Israel to World: "Suck It."

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (2178 of them)
Dear wise Nitsuh:

And I stick with my point, above, which is that it's really difficult to start applying general consequences to the actions of individual, non- representative groups, whereas it's a lot easier to do so for the regimented military of a sovereign nation

This is true and yet doesn't it afford Palestinian aggression (equating that with the Hamas) an easy way out of any culpability whatsoever? (I know we've gone through that cul de sac already, but terrorism without consequences burns my ass.) I think any sort of posturing with Arafat and the PA was a better tactic than cutting him off directly. Perhaps a little double dealing of their own would have been wiser. Keep smiling and shaking hands with Arafat, while simultaneously going in after the Hamas. Make Arafat be the one to storm out (again).

He essentially had to walk a very fine line between making progress with Israel and pissing off militants in Palestine

If Arafat cannot offer any concessions, as in the Camp David talks, without pissing off the militants, then what does that say about the people of Palestine? Are they behind the Hamas in wanting to wipe Israel off the planet, or do they want to co-exist? What I'm saying is if these limits placed on Arafat are so immovable; doesn't that say something about the Palestinian willingness to discuss any sort of peace process? Kinda makes them look to be saying "suck it" all along. Also, I think Israel would contend that Arafat should be pissing off militants. He should be imprisoning them or assasinating them, as the PA does to those suspected of working with the Israeli government.

Oh and to follow Einstein's theory of political bickering: for every quote presented there will be an equal and opposite quote presented: “We will not arrest the sons of our people in order to appease Israel. Let our people rest assured that this won't happen.” — Chief of the P.A. Preventive Security in the West Bank, Jebril Rajoub
This I believe falls under what more Arafat "could" have done.

Apartheid didn't stem simply from racism, but partly from the same thinking that seems to be in operation in the mid-East -- that a particular group of people pose a danger of rebellion or violence and thus must be pre-emptively subdued.

Pre-emptive? If I can't use the cause and effect argument then neither should you. I could just as easily state that Israel is there because of terrorism. There also seems to be an overlooking of the Six Day War.

It's not just "militants" who are having their lands seized or their roads blocked in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip -- it's the vast majority of Arabs within greater Israel, including many who were expelled from Israel proper and are not allowed to return, based not on their activities but on their potential activities.

Funny, expelled is the same term I've read to what happens to Jews in Arabic countries. For what its worth, Arabs (or Muslims might be more fitting) are citizens in Israel. They receive the same rights, and can vote. Even the women. Would a better analogy be the US's internment of Japanese during WWII? I think so. Or perhaps American detainment of Arabic foreigners post 9/11. "Safety first" may trump a lot of other concerns, but for me -- and this may be personal -- it doesn't trump basic human rights. I think this where I differ from a lot of people on the left as I found out after 9/11. I think the first priority of a government is to protect its citizens. And I know this is more of a spectrum type argument, as to where do you draw the line between protecting and infringing on rights. As far as sucking up, well, someone has to do some sucking up here, and thus far it's Palestinians who are sucking up being tenth-class citizens of the nation they ostensibly live in, plus progressive settlement.Way, way one sided. Palestinians = victims. Israel = opressors. Come on, you know it isn't that simple. I am curious how much of the history of Palestine you're familar with. As a lot of liberal minded folks seems to be unaware of what exactly has transpired between Israel and its neighboring countries in the last 50 years. Like why was there no Palestinian state before Israel proclaimed its own statehood or before the 6 Day War?

Put another way: given the choice to be an Israeli citizen or Palestinian, wouldn't you choose to be Israeli? And doesn't that hint that the threat of death by terrorism is significantly less onerous than the situation of the average Palestinian?

Nah, more so because Israel has more of a Western lean i.e. its a capitalist Democracy.

What do we think, morally, about a sovereign nation arresting and imposing its own justice system on (leave alone assassinating) individuals who don't likewise enjoy the full rights of citizenry in that nation?

Sounds like America going after the al-Queda. Therefore, morally it depends on the reasoning behind the imposition. Still, you make it seem as if Israel does not want to recoginize Palestine as a state. (Perhaps we should boil down our arguments, if possible. I don't like running in circles. Thats more pointed at me than you.)

bnw, Saturday, 15 December 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Well, running in circles is pretty much par for this course -- no easy arguments on any side. I enjoy arguing it out, though, insofar as it's not a situation where I believe in my stance with absolute conviction, and talking = thinking / learning. Clarifications and rebuttals, though:

If Arafat cannot offer any concessions, as in the Camp David talks, without pissing off the militants, then what does that say about the people of Palestine?

