Darth Wong's Israel bashing

[Sir Sirius]

The Arabs living in the state of Israel that have Israeli identity cards have more freedom and higher standards of living than any Arabs (except certain Royal Families) in any Arab state, They are allowed to vote, they are allowed to form political parties and have fielded candidates for Prime Minister without retribution.

Two wrongs still do not make a right. Israel can't justify it's oppression of the Palestinians with the fact that it's nabours are even worse.

Of course, in Israel the minorities are trying as hard as they can to wipe out as many civilians as possible.

You are now labeling all Palestinians as terrorists.

When Israelis retaliate against terrorists and kill Arab civilians, why do you not also bear in mind that the terrorist used his own family and neighbors as humans shields? Is that acceptable behavior?

No, but that doesn't justify Israels repeated acts of retaliations against civilian targets. Again Israel can't justify it's actions by saying that the terrorists are no better.

The Israelis are supposed to do nothing while Palestinians break into their houses at night (houses, not military bases-- civilian homes) and kill the occupants?

The Israelis are fre to go after those that are quilty of acts of terrorism, but they can NOT justify the oppression of an entire ethnic group with acts of terror comitted by a few of it's members. And Israel is not building colonies in the occupied terretories to combat terrorism now are they.

And then you wonder why Israel 'oppresses' these people? These people are not engaged in protest marches and singing "we will overcome". They are butchering civilians on purpose.

Does "these people" refer to Palestinians or terrorist?
If it refers to Palestinians, then that is an incredibly racist comment.
If it refers to terrorists, Israel still can't justify their apartheid policies with the actions of a few Palestinians.

You know nothng of the state of Israel. There is a sizable Palestinian population in Israel that lives in peace and enjoy a greta many freedoms.

And that is supposed to justify the oppression of rest of the Palestinians?

Would you be surprised ot find that there are a number of Palestinians that do not support the creation of a Palestinian state? They do not like the prospect of living under Arafat's corrupt autarchy of gunmen, thugs, and embezzlers.

And that is supposed to justify the oppression of rest of the Palestinians?

If you want to talk about the unfairness and racism of the Israeli Settler's Movement I'm with you-- the Settlements are wrong and should be removed-- but it sounds to me like you are demonizing the entire nation and people of Israel for the crime of wanting to live.

I'm demonizing the state of Israel (I have nothing agaisnt individual Israeli) for the crime of practicing apartheid policies and oppressing an ethnic minority and for numerous counts of murder as a result of retaliatory strikes against civilian targets.

So the Jews should allow the terrorists to do as they please and grant them free reign? Should the Jews just lie down and die like good little dogs?

No, but the state of Israel also shouldn't oppress the palestinians.

I say this because your comments could be construed that way, no where do you mention the right of Israelis to also live peacefully within secure borders.

I also didn't mention that 1+1=2, that is self evident.
And the right to secure their borders does not give Israel the right to oppress the Palestinians, neither does their right to live in peace.

[Phil Skayhan]

On average about 65% or so of Israelis want to pull out of the territories unilateraly, the number goes up higher if the question on the poll includes that there would also be a peace treaty with the Palestinians as well.

But like the US gov't and some business interests, the Israeli govt is full of people that have strong ties to the Settler's movement-- far, far out of proportion to their population. A lot of radical Orthodox streams believe that there is, indeed, a "Manifest Destiny" that is to be fulfilled and they frequently propose "Transfer" of the population to other Arab states to fulfill this.

And because of the way the Prime Minister must form a coalition of support in the Knesset, I do not currently see a way that the Pro-Settler factions can be marginalized.

Side note: I came across a good ariticle from 1981
http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/articles/halbrook.html

[tharkûn]

While I agreed with much of your post there is a lot of over-reaction by troops on the checkpoints. It goes beyond indignity like being searched or having to lay on the ground while someone frisks you.

Pregnant women have been detailed in labor and miscarriages have resulted, people have been denied access to dialysis and other medical needs; in one case a soldier smashed all of a farmer's watermelons that represented an entire season's income for him and his family.

The checkpoints may have had a legitimate purpose once but they really have become magnets for abuse and harrassment.

I have never once said that the implementation of the checkpoints is not royally screwed nor that the IDF is exercising proper discipline and oversight. However the goal itself is not unreasonable. The IDF needs to begin holding soldiers accountable to a higher standard of discipline and integrity, and I think that is the only realistic action the IDF can take and hope to do anything more than shoot the terrorists and interdict them. This has its problems, but I beleive the benifits FAR outstripe the costs.

