Darth Wong's Israel bashing

[C.S.Strowbridge]

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?

Actually, most are willing to pull out of the settlements. Unless you mean pull out of the Middle East all together.

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..

And those terrorists were shut down by the government. AFAIK, Arafat's own party still sponsors terrorism. Or at least finacially aids those that do.

I bet that against this sort of people Ghandhi tactics would work wonderfully(sarcasm)

Right now, Ghandhi's tactics are the only ones that can work. Israel won't stop retaliating for terrorist attacks, nor can they be expected to. Nor should they.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

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

No, if you had read carefully you'd see it was:

Israel = Bad
Palestine = Much worse.

[tharkûn]

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?
Yes Nazi Germany was the second most lethal regime in history, only the USSR in its heyday was more lethal. Like I said Poland ranked number 10. However I thought you advocated that the general civillian population not be held liable for the atrocities committed by a minority of their peers, especially considering that for everyone but the East Prussians they had only ethniticity in common?

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.

Their fault? Hello dumbass most of the Germans were NOT GERMAN CITEZENS. Most were ethnic Germans who lived OUTSIDE of Germany. They neither voted for Hitler nor had the wherewithal to do jack about him. Hell the last time some of these ethnic Germans were under German rule was back before Rome. Between the Polish Corridor (Polish citezenry), the Sudetland (Czechoslavakian citenzry), and ethnic Germans in the former Hapsburg empire ... they had JACK to do with Hitler rising to power or declaring war.

Some one outside, let's call him Hitler, wanted his state where they were lving.

Don't kid yourself, the purge of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe was a bloodbath. It was neither justified nor was it clean. Once the expulsees reached East Germany they endured miserable living conditions (up to and including starvation) and the loving hand of a Soviet occupation.

In contrast the Palestinians have never been killed en masse (in the hundred thousands), they have never been forcibly evicted en masse, and preinfantada they had hellishly better living conditions, even post infantada they likely have it better.

Does this make the treatment of Palestinians irrelevant? No. However it is a banality to suggest that the Palestinians are enduring something worse than any of a number of the more brutal occupations and ethnic purges (i.e. Tibet, Imperial Japan in China, Sudan, Germans in Eastern Europe, etc.).

[HemlockGrey]

...they have never been forcibly evicted en masse

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No, the 400K Pales who upped stakes and left Israel's lands went perfectly willingly...

[Durandal]

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...

Well said.

[Admiral Piett]

"Actually, most are willing to pull out of the settlements."

Sure,and Sharon is the reincarnation of mr Attlee.Ghandi tactics do not work with people like him around.

"And those terrorists were shut down by the government. AFAIK, Arafat's own party still sponsors terrorism. Or at least finacially aids those that do."

Shut down?Not exactly.The british were driven out,a lot of them in body bags, and the palestinians submitted.There was no need of them anymore and thus they dissolved themselves.They were not sent in prison or at least put under trial.

"Right now, Ghandhi's tactics are the only ones that can work."

No they cannot.Sharon is not Attlee.They are not going to stop building settlements etc.

"Nor should they."

Thank you for this show of SS style mentality.Already seen that.Kill x frenchs/italian/whatever for each german soldier.Or applied by the italians themselves in some occasions in the horn of Africa against the terrorist strikes of the natives.I can understand that someone in the heat might approve it (lose a relative to a terrorist strike or retaliation and see).But people who are not involved personally should be able to see that is not exactly a good idea.

[Admiral Piett]

"Their fault? Hello dumbass most of the Germans were NOT GERMAN CITEZENS. Most were ethnic Germans who lived OUTSIDE of Germany. They neither voted for Hitler nor had the wherewithal to do jack about him.
Some one outside, let's call him Hitler, wanted his state where they were lving."

Sure,like the austrians who welcomed Hitler with open arms.Or the ethnic germans in Russia who helped the germans invaders during Barbarossa, and the ethnic germans who lived in northern Italy and were supporters of german occupation.And I might go on.

"It was neither justified nor was it clean."