You're absolutely right -- it says a whole lot of them consider Israel's very presence to be an affront (and I think there's a reasonable case to be made in this regard), and it says that a whole lot of them are stuck enough on this point that they're not content to co-exist. Absolutely. The question is how this situation -- which isn't going to be changed simply by telling them they're wrong -- would best be handled. Having normalized relations with a figure like Arafat seems the best available way to steer things in a less oppositional direction; Arafat has as much clout in Palestine as any single figure could reasonably be expected to have, he's somewhat beholden to appease the requests of the West, and his line is soft enough that organizations like Hamas are outright opposed to him. I think what I'm saying is that if you're dealing with a populace that's largely hostile to you, the logical route to changing this is to deal with the least hostile figure that populace can deliver, right?

Also, I think Israel would contend that Arafat should be pissing off militants.

This is where I think you're ignoring the point I tried to make above. For Arafat to have pissed of militants would have meant weakening of his support, and quite possibly his assassination. This would leave us with practically nothing but the very militants you're talking about, not even a weak check on those militants -- plus they would be, as you say pissed off. Surely this was part of Arafat's thinking -- that he could do more good alive and in power than otherwise. You're saying that Arafat should have served as a tool to certain ends, but what if too strenuous use would only have broken the tool?

The quote you provide is yet another example of this: no Palestinian figure could accumulate any support or maintain any power without such posturing.

Pre-emptive? If I can't use the cause and effect argument then neither should you. I could just as easily state that Israel is there because of terrorism. There also seems to be an overlooking of the Six Day War.

Here's where I'm really bothered, because you're using a sort of Palestinian Queen Bee reasoning that's simply not applicable. A child born in Palestine today is born into a situation where his home is occupied and open to seizure, his movements are curtailed, etc. That child did not fight in the Six Day War. Thus any treatment of that child that is in any way different from that of an Israeli child is essentially pre-emptive suppression -- pre-emptive in that the suppression is contingent on the idea that this child may be hostile toward Israel. I'm not saying it's pre-emptive in the sense that "Israel started it" -- just that their military oversight of the Palestinian populace is not based on every single Palestinian having done something to warrant it. Hence the internment analogy: it's not that they've individually done something, just that the entire population is viewed as a threat and suppressed accordingly.

For what its worth, Arabs (or Muslims might be more fitting) are citizens in Israel. They receive the same rights, and can vote.

"They receive the same rights" is the most laughable thing I've ever heard in my life. To name one thing: Jewish-Only Settlements.

I think the first priority of a government is to protect its citizens.

C'mon -- certainly some moral boundary must be put on this. Citizens of the US would theoretically be much safer if we just killed everyone who was ever involved in a violent crime, but would you find this morally defensible? We'd theoretically be safer if we could just nuke the entire eastern hemisphere, but surely there's the quibbling little concern of destroying half of the world's population to think about.

Way, way one sided. Palestinians = victims. Israel = opressors. Come on, you know it isn't that simple.

I'm sorry, but at this point, it basically is. The only "oppression" Palestinians have been able to visit on Israel is the fear of possible terrorist attack, which is not so much "oppression" as just plain "threat." In turn, even the most peace-loving Palestinian lives under a similar threat of death-by-reprisal (see that toddler, above), plus a systematic removal of rights, which is precisely what "oppression" means.

Nah, more so because Israel has more of a Western lean i.e. its a capitalist Democracy.

I'm not sure how you reconcile this with your contention, above, that Palestinians are Israeli citizens who enjoy all the rights and privileges of any other Israeli citizens. "They vote," you say ... but here you say that Israelis enjoy democracy and Palestinians don't.

Still, you make it seem as if Israel does not want to recoginize Palestine as a state.

Well, define "want." They don't want to -- something like 56% of Israelis think it's either a good or a necessary or an unavoidable idea, but it still remains a concession that's being made. And, as I said above, I understand why. But it's the same as the suicide bombers -- I understand the motivation, I just don't think it's morally tenable.

Nitsuh, Saturday, 15 December 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Goddamn, you reply fast! I was going to try and mention some common ground between us, and things I agreed on in your post before my last one which I neglected to bring up. Like Israel killing Palestinian civilians in its strikes. As well as mention how Israel attacking Arafat and the Palestinian police makes little sense to me. But now I must rest my poor brain to respond properly.

bnw, Saturday, 15 December 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Ah yes, those Jews have been using it for 50 whole years! I mean, for a religon thats been around almost 6000 years, that's a whopping less than 1%. And by the way, when are Americans going to shut up about Pearl Harbor? It's as if WW2 was central to their identity or something.

Um.. correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this thread about the modern state of Israel? (kinda post 1945?)

Secondly, i never asked anyone to shut up about the holocaust. The link i posted above was for the discussion of a book called the Holocaust and Collective Memory by Peter Novick (published by Fourth Estate), in which he examines the history of the way the Holocaust has been cited by Israel and american Jewish organisations since 1945. it's interesting in the sense that it shows there's always been a contemporary political agenda to using the holocaust as a moral imperative - like you do - and that until the 1960s, the holocaust was played down, and manifestly NOT pushed as central to the "jewish character" / justification for Israeli military action.

I should have said all this when i originally posted, but I assumed people would follow the link I pasted in.

