Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Archive through April 08, 2002

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum Archive thru June 2002 » Archive Thru April 2002 » Solution to the Middle East Problem » Archive through April 08, 2002 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Monday, April 8, 2002 - 1:27 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Arj,

"Israel must have a Jewish majority to survive. It is a sovereign state and a member of the UN. It has a right to exist and a right to control its borders. The so-called right of return is just the next step in the long-planned destruction of Israel. It is a population bomb."

Then perhaps Israel should start acting like a law-abiding member of the UN. I suggest you look up UN resolution 194 (which has been affirmed by the UN over 100 times since 1948) and UN resolution 192 which give the refugees the legal right to return. There are 3.7 million refugees as a result of Israeli ethnic cleansing and they have , under international law, the right to return home,

So you do not believe in a modern democratic Israel, you believe in a racist Zionist state. You see the 'ethnic cleansing' of Israel, and that is what it most certainly was, as necessary for Israel's survival. When Milosevic tries this we jump up and down, condemn it as an abomination and send in our troops but when Israel forces vast numbers ofcivilians out of their homeland it is perfectly justifiable. Your statement shows that you see all ordinary Palestinian civilians as the enemy and that Israel has a right to force an innocent civilian (who happens to be Palestinian) out of his home and out of his country to make way for people of his own religious persuasion. This means you believe that Israel has a right to go to war against a civilian population beacuse they are not of the same religious persuasion and do not want a Jewish state.

Every human being on this planet is entitled to citizenship and nationality (except it seems unless you are a Palestinian in which case you are entitled to be neither a Palestinian nor an Israeli).

To say that Palestininans who were born in what is now Israel cannot return is worse than apartheid, at least in South Africa the blacks were allowed to live in South Africa.

You say that Israel must have a Jewish majority to survive. So rather than admit people who were born there and lived for generations, it is then OK to boot them out and never let them back because they are not Jewish. If Israel is to survive it needs to become a democracy, it needs to give equal rights and equal franchise to all and it needs to accept the consequences of democracy. Saying Israel needs a Jewish majority to survive is like saying that 'Greater Serbia needs a Slavic majority to survive' and therefore its OK to force all the people not of the favoured religion into a corner (or better still across your borders if you can) so that they cannot have a say.

In order to survive Israel needs to become a modern, secular democracy. To refuse to accept people who were born there (because they don't want a Jewish state) but accept people from all over the world who are Jewish is blatant discrimination. To have a situation where a State holds that to be of a particular religion entitles you to rights that those of another religion don't have is religious fascism.

Hobgoblin
Arj
Posted on Sunday, April 7, 2002 - 1:46 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Probably. In any case, I've stated no opinion on what's going on this week specifically. And I don't give much weight to the United Nothing and European Socialist Union. Let's not misrepresent what Dubya and Tony said.
_Blackjack
Posted on Sunday, April 7, 2002 - 1:28 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

Maybe you think the American media are dominated by Jews (maybe you don't), but I give it a little more credit in accurate reporting.



I certainly don't believe the media is "dominated by Jews", and I have argued in this forum in the past against various accusations of any monolithic pervasive media bias, other than one towards getting more readers/viewers. However, it has been shown fairly objectively that, until recent months, Palestinian deaths were under-reported in the US media. I don't see that as proof of bias so much as the fact that suicide bombings are more sensational news than extrajudicial executions and human-rights abuses.


Quote:

I refer you to your own argument earlier. Not all Israelis are of one mind, and strategies change.



Indeed, but the killing of Palestinian civilians, at a greater rate than that of Israeli civilians, has remained a constant for decades. Whatever justifications the Israelis may have, that is simply unacceptable.

Simply put, the United Nations, the EU, pretty much every human-rights organization on earth (even those which are rightly very critical of the Palestinian Authority's abuses), and now even the US and UK governments agree that Israel has gone to far in its abuse of the Palestinian people. Do you know something that they don't?
Arj
Posted on Sunday, April 7, 2002 - 12:50 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"Nobody denies that both sides are deeply at fault here, but isn't it reasonable to expect the side which is doing most of the killing to be the one to make most of the concessions toward peace?"