Never stated that it was justified.It was not.And it was bad.Only that you are forgetting to mention the context.Are you deluding yourself in the fact that all those ethnic germans were rabid anti nazi or have no fault at all? I hope of not.

"Does this make the treatment of Palestinians irrelevant? No. However it is a banality to suggest that the Palestinians are enduring something worse than any of a number of the more brutal occupations and ethnic purges (i.e. Tibet, Imperial Japan in China, Sudan, Germans in Eastern Europe, etc.)."

Or many in the former Yougoslavia,for that matter.
What is your point?

[beyond hope]

It's amazing to me that Jenin, where the IDF was pouring fire into buildings without bothering to identify targets, can be classified as a "defensive" operation. Or the incident more recently where they tried to knock off the suspected head bomb-maker of Hamas by firing two hellfire anti-tank missiles at his BMW on a crowded street. Nice, clean "defensive" mission there.

As far as the "one-sidedness" of the essay, why is it that you can't make even the slightest criticism of Israel's actions in their "defense" without fist having to make a lengthy disclaimer about how you condemn terrorists? Does anyone here actually think Mike Wong was trying to support suicide bombers with that essay? I sure as hell don't. Yes, bombing civilians is an atrocity. Yes, none of the Arab nations in the area have records any better. That does not excuse Israel for the same behavior, especially when they want to wear the white hat and claim that they're just trying to defend themselves. I would be very happy to see the US completely cut off any and all military aid to Israel: it brings us nothing but grief from terrorists and contempt from the rest of the world (except for Tony Blair, who has his face so buried in Bush's ass it would take major surgery to dislodge it.)

[Admiral Piett]

Ah,since you seem concerned by the ethnic germans.
Those living in northern Italy were not happy with being under the italian rule.They started to use terrorism.
No one here however masturbated with dreams of ethnical cleansing.
We fought terrorism (not in a 100% clean way but at least without using tactical bombings) and chose to pursue a political solution, handing them over as much autonomy as it was possible.Now everyone is more or less happy.
Something worth a reflection.

[Admiral Piett]

As it may be seen, the islamic terrorists are not the only good a blowing up buildings.

What is left of the King David Hotel,the british HQ,destroyed in bombing by the Irgun.91 dead,civilians included.

http://www.etzel.org.il/english/photo/kingdvd2.htm

[C.S.Strowbridge]

...they have never been forcibly evicted en masse

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No, the 400K Pales who upped stakes and left Israel's lands went perfectly willingly...

I'd like to point out at this time that more than a million Jews fled Muslim countries. Most of them did so under penalty of law and lost everything in the process.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Could you have formatted this message just a little worse?

"Actually, most are willing to pull out of the settlements."

Sure,and Sharon is the reincarnation of mr Attlee.Ghandi tactics do not work

The Israeli people want to pull out. Politically it may be another story, but Ghandi's tactics could help change that.

"And those terrorists were shut down by the government. AFAIK, Arafat's own party still sponsors terrorism. Or at least finacially aids those that do."

Shut down?Not exactly.The british were driven out,a lot of them in body bags, and the palestinians submitted.There was no need of them anymore and thus they dissolved themselves.They were not sent in prison or at least put under trial.

Even if your description is accurate, it's still better than Arafrat's approach.

"Nor should they."

Thank you for this show of SS style mentality.Already seen that.Kill x frenchs/italian/whatever for each german soldier.Or applied by the italians themselves in some occasions in the horn of Africa against the terrorist strikes of the natives.I can understand that someone in the heat might approve it (lose a relative to a terrorist strike or retaliation and see).But people who are not involved personally should be able to see that is not exactly a good idea.

Wow, you totally misunderstood me there. Isreal isn't killing random Palestinians. They are returning fire, without due concern for civilian casualties. They are doing what they can to eliminate the terrorist leaders and who gives a damn about the Palestinian people.

While that's not good by any stretch of the imagination, it's better than targeting Israeli civilians. Which is what the terrorists are doing.

[Admiral Piett]

"The Israeli people want to pull out. Politically it may be another story, but Ghandi's tactics could help change that."