Alasdair, Saturday, 15 December 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

it also occurs to me that I should point out -asap- that I'm not playing down the horrors of the holocaust for one minute.

And also that questioning the logic of it as a moral imperative that justifies the military occupation of parts of the west bank is really just building a straw man and setting it alight, in a pointless and potentially offensive way.

What I'm saying applies more to the US industry of holocaust rememberance that -sadly- all seems ultimately to say "never again will we allow Jews to be massacred by Nazis in central europe in 1945" without looking at the mechanics of genocide elsewhere or the current problems of the middle east, but still generating tacit emotional support for Israel to act however it chooses. So sorry if what i said caused any offence.

Alasdair, Saturday, 15 December 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Sorry, bnw -- I guess I stumbled back in here right after you posted. You know, I don't think I disagree with you about the situation as much as it might sound -- this just happens to be such a complex, contentious issue that a slight difference in thinking (say, "safety first" vs. "human rights first") can radically change the end conclusions one comes to.

The interesting thing about the Holocaust is that even if we do take it as central to the Jewish experience and character, and not just posturing or an attempt at justification, it's a rather unpretty argument, and a bit of another "suck it": the subtext is that Jews have historically been so threatened that they now have no qualms about steamrolling anyone who stands in their way. Certainly that's not an admirable thing?

Also -- and I tried to make this point when we did the "State of Israel: Classic or Dud" thread, I still don't understand how anyone justifies the necessity of a sovereign state of Israel. Without getting into the "what was worse than the Holocaust" argument, which is totally irrelevant, we can find countless other diasporas who have historically been massacred, enslaved, and scattered from their "homelands" in a similar fashion, but it tends to be agreed that we should strive to live pluralistically, not dislocate masses of people simple to return people to ethnically homogenous or ethnically restricted "homelands."

Out of curiousity, bnw, how do you feel about the violent seizure of white-owner farms in Zimbabwe?

Nitsuh, Saturday, 15 December 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

This is interesting and alarming. (Link stolen from Ethel the Blog.) The key passage being:

Alex Fishman is the main commentator on security matters for Israel's largest mass circulation paper, Yediot Achronot, a publication with right-of-center politics. Fishman is known for his excellent contacts in the military. On Sunday, Nov. 25, Fishman issued a prediction based on the recent assassination on Nov. 23 by Israel's security services of the Hamas leader, Mahmud Abu Hunud. It was featured in a box on the newspaper's front page.

It began, "We again find ourselves preparing with dread for a new mass terrorist attack within the Green Line (Israel's pre-'67 border)." Since Fishman was entirely accurate in this regard, we should mark closely what he wrote next. "Whoever gave a green light to this act of liquidation knew full well that he is thereby shattering in one blow the gentleman's agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority; under that agreement, Hamas was to avoid in the near future suicide bombings inside the Green Line, of the kind perpetrated at the Dolphinarium (discotheque in Tel-Aviv)."

Fishman stated flatly that such an agreement did exist, even if neither the Palestinian Authority nor Hamas would admit it in public. "It is a fact," he continued, "that, while the security services did accumulate repeated warnings of planned Hamas terrorist attacks within the Green Line, these did not materialize. That cannot be attributed solely to the Shabak's impressive success in intercepting the suicide bombers and their controllers. Rather, the respective leaderships of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas came to the understanding that it would be better not to play into Israel's hands by mass attacks on its population centers."

In other words, Arafat had managed to convince Hamas to curb its suicide bombers. This understanding was shattered by the assassination of Abu Hunud. "Whoever decided upon the liquidation of Abu Hunud," Fishman continued, "knew in advance that that would be the price. The subject was extensively discussed both by Israel's military echelon and its political one, before it was decided to carry out the liquidation. Now, the security bodies assume that Hamas will embark on a concerted effort to carry out suicide bombings, and preparations are made accordingly."

Phil, Saturday, 15 December 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Well, there we go: that, bnw, is essentially how I've been looking at the situation throughout this thread. Arafat may not have been as strong a check on terrorism as Israel wanted him to be, but he was still a significant check, and circumventing him means there's no one left to make even the most minimal overtures toward peace.

Nitsuh, Saturday, 15 December 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Nitsuh's posts have all been excellent as usual. I've been reading all the papers and I still learn more from this thread than anywhere else.

Tim, Monday, 17 December 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

I should get credit for being the antagonist! Anyway...

Hence the internment analogy: it's not that they've individually done something, just that the entire population is viewed as a threat and suppressed accordingly.

Roadblocks I understand. Demolishing houses, I don't understand that logic at all.

"They receive the same rights" is the most laughable thing I've ever heard in my life. To name one thing: Jewish-Only Settlements.

Well, are we talking Arabs within Israel or within the occupied territories? Jewish-only settlements - I am amazed people will actually move into these places honestly.

In turn, even the most peace-loving Palestinian lives under a similar threat of death-by-reprisal (see that toddler, above), plus a systematic removal of rights, which is precisely what "oppression" means.

