking out.
look at this kebab merchant
i bet he gets government assistance
maybe they are running a funnel of money to hezbollah
its my duty to check this place out
i wonder if they want to poison me
look at this kebab merchant
i bet he gets government assistance
maybe they are running a funnel of money to hezbollah
its my duty to check this place out
i wonder if they want to poison me