//spelling edit

[Marcus]

Okay, weve all seen and heard whats wrong with both sides approaches... what would be the 'right' course of action, either for the Israelis or the Palestinians, as you see it? Mr. Wong? Coyote?

Im willing to assume for this purpose that either side (singly) is able to change its behaviour radically, but not to allow either side to assume good intent or action on the part of the other.

[Darth Wong]

Okay, weve all seen and heard whats wrong with both sides approaches... what would be the 'right' course of action, either for the Israelis or the Palestinians, as you see it? Mr. Wong? Coyote?

Im willing to assume for this purpose that either side (singly) is able to change its behaviour radically, but not to allow either side to assume good intent or action on the part of the other.

Israel must start pulling back its settlements, and must be willing to negotiate real statehood with the Palestinians. I know some will say it's one-sided to say that Israel has to take the first step, but for those who haven't noticed, Israel has all the power. The onus for change is on the party which has the power to effect change.

As for the violence, both sides believe that terrorizing and/or brutalizing the other will prevent more problems than it causes. I don't know if I see a solution to this mindset, as it appears to be widely shared, even among certain members of this board.

[Coyote]

Israel is in a position to negotiate from strength-- the Israelis must pull out the Settlements ASAP and begin Palestinian statehood negotiations based on the 1967 borders-- there will be some minor adjustments for both sides but they can be made to even out.

Both countries must declare their borders and recognize each other's existance, and end any references in any charters declaring intent to destroy the other. They must both round up and imprison terrorists within their own borders.

A fence or other border marker may be necessary for awhile to keep individual radical from getting at each other. Some sort of guaranteed link between the Gaza Strip and West Bank must be arranged as well (the plan that seems most favorable is essentially a raised highway, Interstate-style, with no offramps in Israel).

The Palestinians will have access to sea and air approaches and full rights to offshore minerals or other resources (there is a huge natural gas deposit off the Gaza coast, adn phospates n the Dead Sea). Due to the compact conditions over there, some corridors and joint-sovereignty air space may have to be recognized.

Palestine will have full autonomy, ie, they can make their own trade and other treaties, and have an army. A few Palestinians will return to Israel but most of the refugees will be paid compensation for the land they lost for new homes in Palestine.

A Palestinian state, in my opinion, would not just be another 'microstate', they would have most of the Christian tourist sites (Jericho, Nazareth & Bethlehem) as well as Gaza and Dead Sea beaches. Gaza would be close to the Sinai (tourist spot) and the Suez Canal. They would have a fair shot at an economy. And Israel would have the peaceful and secure borders it seeks...

[Darth Wong]

I'm posting this just to make Coyote's post above become visible (I hope they fix this damned bug in the next release of the board software )

[Vympel]

I managed to find it by running a search on Coyote's latest posts ... most peculiar bug.

[beyond hope]

What an incredibly long-winded pair of posts to say absolutely nothing: it's like Darkstar with an Israeli Apologist mindset. A casual inspection of his arguments revealed the ad hominem attack, the unsupported claim, the red herring, and the strawman. What an incredible rebuttal to Mike's essay.

The name "Nixon" is apt.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Hey CSS, in your Coles Notes version of the history of 20th century Israel, you forgot the part about the Israelis using terrorism to "convince" people to give them statehood. This appears to be why the irony of the Palestinians doing the same thing today escapes you.

Yeah, and the Israelis shut the terrorists down. Eventually. Granted, they could have worked harder at it but they worked harder than the Palestinians have.

As long as people continue to insist that either:

1) "He started it!" therefore it's OK to do whatever I want, or
2) "They're bad people!" therefore it's OK to do whatever I want,

I'm insisting that the Israel has acted better than the Palestinians. Not great or even good, just better. And when it comes to picking sides, that's all it takes. You seem to think that if you can find bad things Israel has done, then the Palestinians are justified.

the killing will continue. And sadly, the mentality that perpetuates the killing is alive and well here too.

Palestinians have had many oppurtunities to stop the killing. It's called accepting a military loss like a man. You don't see Germany demanding the land they lost in WWI and WWII.