I'd argue that "death-by-reprisal" is not near to the degree of the terrorist attacks. Gunning down a busload of civilians is not something you see the Israeli army doing.

They don't want to -- something like 56% of Israelis think it's either a good or a necessary or an unavoidable idea, but it still remains a concession that's being made.

No doubt, its become a more hawkish state under Sharon. Sure would be nice to extract the word "yes" from Arafat's mouth about a year ago when Barak was offering statehood, practically all the settlements, and part of Jerusalem.

bnw, Monday, 17 December 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

it's a rather unpretty argument, and a bit of another "suck it": the subtext is that Jews have historically been so threatened that they now have no qualms about steamrolling anyone who stands in their way. Certainly that's not an admirable thing?

Jews = 0.3% of earth's population. Nobody is getting steamrolled. You are talking Israel and Palestine, not "anyone." I just wanted to clarify that.

Also -- and I tried to make this point when we did the "State of Israel: Classic or Dud" thread, I still don't understand how anyone justifies the necessity of a sovereign state of Israel.

Obviously, it is impossible not to mention the factor of the Holocaust in an discussion about Israel's statehood. The thing that bothered me about your argument in that thread is that you seemed to lambast Israel for being a Jewish state, when clearly there are many Arab nations that are Muslim enforced states. Obviously one doesn't justify the other. But it seems to me that if one is wrong, both are.

Out of curiousity, bnw, how do you feel about the violent seizure of white-owner farms in Zimbabwe?

Honestly, I know next to nothing about it except that it sounded terrifying. A case of the "haves and the have-nots"? I can't even begin to get my head around the tribal violence in Africa.

bnw, Monday, 17 December 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Obviously, it is impossible not to mention the factor of the Holocaust in an discussion about Israel's statehood. The thing that bothered me about your argument in that thread is that you seemed to lambast Israel for being a Jewish state, when clearly there are many Arab nations that are Muslim enforced states.

HUGE difference: my complaint about Israel was that it was created specifically as a homeland for people of a certain ethnic heritage, as dictated by the completely deplorable, imperialist, anti-pluralistic line of thinking that various sorts of people should separate themselves into self-determining "homelands" (even if this means massive dislocation and reduction of self- determination for someone else). This is somewhat different from the people of an existing land adopting Islamic law, which is woefully theocratic but in the end not so different a concept from our own religiously-inflected laws in the US. In those cases Muslims already constitute the dominant portion of a region, whether we like it or not. But to create a nation specifically so that one group can be dominant within it? The subtext is that people have some sort of right to be able to go to a country in which they are a part of the ethnic majority (and that said country should be situated wherever they ethnically "come from," regardless of whether someone else has arrived there in the meantime). We have to reject that logic. To not reject that logic is to doom the very idea of pluralistic societies, and to call for exactly the sort of violence we see in the area right now.

You might recall, in that thread, that I ragged on Liberia for the same reason as Israel. I rejected the idea that Jews deserved as self- determining Israeli homeland for the same reasons I rejected the idea that Germans deserved a self-determining Aryan Fatherland, just like I'd have rejected any suggestion that all of the black people in the 1870's US should have been shipped over to Liberia or given Alabama and Mississippi as their own sovereign nation.

And I think I pointed out, in that thread, that some of this may have to do with personal experience. I do not understand nationalism, because I don't have any nation to be nationalistic about: I'm a "foreigner" no matter where I go. And yet I completely reject the idea that I "deserve" or have a right to anything else; we should all be foreigners.

And while I'm not going to claim that this is what was going through Arafat's head, all of this is why I understand rejecting Palestinian statehood if it's not accompanied by a "right of return" for all of those who were expelled from Israel.

"Out of curiousity, bnw, how do you feel about the violent seizure of white-owner farms in Zimbabwe?"

Honestly, I know next to nothing about it except that it sounded terrifying. A case of the "haves and the have-nots"? I can't even begin to get my head around the tribal violence in Africa.

Not tribal violence -- I asked because it bears on our discussion, insofar as you would sort of have to support land redistribution in Zimbabwe in order to support the existence of Israel. The rationale behind land redistribution is that, well, the land is African land and belongs to Africans, and white ownership of it is the result of violent colonial seizure; thus it's time to give it back. I am rather sympathetic to this logic. I am not as sympathetic to the rather less clear-cut logic of the creation of Israel, where the link goes back a long time, and the creation of a diaspora and the shifting population of the region were due to more natural historical processes, and not a recent, easy-to-identify colonization -- plus the very existence of a diaspora, of millions who had left the region, for centuries upon centuries, and then try to make claims upon it?

At root I am sympathetic to the idea that people need land to live on (see Zimbabwe), but hugely unsympathetic to the idea that people need a land. It's reductive, archaic, racist, stone-age thinking, and I simply can't support it.

Nitsuh, Monday, 17 December 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

"Out of curiousity, bnw, how do you feel about the violent seizure of white-owner farms in Zimbabwe?"