They've made most of the concessions. They need a partner who will accept concessions. And they are desperate for peace. It's easy to call someone a pro-Israel zealot, but come on. The current situation is not ancient history. The causes were reported in the major papers from summer 2000 on. Maybe you think the American media are dominated by Jews (maybe you don't), but I give it a little more credit in accurate reporting.

"Their goal is not peace, it is victory."

I refer you to your own argument earlier. Not all Israelis are of one mind, and strategies change. They play good cop and bad cop and hope something will work. Nothing does because up until now, the Palestinians don't want to make peace with hawks or doves.

"The Israeli government has never given peace a chance. They have never stopped incursions into Palestinian land..."

They sure tried up to 1967, and were making no incursions then. They would have been thrilled to see Egypt and Jordan keep those lands and make peace. But Egypt under Sadat refused to take back Gaza, and let the occupation problem simmer. Jordan wasn't ready to make peace while it controlled the West Bank. And need I remind you of all the Palestinians the Jordanians killed?

As for the 25:1 ratio, I never said I was proud of it. I'd like to see it 0:0.
_Blackjack
Posted on Sunday, April 7, 2002 - 12:25 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

The kill ratio was 25:1 15 years ago. I've seen Palestinians in the news happy it has come down, and planning to get it to 1:1. Such noble goals these guys have. So much better than the Israeli goal for peace.



Um, a 25:1 ratio is nothing to be proud of. If a government were killing 25 of my people for every one of theirs my people killed, I would probably want to even the score a bit too.

The Israeli government has never given peace a chance. They have never stopped incursions into Palestinian land, they have never stopped settlers from bulldozing Palestinan houses, they have never given the Palestinans authority enough to police thier own people, they have never stopped killing Palestinian civilians. Their goal is not peace, it is victory.

If you want to talk about indoctrination and propeganda, I'll simply point out that almost every single pro-Israel zealot I've ever encountered repeated the exact same line of falsehoods about the situation, to the point that I have seen a FAQ adressing each point word-for-word. I can only assume that they were taught these things as children just as you say that Palestinians are taught that Jews are evil.

Nobody denies that both sides are deeply at fault here, but isn't it reasonable to expect the side which is doing most of the killing to be the one to make most of the concessions toward peace?
Arj
Posted on Sunday, April 7, 2002 - 11:31 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

I wish you were right on your silent majority theory. The polls I've seen show otherwise. And plenty of Palestinian parents are all too happy to take the reward money Iraq is paying to the parents of "successful" (read: dead) teenage Palestinian bombers. Those parents should be arrested.

The Palestinian leadership has had the goal of the destruction of Israel since the beginning. Peace was at hand under Rabin, Perez, and Barak. The Palestinian leadership did not want it. Their goal is the destruction of Israel in stages. Get control of the West Bank, do to Israel what they did in Lebanon, destroy Israel with military and economic terrorism, and their population explosion. Like all the other Arab leaders, Arafat is in control. "Dissent" is only tolerated in that world when it suits the leadership's ends.
Arj
Posted on Sunday, April 7, 2002 - 11:17 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

It would certainly be much easier if the Palestinian terrorists wore uniforms. You should suggest that to Mr. Arafat. But if teenage girls are being used to blow up Israeli civilians, the Palestinian civilian death toll will unfortunately be higher than it should be.

As for the news and commentary crack, I trust Mr. Krauthammer's facts and have seen them in other news articles. You're going to have to do your own research on that.

The kill ratio was 25:1 15 years ago. I've seen Palestinians in the news happy it has come down, and planning to get it to 1:1. Such noble goals these guys have. So much better than the Israeli goal for peace.

And come off it with this nation-state authority nonsense. Israel is more like a city under siege in an Arab nation. The whole population of Israel is about equal to that of Chicago. The Arabs have what, about 170 million people? The Israelis are a little people fighting for survival.

"Your point about Jews who left Arab countries for Israel ignores the major point that these Jews left of their own free will. They were not expelled by force."