Like the western pacifists who have gone there have tried,discovering that arguing with a an armored personnel carrier is not so easy as you claim to be.When they start to fire their machine guns at your feet in that typically unnerving way mantaining Ghandi's coolness is somewhat difficult.
Get real, Ghandi methods would only make the job easier for Sharon and his followers.It is easier to bulldoze someone's else home or to confiscate land to build a settlement on it if the worse that can be expected is a sit in.But I guess it is precisely what many here would like.
Ghandi's methods require a lot of scruples on the side of the enemy. Sharon , who according to the official israelian enquiry (the Kahan commission) did not raise a fist to prevent the israelis proxies from slaughtering hundreds of palestinians at Sabra and Chatila,does not fit the picture.

"Even if your description is accurate"

Do a little of research.Note that the most of the stuff above is taken from PRO israelian sites.The funny thing is that one does not need to go beyond isrealians and zionist websites for the most of the material.The picture of the bombed british HQ,for example, is taken from the Irgun website
http://www.etzel.org.il/english/index.html written by the former Irgun "patriot" prof Yehuda Lapidot.

"it's still better than Arafrat's approach."

Elaborate,please.Ah,yes the israelis shut down their terrorist organizations.
Since one (and not the only one) of their former members,Yitzhak Shamir , became prime minister they must not have been too hard at that.Certainly not much harder than the palestinians.

"Wow, you totally misunderstood me there. Isreal isn't killing random Palestinians. They are returning fire, without due concern for civilian casualties."

I suppose that this explain logically why the rate of caualties is so much greater among the palestinians than among the israelis(sarcasm).
Do not you find bit strange that the palestinians,who target specifically civilians, kill far less people than the israelis who supposedly limit themselves to "returning fire"?

[Admiral Piett]

Mind you, I have nothing against a jewish state.But this does not mean that all their policies are good.They often behave and have behaved exactly like the palestinians.

[Nixon]

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.

Do me a favor, don't make a casual inspection of my arguments. Read them, in their entirety, then comment. And point out to me the ad hominem attack, the unsupported claim, the red herring, and the strawman.

And do me another favor, don't take one phrase I uttered and extrapolate an argument. I'm not sure if you understand an argument requires a premise and then a conclusion, and then understand who has the initial burden of proof when accusations are made.

[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

No, if you had read carefully you'd see it was:

Israel = Bad
Palestine = Much worse.

Ok.

Israel = Bad
Palestine = Much worse

therefore

Saying Palestine is bad = OK
Saying Israel is bad = Not OK

[Peregrin Toker]

It's amazing to me that Jenin, where the IDF was pouring fire into buildings without bothering to identify targets, can be classified as a "defensive" operation.

Actually, at Jenin, the Palestinians - quickly after claiming that 1600 people died, examined the place closer and their own review committee reported a death toll of 56, of whom 34 were combatants. No women or children were reported missing.

The Israeli did neither attack Jenin just for the purpose of killing innocent people. Who do they think they are, the Night Lords??

The Palestinian Authority's own documents call Jenin the "suiciders capital." The camp has a long history as a base for extremists, and no less than 28 suicide attacks were launched from this terror nest during the wave of violence that preceded Israel's action.

Palestinian snipers have also been known to target Israeli troops from a school and hide in civilian buildings - such is guerilla warfare.

If YOUR ancestral homeland was constantly attacked by fanatical guerilla warriors, and their primary base was incidentally a refugee camp, what would YOU do??

Source:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf19.html#q1

[Vympel]

Jenin wasn't nearly as bad as initial reports- but as for posting us-israel.org as a source of myths versus facts ...

Look at their references. Nothing but New York Times and Washintong Post.

And I wouldn't pull the ancestral homeland spiel. I can just as easily say how would YOU feel if someone told you to get the fuck off your own land so someone else can live there, because their great-great-great (repeat a few score generations) once lived there, and therefore it's their ancestral homeland?

Palestinian extremists make me sick. However, you wouldn't have Palestinians joining these psycho groups if they hadn't been trodden into the ground for the past 50 years and forced to live in the world's biggest ghetto as second-class citizens with no voice, and Israel's confiscating land/ demolishing houses to make way for settlements, sure as fuck ain't helping the issue.