The current situation is hardly cut and dried. My ambivalence is increased by the fact that impoverished black employees get detained, tortured and beaten senseless for working on these farms. Often they have no recourse but to work in such places in order to escape poverty.

The general populace are more concerned with survival than politics. In my experience, the overriding concern is with the increasingly totalitarian regime under President Mugabe.

Inspired somewhat by President Bush, his most recent tactic is to label any opposition party member a "terrorist" and have them dealt with accordingly.

The situation in Zimbabwe is spiralling rapidly out of control, and the forcible repatriation of white-owned farms is only one such example.

Trevor, Monday, 17 December 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Oh, certainly: I didn't mean to imply that it was a simple situation by any stretch. Just comparing the root moral justifications, even if they're not the same as the actual motivations for action.

Nitsuh, Monday, 17 December 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

my complaint about Israel was that it was created specifically as a homeland for people of a certain ethnic heritage, as dictated by the completely deplorable, imperialist, anti-pluralistic line of thinking that various sorts of people should separate themselves into self-determining "homelands" (even if this means massive dislocation and reduction of self- determination for someone else).

The base of your argument I agree with but the world has simply never been a pluralistic place. As with the case of Israel, the question becomes does the threat against the Jewish population justify the creation of Israel? I'd say yes; you'd say no, no degree of threat ever does. The interesting thing to me is wondering what amount of Western anti-Semitism played into creating a state of Israel? How much of it was "we don't want these refugee Jews in our country so let's give them Israel."

bnw, Monday, 17 December 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

7 months pass...
Ask Imaam Imam Sunnah Sunni Deobandi Islaam Islam Kashmir Afghanistan Jihad Jihaad Chechnya Kosovo Awliya Sufiyah Sufi Soofi Sibghatullah Shah Pir Pagaro Sindh Punjab Balauchistan Balochistan Afghanistan Terror Terrorism War Militant Radical Extremist fanatic fundamentalist Sunni movement Special forces soldiers wahabi wahhaabi wahhabi Syedayn Shaheedayn Ambala Deoband Saharanpur Kandhla Thana bhawan Akora Khattak Balakot Hyderabad Karachi lyari MQM Hikayat Hikayaat peace spirit spiritual Waliullah wali saint worship veneration Sajda Ghairullah Ghayr Ghair Kufr Ilhaad Zanadaqah Wahdat ul Wajood Shahood Tassawuf Islaah Tazkiyah Nafs Shaytaan Satan Shaitan Zikr Dhikr Zakir Zaakir Dhaakir Abid Zahid Zuhd Istaghna Sabr "Safhaat min Sabr ul Ulama" Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuda

Afghanistan News Sunnah Sunni Deobandi Islam Islaam Kashmir Afghanistan Jihad Jihaad Chechnya Kosovo Awliya Sufiyah Sufi Soofi Sibghatullah Shah Pir Pagaro Sindh Punjab Balauchistan Balochistan Afghanistan Terror Terrorism War Militant Radical Extremist fanatic fundamentalist Sunni movement Special forces soldiers wahabi wahhaabi wahhabi Syedayn Shaheedayn Ambala Deoband Saharanpur Kandhla Thana bhawan Akora Khattak Balakot Hyderabad Karachi lyari MQM Hikayat Hikayaat peace spirit spiritual Waliullah wali saint worship veneration Sajda Ghairullah Ghayr Ghair Kufr Ilhaad Zanadaqah Wahdat ul Wajood Shahood Tassawuf Islaah Tazkiyah Nafs Shaytaan Satan Shaitan Zikr Dhikr Zakir Zaakir Dhaakir Abid Zahid Zuhd Istaghna Sabr "Safhaat min Sabr ul Ulama" ar-Rasheed trust

Sunnah Deobandi Sunni Islam Islaam Kashmir Afghanistan Jihad Jihaad Chechnya Kosovo Awliya Sufiyah Sufi Soofi Sibghatullah Shah Pir Pagaro Sindh Punjab Balauchistan Balochistan Afghanistan Terror Terrorism War Militant Radical Extremist fanatic fundamentalist Sunni movement Special forces soldiers wahabi wahhaabi wahhabi Syedayn Shaheedayn Ambala Deoband Saharanpur Kandhla Thana bhawan Akora Khattak Balakot Hyderabad Karachi lyari MQM Hikayat Hikayaat peace spirit spiritual Waliullah wali saint worship veneration Sajda Ghairullah Ghayr Ghair Kufr Ilhaad Zanadaqah Wahdat ul Wajood Shahood Tassawuf Islaah Tazkiyah Nafs Shaytaan Satan Shaitan Zikr Dhikr Zakir Zaakir Dhaakir Abid Zahid Zuhd Istaghna Sabr "Safhaat min Sabr ul Ulama"

copy, Sunday, 28 July 2002 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

7 years pass...