Conditions were so bad in most countries that it essentially was by force. That's like saying the Jews who left Germany in the 1930s weren't expelled because Hitler didn't physically throw them out. And most of the Palestinians who left did so at the invitation of the armies of the Arab nations who told them they would be able to return soon. This is not to say that some villages were not forced out, but that wasn't the fact for the majority of people who left.
_Blackjack
Posted on Sunday, April 7, 2002 - 11:11 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

Hob, the Palestinians want to destroy Israel and they always have.



If you cannot see the flaw in this statement, there isn't much to talk about. The Palestinian people are no more of a single mind than the Israeli people. Remember, there are entire IDF units refusing to serve in the West Bank because they do not agree with the tactics the government is using. Isn't it also possible that the Palestinian people might not all agree with the suicide bombers? Or that some may have changed their mind over the years, might have grown so tired of seeing their children die that they would be willing to make peace, even if it meant giving up the bulk of their homeland, if they were given the opportunity, and not held responsible for the actions of the radical elements? These are human beings.
_Blackjack
Posted on Sunday, April 7, 2002 - 11:06 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

They will kill some terrorists, show that they are not going to just lay down and die, and perhaps force the great powers to step in and force a settlement.



Except all it is going to do is increase Palestinian animosity, and kill a huge number of innocent people for every terrorist who dies. One quarter of the Palestnian casualties are CHILDREN for fuck's sake! The entire people are not one big terrorist network! What Sharon is doing is only going to make things worse, and he knows it. Just like the suicide bomber knew thier actions would provoke the Israelis. The extremists on both sides want war, but the problem is, the extremists in Israel are IN CHARGE, while pretty much NOBODY is in charge of the palestinians at this point...
_Blackjack
Posted on Sunday, April 7, 2002 - 10:58 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Arj,

You do recognize the difference between news and commentary, don't you?

Are their Palestinians with raging hatred for Israelis? Fuck yeah. And there are Israelis with raging hatred of Palestinians. Neither represents the majority. However, the difference lies in that the Israelis have the authority of a nation-state, and the power of a sophisticated military infrastructure, with which to enforce their will, so what hatred exists is made manifest in reality with much greater efficency.

I am going to ignore all arguments of who started what and whose claims are more legitimate, and instead focus on one factor: the kill ratio. No matter who is filled with more hatred, the simple fact is that the Israelis are kiling 3 times as many Palestinians as the Palestinians are killing Israelis. They are killing 3.5 as many civilians, and 4 times as many children. That cannot be justified. Self-defense does not nullify the rights of an entire people, nor does it entitle one to use more force than is necessary. If we killed 10,000 Afghan civilians in retaliation for 9/11, that would be wrong, wouldn't it?

If the Israelis want the violence to stop, they need to do everything in their power to stop killing innocent people. They are not doing this. In fact, they are deliberately INCREASING civilian deaths by preventing people from getting medical care, arresting Red Cross and Red Crecent workers, and, in many cases, shooting at ambulances.

The Palestinians also have to stop killing civilians. There is no question of that in my mind. They world community will not rally behind them until that happens. But a well-armed nation-state must be held to a different standard of behavior than a disposessed, disenfranchised people.

Your point about Jews who left Arab countries for Israel ignores the major point that these Jews left of their own free will. They were not expelled by force.
Arj
Posted on Sunday, April 7, 2002 - 10:44 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Ditto here. Which do you like, Oxy, Goldstar or Maccabee?
Oxygenee
Posted on Sunday, April 7, 2002 - 10:31 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Hobgoblin:

Your posts upset me. But I've said my piece, and its over. When I'm next in London I'll look you up, and we can continue the discussion over a nice kosher beer.
Arj
Posted on Sunday, April 7, 2002 - 10:15 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"How exactly can the Palestinians move on?"

Make an offer for peace. When Barak did so, Arafat made no counter-offer. He just went home and started the second intifada. Or, move to Jordan, a part of Palestine that is larger than Israel and has a Palestinian majority and Palestinian queen.

"Israel will not let these refugees return to what is now Israel (by what right does Israel refuse this?)"

Israel must have a Jewish majority to survive. It is a sovereign state and a member of the UN. It has a right to exist and a right to control its borders. The so-called right of return is just the next step in the long-planned destruction of Israel. It is a population bomb.