It's really amazingly fucking simple. For every Israeli killed, roughly 3 Palestinians are killed in retalitory actions. So logically, the less Israelis you kill, the less Palestinians will die. But this is only a good thing if you care more about the welfare of the Palestinian people than you care about killing Israelis. And frankly, I don't think that's true. The people in power in the Arab world are only still in power cause they can blame their problems on the Jews. Without Jewish - Palestinian attacks they would have to fix domestic problems.

Hmm, a more cynical person might draw parallels to the upcoming US - Iraqi war.

[Admiral Piett]

"It's really amazingly fucking simple. For every Israeli killed, roughly 3 Palestinians are killed in retalitory actions. So logically, the less Israelis you kill, the less Palestinians will die"

Precisely what the nazis hoped to achieve shooting civilians in the european countries in WW2.I hope that you will not be involved in a counterinsurgency
situation with this mindset.

"You don't see Germany demanding the land they lost in WWI and WWII."

Have you considered that maybe, just maybe the fact that they were not oppressed after the war like tha palestinians have been is related to this?
Note also that the punitive conditions set by the Versailles treaties are generally considered one of the main factors which brought popular support to nationalsocialism.

[Darth Wong]

I'm insisting that the Israel has acted better than the Palestinians. Not great or even good, just better. And when it comes to picking sides, that's all it takes. You seem to think that if you can find bad things Israel has done, then the Palestinians are justified.

Strawman. I point out that (as you acknowledge yourself) Israel kills several times more Palestinians than Palestinians kill Israelis. Therefore, a lot of smoke-and-mirrors justifications are required in order to overlook the facts and conclude that Palestinians collectively have more blood on their hands. It's hardly a black/white scenario as you seem to suggest; it's a simple matter of numbers.

[tharkûn]

Have you considered that maybe, just maybe the fact that they were not oppressed after the war like tha palestinians have been is related to this?
Note also that the punitive conditions set by the Versailles treaties are generally considered one of the main factors which brought popular support to nationalsocialism.
After WWII, 15 million Germans were forcibly expelled from Eastern Europe, the majority from Poland and Czechoslavakia. Another 2 million were outright killed. Figures for rape, maiming, robbery, etc. are thought to be higher, but undocumented.

Anything Israel has done to the Palestinians is NOTHING in comparison to what Poland did to the Germans after WWII. There is a reason Poland is the 10th most lethal regime in 20th century history.

[Slartibartfast]

Nice article Nixon.

Unfortunatly, Darth Wong knows his logic is absolutely correct and cannot be flawed, so arguing against him is quite futile. You can concede now, or you can be given a degrading custom title and/or run off the forum.

I assume that's sarcasm because if it is not I feel sorry for folks who believe that anyone is infallible when it comes to a topic like the Middle East where the lines of blurred to the point where no one is right and everyone has unclean hands.

It is sarcasm, because Yogi will go to any lengths to basically say "Mike Wong Sucks", so he'll support any anti-Wong argument thread blindly and say stuff like "Mike Wong thinks he's always right so you'll be flamed and given a custom title, because Mike Wong thinks he's always right." Almost every single Yogi post I've read in any other thread says something like that.

[Admiral Piett]

"After WWII, 15 million Germans were forcibly expelled from Eastern Europe, the majority from Poland and Czechoslavakia. Another 2 million were outright killed. Figures for rape, maiming, robbery, etc. are thought to be higher, but undocumented."

Which is nothing compared to what they did in Russia,Poland etc.
During the siege of Leningrad alone at least 900000 russians died.800000 of them civilians dead by starvation.These are the conservatives estimates,mind you.Funny eh?

After WW2 they were quite well treated,especially in the west part.They were given helps for the reconstruction etc.And they might have realized that it
was their fault after all, while the palestinians had no fault if someone outside decided that they wanted a state where they were living.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

I'm insisting that the Israel has acted better than the Palestinians have. Not great or even good, just better. And when it comes to picking sides, that's all it takes. You seem to think that if you can find bad things Israel has done, then the Palestinians are justified.

Strawman. I point out that (as you acknowledge yourself) Israel kills several times more Palestinians than Palestinians kill Israelis. Therefore, a lot of smoke-and-mirrors justifications

No, no smoke and mirrors required. It's just a matter of who has the bigger guns. The Israelis have the larger capacity to kill, therefore they will kill more with the same force.

are required in order to overlook the facts

Fact: Israelis are not as concerned about not killing innocent civilians as they should be.
Fact: Palestinians target innocent civilians.