Up to 16 killed as Israeli forces storm aid convoy

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/31/2914131.htm?section=world

ᵒ always toasted, never fried (crüt), Monday, 31 May 2010 07:15 (4 years ago) Permalink

Stay classy Israel.

Super Cub, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:16 (4 years ago) Permalink

Ask Imaam Imam Sunnah Sunni Deobandi Islaam Islam Kashmir Afghanistan Jihad Jihaad Chechnya Kosovo Awliya Sufiyah Sufi Soofi Sibghatullah Shah Pir Pagaro Sindh Punjab Balauchistan Balochistan Afghanistan Terror Terrorism War Militant Radical Extremist fanatic fundamentalist Sunni movement Special forces soldiers wahabi wahhaabi wahhabi Syedayn Shaheedayn Ambala Deoband Saharanpur Kandhla Thana bhawan Akora Khattak Balakot Hyderabad Karachi lyari MQM Hikayat Hikayaat peace spirit spiritual Waliullah wali saint worship veneration Sajda Ghairullah Ghayr Ghair Kufr Ilhaad Zanadaqah Wahdat ul Wajood Shahood Tassawuf Islaah Tazkiyah Nafs Shaytaan Satan Shaitan Zikr Dhikr Zakir Zaakir Dhaakir Abid Zahid Zuhd Istaghna Sabr "Safhaat min Sabr ul Ulama" Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuda

Afghanistan News Sunnah Sunni Deobandi Islam Islaam Kashmir Afghanistan Jihad Jihaad Chechnya Kosovo Awliya Sufiyah Sufi Soofi Sibghatullah Shah Pir Pagaro Sindh Punjab Balauchistan Balochistan Afghanistan Terror Terrorism War Militant Radical Extremist fanatic fundamentalist Sunni movement Special forces soldiers wahabi wahhaabi wahhabi Syedayn Shaheedayn Ambala Deoband Saharanpur Kandhla Thana bhawan Akora Khattak Balakot Hyderabad Karachi lyari MQM Hikayat Hikayaat peace spirit spiritual Waliullah wali saint worship veneration Sajda Ghairullah Ghayr Ghair Kufr Ilhaad Zanadaqah Wahdat ul Wajood Shahood Tassawuf Islaah Tazkiyah Nafs Shaytaan Satan Shaitan Zikr Dhikr Zakir Zaakir Dhaakir Abid Zahid Zuhd Istaghna Sabr "Safhaat min Sabr ul Ulama" ar-Rasheed trust

Sunnah Deobandi Sunni Islam Islaam Kashmir Afghanistan Jihad Jihaad Chechnya Kosovo Awliya Sufiyah Sufi Soofi Sibghatullah Shah Pir Pagaro Sindh Punjab Balauchistan Balochistan Afghanistan Terror Terrorism War Militant Radical Extremist fanatic fundamentalist Sunni movement Special forces soldiers wahabi wahhaabi wahhabi Syedayn Shaheedayn Ambala Deoband Saharanpur Kandhla Thana bhawan Akora Khattak Balakot Hyderabad Karachi lyari MQM Hikayat Hikayaat peace spirit spiritual Waliullah wali saint worship veneration Sajda Ghairullah Ghayr Ghair Kufr Ilhaad Zanadaqah Wahdat ul Wajood Shahood Tassawuf Islaah Tazkiyah Nafs Shaytaan Satan Shaitan Zikr Dhikr Zakir Zaakir Dhaakir Abid Zahid Zuhd Istaghna Sabr "Safhaat min Sabr ul Ulama"

sir mountebank (velko), Monday, 31 May 2010 07:19 (4 years ago) Permalink

great point

ksh, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:20 (4 years ago) Permalink

Not to play Captain Defend an Israel, but acc. to the very sparse on details article, the people were killed when they resisted the commandos. If supposedly there were no weapons on board, what exactly were they resisting with? (For all I know, they just resisted by punching the commandos, or sitting peacefully, but that seems kinda unlikely.)

Mordy, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:26 (4 years ago) Permalink

Larger story from Haaretz, including:

"The boats are carrying items that Israel bars from reaching Gaza, like cement and other building materials." -- which is really fucked up that they aren't allowed in Gaza.

but also:

The military said in a statement: "Navy fighters took control of six ships that tried to violate the naval blockade (of the Gaza Strip) ... During the takeover, the soldiers encountered serious physical violence by the protesters, who attacked them with live fire."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/at-least-10-activists-killed-in-israel-navy-clashes-onboard-gaza-aid-flotilla-1.293089

Mordy, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:29 (4 years ago) Permalink

IDF claims they used tools and knives and someone went for a soldier's gun. Protesters claim that they only passively resisted. In any case, 14 protesters were killed in international by the IDF after commandos stormed their flotilla carrying aid to Gaza. Draw your own conclusions.