"If you force people into a corner with nowhere to go they'll come out fighting, they have no other option."

Tell that to Gandhi. And they, and their Arab brothers, forced themselves into a corner. They are their own worst enemies, and are becoming the worst enemies of the Jews, Christians, and Hindus.

"As for Sharon invading the West bank, what will that achieve for Israel?"

They will kill some terrorists, show that they are not going to just lay down and die, and perhaps force the great powers to step in and force a settlement.

"They occupied all the Palestinian territories in 1967 and what good did that do them?"

They also occupied Sinai, and used it as a bargaining chip for peace with Egypt. That's the idea here.

"The problem is not the existence of 'terrorists' but the existence of the conditions that give rise to 'terrorism'. Israel should pull out of the West Bank unconditionally."

Hob, the Palestinians want to destroy Israel and they always have. It isn't conditions that make them act in this way, it is their deeply held goal that has only grown stronger since Oslo.
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Sunday, April 7, 2002 - 10:09 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Oxygenee,

And of course I see no condemnation from you concerning Sharon's role in Sabra and Shatilla massacres. Does the fact that you don't find space for even a proforma condemnation mean you believe the atrocities that took place there were justified? What happened there was a crime against humanity, the West just closed its eyes and nobody has ever been brought to account for it. And yes helicopter gunships are now firing into densely populated civilian areas of Jenin (the source of this propaganda is that dangerous, radical Islamic, pro-Palestinian organisation otherwise known as the BBC).

And yes Arafat has accepted Israel's right to exist and progress towards peaceful coexistence was being made with his negotiations with Rabin until Rabin was murdered by right-wing Israelis.

Arafat can do nothing without the Peace Process, without it he is in no position whatsoever to control the extremists in his camp. Without the Peace Process he has nothing to offer the Palestinians, without it he can do nothing. Without it they see him as a collaborator. Rabin realised this (so did President Clinton), now you have Sharon whose only route forward is all out war (which didn't solve the problem in the past and it wont solve the problem today).

There is nothing anti-semitic in anything I've posted. So just for the record I CONDEMN EQUALLY THE KILLING OF ALL CIVILIANS IN ISRAEL/PALESTINE WHETHER THE KILLING IS CARRIED OUT BY A PALESTINIAN OR AN ISRAELI. Every human being living in that part of the world deserves to be treated as an equal, with equal rights.

Anyway Oxygenee, nothing personal, I've never had any reason to have anything against you before and I still don't.

Hobgoblin
Oxygenee
Posted on Sunday, April 7, 2002 - 9:40 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Hobgoblin

Here are a selection of quotes from your recent posts:

Concerning Sharon, and Israel:

"Israeli helicopter gunships fire indisciminately into heavily populated civilian areas..."
"they'll really step up the slaughter of Palestinian civilians..."
"What sickens me most of all is that we lend our support to a man responsible for the hideous slaughter and torture of innocent civilians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shaltilla in 1982.

Regarding Arafat and the Palestinians:

"Anyway Arafat has accepted Israel's right to exist, he has said as much and was negotiating a way forward until Sharon decided he would have none of it..."
"Arafat is the holder of a Nobel Peace Prize, he just wants a viable State for his people.

Your first statement about Arafat above is one of the breathtakingly absurd statements about the Middle East I've ever read. And of course, quite predictably, you don't find space for even a proforma condemnation of the dozens of murderous suicide bombings, condoned if not expressely authorised by Arafat, which quite deliberately target the young and innocent, and which are the direct cause of the current invasions, and also the reason the far-right and previously unelectable Sharon is in power in the first place, and supported by much of the previously active "peace movement" in Israel.

I've never posted on a non-absinthe thread before, but I suppose as a Jew who has spent some time in Israel, I found your posts profoundly upsetting.

And by the way, contrary to your glib assumption, much of what Mugabe has to say about the land issue in Zimbabwe is quite correct. The profound inequalities in land distribution even 15 years after independence, and the incorrigable racism of the few remaining white British expatriates, dwarf anything I've ever seen in South Africa, even at its worst. Of course Mugabe is now, notwithstanding this, a brutal dictator, but this would pass unremarked by your tabloid press, were the victims of his brutality not white and of British descent.