Israel wins.

But you rather look at the raw number of dead and conclude, cause Israel kills more, they must be the bad guys.

and conclude that Palestinians collectively have more blood on their hands. It's hardly a black/white scenario as you seem to suggest; it's a simple matter of numbers.

No, it's not just the numbers. It's the actions. If some 15 year old throws stones at soldiers, or soldiers being backed up by fucking tanks, what is that soldier supposed to do?

a.) Nothing
b.) Put down their assault rifle and throw stones back
c.) Return fire

Sometimes they do d.) Use rubber bullets. But that's not always an option. And so what if the kid dies. What do you think he was trying to do? Spread love, peace and joy? No, he was trying to kill Israeli soldiers. And while one person throwing stones might not be able to, dozens or even hundreds can. And if there's one or two with real weapons, not an uncommon situation, they must return fire with deadly force.

Oh, on a side note: Yesterday I heard on the news about a Palestinian girl who was killed by Israeli soldiers. I never heard about what the Palestinians were doing at the time, it was like the Israelis just started shooting. Also, the news report went on to say that more than 1000 Palestinians have dies since the latest uprising begun a couple of years ago. No mention of any dead Israelis. Still think the news is an Israeli Propagation Machine?

[C.S.Strowbridge]

"It's really amazingly fucking simple. For every Israeli killed, roughly 3 Palestinians are killed in retalitory actions. So logically, the less Israelis you kill, the less Palestinians will die"

Precisely what the nazis hoped to achieve shooting civilians in the european countries in WW2.I hope that you will not be involved in a counterinsurgency
situation with this mindset.

Ever hear of Ghandi?

[Admiral Piett]

Ever hear of Ghandi?

Oh please that is laughable.
Ghandi faced a british colonial empire in decline.After WW2 the british were anxious to pull out ASAP.His tactics are workable only against democratic countries or people with many scruples.

To paraphrase
Ever head of the Irgun Zvai Leumi?

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Ever hear of Ghandi?

Oh please that is laughable.
Ghandi faced a british colonial empire in decline.After WW2 the british were anxious to pull out ASAP.His tactics are workable only against democratic countries or people with many scruples.

Gee, and here I thought Israel was democratic. The only one in the Middle East, IIRC.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Okay, weve all seen and heard whats wrong with both sides approaches... what would be the 'right' course of action, either for the Israelis or the Palestinians, as you see it? Mr. Wong? Coyote?

Im willing to assume for this purpose that either side (singly) is able to change its behaviour radically, but not to allow either side to assume good intent or action on the part of the other.

Israel must start pulling back its settlements, and must be willing to negotiate real statehood with the Palestinians. I know some will say it's one-sided to say that Israel has to take the first step, but for those who haven't noticed, Israel has all the power. The onus for change is on the party which has the power to effect change.

The problem I have with that is simple, Israel doesn't have the power to change other Arab nations. And they have a lot of control over the situation. So even if Israel grants Palestine ful independance, then Islamic extremists will use the fully independent Palestine as a staging ground for attacks.

[Admiral Piett]

Gee, and here I thought Israel was democratic. The only one in the Middle East, IIRC.

And they are also anxious to pull out like the british, I bet?
Maybe you do not know but it was the extremist sionist terrorists of the Irgun who pioneered the bomb on buses and concentrated terrorist strikes like those of the 27/2/39..
I bet that against this sort of people Ghandhi tactics would work wonderfully
(sarcasm)

[Slartibartfast]

Its amazing how someone can write whole paragraphs and yet say so little...

It's amazing how someone can write so little and yet say nothing...

[Slartibartfast]

Considering how intent you seem to be on attacking anyone that tries to defend that essay.

Well considering the "return unopened" technique Falcon is used, totally ignoring the other side's arguments and just spewing BS, I'd say it's a concession.

Falcon, concession accepted (you didn't rebut anything, you just said "I'm not going to read it but I'm sure it's all wrong anyway")

[Slartibartfast]

I just didn't like the seemingly one sided stance of the essy, and I don't think Israel is as bad as it was made out to be. You know it is possible to be factually correct and present those facts in a misleading way. The arabian states are not pretty places, they go against the very human rights that Israel is supposedly violating. I don't want us to beat up one side (Israel) to the point that we get something worse.

In other words:

Beating up Palestine = Good
Beating up Israel = Bad

[Vympel]

Will this thread reappear now?