Super Cub, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:33 (4 years ago) Permalink

Just to preempt, I think the whole Gaza situation is totally fucked up, and that there is a lot more Israel + Egypt could and should be doing for the people living there. Either/both governments should stepped forward to work with any humanitarian mission if they are that concerned about weapon/rocket smuggling. That neither did, and just told the mission that they can't deliver the aid, is super cold hearted and basically evil by way of Hannah Arendt thoughtlessness. That said, if you want to deliver aid to Gaza, and you already know it's likely that Israel will step in and stop you (at least an even shot, some shipments are allowed through, some are halted), don't carry weapons. That a) sets you up for a violent conflict and b) justifies what Israel was complaining about in the first place -- that you're bringing weapons into Gaza -- and totally undermines any humanitarian mission you might have. And if you're going to carry weapons (maybe you need them in case of pirates? idk), don't open fire on the freaking army. How could that possibly end well?

Mordy, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:35 (4 years ago) Permalink

The statement quoted in Haaretz says they were attacked with live fire.

Mordy, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:36 (4 years ago) Permalink

and protestors say they only passively resisted

ᵒ always toasted, never fried (crüt), Monday, 31 May 2010 07:39 (4 years ago) Permalink

NYT:

Channel 10, a private station in Israel, quoted the Israeli Trade Minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, as saying between 14 and 16 people had been killed on one of the flotilla ships. He said on Israeli Army Radio that commandos boarded the ship by sliding down on ropes from a hovering helicopter, and were then struck by passengers with “batons and tools.”

I think you are missing the point of the flotilla. It's not simply a matter of delivering much-needed supplies to Gaza. The point is to violate the Israeli blockade. The point is to draw attention to Israel's policies.

Super Cub, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:41 (4 years ago) Permalink

I guess it's possible commandos killed innocents only passively resisting, and then the army covered up for a bunch of psychos in their army, but sounds very unlikely to me. Israel has a functioning press. I don't think that's the kind of thing the government could get away with. (But I could be wrong!)

Mordy, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:42 (4 years ago) Permalink

Considering it's just "he said she said" at this point and will probably stay that way, history is written by the victors, etc.

Fetchboy, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:43 (4 years ago) Permalink

I guess it's possible commandos killed innocents only passively resisting, and then the army covered up for a bunch of psychos in their army, but sounds very unlikely to me.

Have you no knowledge of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict?

xpost

Super Cub, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:43 (4 years ago) Permalink

If the purpose was to provoke Israel into murdering civilians, then mission accomplished, I guess. It seems like a lot of strategy is provoking Israel to do something horrific and then hoping something changes because of it. Maybe this'll be the catalyst for complete change in the relationship between Israel and Gaza -- or maybe it'll just be another really tragic, morally repulsive moment in the Middle East that does nothing to change the status quo or make life better for the people living in Gaza.

Mordy, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:46 (4 years ago) Permalink

Super Cub, I know plenty about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Do you know how Israeli Press works? Most press in Israeli is very cynical and holds the government to account often. It seems unlikely to me that you could get away with lying about something like this.

Mordy, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:47 (4 years ago) Permalink

Well, Ha'aretz is basically Israel's answer to The Guardian and is normally the go-to paper for a liberal viewpoint. But what they've done is to Xerox a government press release/statement without digging further, which may in itself be a comment on the behaviour of the military.

I eat truffle fries because my captors say they'll kill me if I don't (suzy), Monday, 31 May 2010 07:52 (4 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I don't think the immediate report tonight will be the final story. But if soldiers opened fire on passive resisters, I imagine that'll be in Ha'aretz this week.

Mordy, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:53 (4 years ago) Permalink

Well it only happened a few hours ago, miles out at see - not sure what kind of coverage you're expecting yet

Ismael Klata, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:54 (4 years ago) Permalink

um, sea

Ismael Klata, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:55 (4 years ago) Permalink

If you know a lot about Israel and this conflict, how is it inconceivable to you that the IDF could be covering up a botched operation that resulted in civilian deaths? The last 20 years are riddled with instances of alleged IDF abuses and accusations of cover-ups. It's a mainstay of this conflict.

http://www.shovrimshtika.org/index_e.asp

xpost

Super Cub, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:55 (4 years ago) Permalink

And yeah, this happened like 5 hours ago.

Super Cub, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:56 (4 years ago) Permalink

idk Super Cub. Like I said, I guess it's possible they are lying about there being live fire resistance. Just super short-sighted to lie about something like that imo. There were a lot of people on the flotilla. It's not the kind of thing you can conspire about one way or another. I don't see all of the activists making up a story and sticking to it, and, as that website you just linked points out, it's hard to get soldiers to lie about their roles in a conflict.

Mordy, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:59 (4 years ago) Permalink

tbh, I really hope there was live fire. If Israel killed those people, even if they were wielding batons or whatever, it's going to end up really fucked up. Especially if Raed Salah was a casualty. There could be another Intifada, and if you can't trust the Israeli army to handle the flotilla situation, you definitely don't want them trying to handle rioters and protesters all over the place. Things could get massively screwed up really quickly.