[Soulman]

As it may be seen, the islamic terrorists are not the only good a blowing up buildings.

What is left of the King David Hotel,the british HQ,destroyed in bombing by the Irgun.91 dead,civilians included.

http://www.etzel.org.il/english/photo/kingdvd2.htm

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/index.htm this details the terrorist attacks carried out before the formation of Isreal, just as bad as anything the Palestinians are doing at the moment.

The whole thing is FUBAR...

[Peregrin Toker]

Jenin wasn't nearly as bad as initial reports- but as for posting us-israel.org as a source of myths versus facts ...

Look at their references. Nothing but New York Times and Washintong Post.

What's wrong with those? I'm an European and I don't know much about American newspapers.

Palestinian extremists make me sick. However, you wouldn't have Palestinians joining these psycho groups if they hadn't been trodden into the ground for the past 50 years and forced to live in the world's biggest ghetto as second-class citizens with no voice, and Israel's confiscating land/ demolishing houses to make way for settlements, sure as fuck ain't helping the issue

1. It is possible that Palestinians are discriminated against in Israel, but it is not because of government decree. In fact, Israel is one of the few places in the Middle East where Arab women have the right to vote. There is only one legal distinction between Arabic and Hebrew citizens of Israel - Arabs are not conscripted into the IDF, although they may volunteer.

2. Israel doesn't bulldoze random homes. The army usually decides to take this drastic measure only after extreme provocation, and to ensure the security of soldiers and civilians. Most of the homes demolished are used as makeshift weapons factories, or cover for snipers. (OK, I object to the demolition of homes just because they were used as cover in guerrila warfare)

3. The Israeli do not deny the Palestinians their homeworld. Go to that homepage I linked to, it has plenty of evidence. And don't discount it just because they disagree with you.

It seems like you are trying to paint a picture of the Israelis as bloodthirsty, subhuman psychopaths who enjoy nothing more than seeing other people suffer and destroy for the sake of destruction. (and don't accuse me of strawman fallacy, it's you who's attacking a strawman caricature of the Israeli)

[Admiral Piett]

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/index.htm this details the terrorist attacks carried out before the formation of Isreal, just as bad as anything the Palestinians are doing at the moment.
The whole thing is FUBAR...

Hanging british soldiers and then mining the area around and booby trapping the bodies with explosive devices....Interesting

[Vympel]

What's wrong with those? I'm an European and I don't know much about American newspapers.

Nothing inherently, it just reveals the amount of research done. Not bloody much.

1. It is possible that Palestinians are discriminated against in Israel, but it is not because of government decree. In fact, Israel is one of the few places in the Middle East where Arab women have the right to vote. There is only one legal distinction between Arabic and Hebrew citizens of Israel - Arabs are not conscripted into the IDF, although they may volunteer.

You must be joking now- from the Arab Human Rights Association based in Nazareth

http://www.arabhra.org/article26/factsheet6.htm- Arab children in Israel
http://www.arabhra.org/article26/factsheet5.htm- Arab women in Israel
http://www.arabhra.org/article26/factsheet4.htm- unrecognized villages
http://www.arabhra.org/article26/factsheet1.htm- forms of discrimination

2. Israel doesn't bulldoze random homes. The army usually decides to take this drastic measure only after extreme provocation, and to ensure the security of soldiers and civilians. Most of the homes demolished are used as makeshift weapons factories, or cover for snipers. (OK, I object to the demolition of homes just because they were used as cover in guerrila warfare)

http://www.arabhra.org/article26/factsheet2.htm- land policy- including seizure

I also meant the confiscation of land for the building of settlements.

3. The Israeli do not deny the Palestinians their homeworld. Go to that homepage I linked to, it has plenty of evidence. And don't discount it just because they disagree with you.

That statement in itself is worth pages of arguments. If you can find any facts on that page, present them.