Anyway, neither of us are going to convince the other, are we - and I should probably stick to posting on old Pernod Fils, about which I also have strong opinions....
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Sunday, April 7, 2002 - 9:37 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Arj,

Yes the Israelis did take in their brothers and took more and more and more land from Palestinian people to accomodate them. And we armed them, supported them and encouraged them. And the people whose land was taken were forced out and into the refugee camps.

How exactly can the Palestinians move on?

They have had their land confiscated and have been forced to live in refugee camps. Israel will not let these refugees return to what is now Israel (by what right does Israel refuse this?), nor will they let these disposessed people govern themselves in tiny remnants of what was once their homeland. Are they just to accept the status quo? Just to accept living as a stateless, disenfranchised people under the control of those that made them stateless.

So you tell me Arj, how can the Palestinians move forward?

If you force people into a corner with nowhere to go they'll come out fighting, they have no other option.

As for Sharon invading the West bank, what will that achieve for Israel? Send in the tanks, cause merry hell, trash the place. They occupied all the Palestinian territories in 1967 and what good did that do them? Did it wipe out terrorism? No. Under Sharon has there been an increase or derease in Palestinian attacks? A big increase. Is this just a coincidence? Israel should pull out of the West bank unconditionally. The problem is not the existence of 'terrorists' but the existence of the conditions that give rise to 'terrorism'. Israel should pull out of the West Bank unconditionally.

The only way forward is for 2 independant sovereign states to exist, Israel and Palestine and for the Israelis to accept that refugees have the right to return. Let the Palestinians have their own viable state and let Israel be the first to welcome it and set up diplomatic relations with it and let Israel accept back, as equal citizens, those Palestinians refugees who want to return.

Hobgoblin
Arj
Posted on Sunday, April 7, 2002 - 9:23 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Blackjack, Here's a cite.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

March 30, 2002 Saturday SOONER EDITION

HEADLINE: ANTI-JEWISH PROPAGANDA AND HATRED ARE AT THE HEART OF PALESTINIAN ACTIONS

DATELINE: WASHINGTON

BODY:
Sept. 11 awakened Americans to the anti-American vitriol in the state-controlled media of such apparently friendly states as Egypt and Saudi
Arabia. We are just beginning to understand how a daily diet of hatred fed through schools and the media -- a hatred quietly incubating for years -- found its most perfect expression in the slaughter of Sept. 11.

We have failed, however, to see how a similar campaign of hate has laid the groundwork for the orgy of murder-suicide the Palestinians are now engaged in. A mother appears on videotape proudly sending her 18-year-old to his death just so
he can kill as many Jews as possible. This is unprecedented. Before the Oslo peace accords of 1993, suicide bombing was a practice almost unheard of among Palestinians.

And it is not as if they had no grievances before 1993. On the contrary. The advent of suicide bombing coincides precisely with the era of Israeli conciliation and peacemaking: recognition of the PLO, repeated concessions of
territory, establishment of the Palestinian Authority, acceptance of an armed Palestinian police -- all culminating in the unprecedented offer of an independent Palestinian state with its capital in a shared Jerusalem. It is precisely in the context of the most accommodating, most conciliatory, most dovish Israeli policy in history that the suicide bombings took hold.

Where then did they come from? During the last eight years -- the years of the Oslo "peace process" -- Yasser Arafat had complete control of all the organs of Palestinian education and propaganda. It takes an unspeakable hatred for
people to send their children to commit Columbine-like murder-suicide. Arafat taught it. His television, his newspapers, his clerics have inculcated an anti-Semitism unmatched in virulence since Nazi Germany.

When U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross stepped down last year, he acknowledged, to his credit, that a major error of diplomacy in the Clinton
years was turning a diplomatic blind eye to the poisonous incitement in Palestinian media. Just as Osama bin Laden spent the ' 90s indoctrinating and infiltrating in preparation for murder, Arafat raised an entire generation schooled in hatred of the "Judeo-Nazis."