Mordy, Monday, 31 May 2010 08:05 (4 years ago) Permalink

I don't want to debate you on this, so this is the last post I'll make on the subject.

I think you are woefully ignorant of the dynamics of this conflict. It's entirely possible that the IDF was fired upon, but it's ridiculous to say that the IDF wouldn't use grossly disproportionate force and then try to cover it up (or at least try and justify it). That is pretty much the IDF's standard operating procedure when it come to Gaza. That was the basic strategy in the Gaza War.

xpost

Super Cub, Monday, 31 May 2010 08:09 (4 years ago) Permalink

suzy, one of several pieces in today's Haaretz bitterly criticising the Israeli military: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/gaza-flotilla-drives-israel-into-a-sea-of-stupidity-1.292959

Daniel Giraffe, Monday, 31 May 2010 08:12 (4 years ago) Permalink

"(or at least try and justify it)"

I don't disagree with this. But there's obv a huge gap between justifying something and covering it up.

Anyway, you're right. It's not worth debating over. The whole thing just has me sick to my stomach and it's 4:20 here when I should be sleeping instead of reading about this.

Mordy, Monday, 31 May 2010 08:22 (4 years ago) Permalink

Oh, woah. It's 4:20.

Mordy, Monday, 31 May 2010 08:22 (4 years ago) Permalink

this is obviously completely fucked up

mordy otm itt

I think you are missing the point of the flotilla. It's not simply a matter of delivering much-needed supplies to Gaza. The point is to violate the Israeli blockade.

indeed: both israel and egypt said they would be fine with the supplies being landed and conveyed into gaza by truck

history mayne, Monday, 31 May 2010 08:27 (4 years ago) Permalink

I try to stay off these threads because Mordy is constantly defending all manner of inexcusable Israeli atrocities, but I strongly disagree with your defense of his blatant idiocy, and Super Cub is the one who's otm here.

bug holocaust (sleeve), Monday, 31 May 2010 08:50 (4 years ago) Permalink

i think it's too early in the day to call this an 'inexcusable atrocity' but perhaps you have fresh information

history mayne, Monday, 31 May 2010 08:53 (4 years ago) Permalink

up his sleeve

sir mountebank (velko), Monday, 31 May 2010 08:54 (4 years ago) Permalink

where the fuck do you see mordy's 'blatant idiocy' n e way? think you're just throwing down tough words

history mayne, Monday, 31 May 2010 08:54 (4 years ago) Permalink

Sleeve, Mordy brings a worthwhile perspective to these threads! Starting with a refusal to call others idiots for arguing for a different picture of the region.

I eat truffle fries because my captors say they'll kill me if I don't (suzy), Monday, 31 May 2010 09:02 (4 years ago) Permalink

Jews should take advantage of the tumult to claim a second Jewish state in the Crimea. It's not fair that we can only have one Jewish state.

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 13 March 2014 18:51 (4 months ago) Permalink

It goes without saying that the Arabic press is stunningly anti-semitic as well, which goes without saying. Cartoons published in the UK pan-Arabic Al Quds al Arabi recently include:

and

Mordy , Thursday, 13 March 2014 18:52 (4 months ago) Permalink

if it really went without saying obvs i wouldn't have to repeat it so much lol

Mordy , Thursday, 13 March 2014 18:53 (4 months ago) Permalink

By "plenty" I didn't mean a large percentage, just that there have been prominent anti-zionist Jewish voices. I'm thinking more of secular Jews like Tony Judt, who advocated a one-state solution. xps

o. nate, Thursday, 13 March 2014 18:56 (4 months ago) Permalink

Mordy , Thursday, 13 March 2014 18:59 (4 months ago) Permalink

There are enough anti-semities in the BDS movement to make me deeply uncomfortable about it but not enough to tar the whole movement as such. Which I know sounds like watery liberal equivocation but there you go. I think critics of Israeli policy need to be a hell of a lot firmer about distancing themselves from the bigots. The fact that Gilad Atzmon is still cited as one of the good guys makes me think that's not going to happen for a long time.

What is wrong with songs? Absolutely nothing. Songs are great. (DL), Thursday, 13 March 2014 19:01 (4 months ago) Permalink

Yeah, I don't doubt that anti-semitism gives the BDS movement a bit of extra sizzle. It seems to attract a following out of proportion to other human-rights based boycott campaigns.

o. nate, Thursday, 13 March 2014 19:17 (4 months ago) Permalink

xp mordy
I don't doubt it. obv anything on Israel will attract these people, the boycott movement being focused & punitive especially, but people I've met who are involved have all also been involved w/ other political/humanitarian/human rights causes. it seems like it's obviously the audience BDS is courting.

ogmor, Thursday, 13 March 2014 19:20 (4 months ago) Permalink

3 months pass...

ⓢⓗⓘⓣ (am0n), Wednesday, 9 July 2014 16:20 (4 days ago) Permalink

Rolling MENA 2014

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 9 July 2014 16:24 (4 days ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.