It seems like you are trying to paint a picture of the Israelis as bloodthirsty, subhuman psychopaths who enjoy nothing more than seeing other people suffer and destroy for the sake of destruction. (and don't accuse me of strawman fallacy, it's you who's attacking a strawman caricature of the Israeli)

Bloodthirsty psychopaths? Excuse me? Where the fuck do you get that? All I'm saying is that the Palestinians have been under military occupation for decades, in poverty and stateless, in limbo. If the land is theirs, why are there settlements all over the West Bank? If the land isn't theirs but Israel's, why are they discriminated against? My 'caricature' of Israel, in the respect of how they treat their non-Jewish population, is entirely accurate. Arguing that it's better than the surrounding countries is also not worth saying- is being better than them a real huge achievement?

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Why can't you use the quote fuction like a normal person?

"The Israeli people want to pull out. Politically it may be another story, but Ghandi's tactics could help change that."

Like the western pacifists who have gone there have tried,discovering that arguing with a an armored personnel carrier is not so easy as you claim to be.

Why argue with a APC? Does it have the right to vote?

Hell, do you even know what Ghandi did? Cause it sure doesn't cound like it.

"it's still better than Arafrat's approach."

Elaborate,please.Ah,yes the israelis shut down their terrorist organizations.
Since one (and not the only one) of their former members,Yitzhak Shamir , became prime minister they must not have been too hard at that.Certainly not much harder than the palestinians.

So you admit they were harder than the Palestinians. Whose leader is also a ex-terrorist. Whose security force consists of mostly ex, or not so ex-terrorists. Whose biggest attack against terrorism is the occational harsly worded letter.

You don't have to be perfect to be better than your opponent.

"Wow, you totally misunderstood me there. Isreal isn't killing random Palestinians. They are returning fire, without due concern for civilian casualties."

I suppose that this explain logically why the rate of caualties is so much greater among the palestinians than among the israelis(sarcasm).

Fuck you, bitch. If you've got a rock and I've got a M-16 of course I'm going to kill more of you than you are of me.

Do not you find bit strange that the palestinians,who target specifically civilians, kill far less people than the israelis who supposedly limit themselves to "returning fire"?

No, cause the Israelis have military weapons and the training to use them. The Palestinians still occasionally blow themselves up trying to get to the target.

Of are you too fucking stupid to take training and equipment into account?

[C.S.Strowbridge]

In other words:

Beating up Palestine = Good
Beating up Israel = Bad

No, if you had read carefully you'd see it was:

Israel = Bad
Palestine = Much worse.

Ok.

Israel = Bad
Palestine = Much worse

therefore

Saying Palestine is bad = OK
Saying Israel is bad = Not OK

Almost.

Cause Palestine is worse than Israel is it more proper to say Palestine = Bad. Not entirely accurate, but more proper.

However, ideally both Israel = Bad and Palestine = Much worse should be stated.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

1. It is possible that Palestinians are discriminated against in Israel, but it is not because of government decree. In fact, Israel is one of the few places in the Middle East where Arab women have the right to vote. There is only one legal distinction between Arabic and Hebrew citizens of Israel - Arabs are not conscripted into the IDF, although they may volunteer.

You must be joking now- from the Arab Human Rights Association based in Nazareth

http://www.arabhra.org/article26/factsheet6.htm- Arab children in Israel
http://www.arabhra.org/article26/factsheet5.htm- Arab women in Israel
http://www.arabhra.org/article26/factsheet4.htm- unrecognized villages
http://www.arabhra.org/article26/factsheet1.htm- forms of discrimination

Now, compare the rights of Arabs within Israel to the rights of Arabs outside Israel. Also, comprare the rights of Arabs within Israel 40 years ago with the rights of Arabs within Israel now.

All I'm saying is that the Palestinians have been under military occupation for decades, in poverty and stateless, in limbo.

And this was true when they were ruled by Egypt and Jordan.

My 'caricature' of Israel, in the respect of how they treat their non-Jewish population, is entirely accurate. Arguing that it's better than the surrounding countries is also not worth saying- is being better than them a real huge achievement?

No, it's not a huge achievement. But the Palestinians aren't doing much to earn improvements. When they were being oppressed by fellow Arabs, they still killed Israelis. When Israel took over, they killed Israelis. Their behavior hasn't changed, their rights haven't changed.