This indoctrination goes far beyond expunging Israel, literally, from Palestinian maps. It goes far beyond denying, indeed ridiculing, the Holocaust as a Jewish fantasy. It consists of the rawest incitement to murder, as in this sermon by Arafat-appointed and Arafat-funded Ahmad Abu Halabiya broadcast live
on official Palestinian Authority television early in the Intifada. The subject is "the Jews." (Note: not the Israelis, but the Jews.) "They must be butchered and killed, as Allah the Almighty said: 'Fight them: Allah will torture them at your hands.' ... Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any
country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them."

The rationale offered for such murderousness is Jewish villainy as taught not just in Palestine, but throughout the Arab world. On March 10, for example, an article in the official Saudi newspaper al-Riyadh described in rich
detail how the Jews ritually slaughter Christian and Muslim children to use their blood in their holiday foods. With almost comic pseudo-scholarship, it explained that for one holiday (Purim) the Jew must kill an adolescent, but for
Passover the victim must be 10 years old or younger.

When the article achieved wide notoriety in translation, the editor apologized under pressure. He said he had been out of town when the article appeared. An odd excuse, given the fact that this elaborate blood libel ran as a
two-part series.

A precondition for peace is to prepare your people for peace. Egypt's Anwar Sadat did that after signing his peace treaty with Israel. The Israelis did that after signing Oslo. They changed their textbooks and altered their civic
culture to recognize and accept the Palestinians. On the 50th anniversary of Israel's independence, for example, Israel Television aired an epic
multipart historical documentary that offered a view of the Palestinians that was deeply sympathetic and understanding.

While Israeli leaders, both political and intellectual, were preparing their people for peace, Arafat was preparing his people for war -- the war he unleashed two months after rejecting Israel's Camp David peace offer of July
2000 -- with an unrelenting campaign of anti-Semitic vilification carried out by every organ of his media. And how he has succeeded. When Arafat's state-controlled media glorify a "martyrdom operation," it is not just a
commendation of the murderer, it is a vindication of their own pedagogy. We now see its fruits in the streets of Jerusalem, where the blood from the latest suicide bombing graces the third floors of surrounding buildings.
Arj
Posted on Sunday, April 7, 2002 - 8:39 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

The Jews living in the Arab countries lost as much property to the Arabs as the "Palestinian" Arabs did to the Israelis. You harbor the incorrect view that all Israelis are white refugees from Europe. Many came from the Arab world and had their property taken as well. There was a de facto population exchange. The difference is the Israelis took in their brothers and the Arabs did not. The Israelis aren't crying for all the property they lost in Iraq, Yemen, etc. Yet the Palestinians still want everything they lost. War isn't pretty. What happened throughout the region was injust to many Jews and Arabs. But at some point people have to move on. This reminds me of the decendants of slaves in my country who are still trying to get reparations for slavery. At some point, one has to move on. Every people at some point in history was dealt an injustice by another. It sucks, but I'm not going to sue or attack the Czar's successors for my family's losses.

Both peoples have some valid claims to that land. That is the problem. But the current conditions the Palestinians are living under was just as much caused by the Arabs as by the Israelis, probably more so. There was never a Palestinian state. So they lose some land about the size of a small U.S. county, and suddenly claim a national identity within that county. Ridiculous. It was a small area of the Ottoman Empire with no identity apart from Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. They are Arabs.

The indians are now reclaiming a large portion of a county in my state, based on some old treaties and with a huge war-chest attained through their new casino. So do the displaced Americans (non-indians) now claim a national identity? No, they are Americans and move to other parts of America. The same should have happened with the Arabs. But they shoved those people into refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank to keep the problems simmering. They take in Palestinians into their countries, but deny them citizenship. So much for really caring about their brothers. The "Palestinians" have been a tool for the Arab nations for a long time.

As for Sharon wanting to drive the "Palestinians" out, the Palestinians had control over the West Bank and Gaza up to 1967. The Israelis (including Sharon) didn't try to take that land pre-1967, and the Palestinians sure didn't establish an independent country at that time. The current claims for an independent nation there is just spin.
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Sunday, April 7, 2002 - 7:18 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Oxygenee,

That is not what I have said and you know it. I don't unconditionally support the Palestinian administration (whose civil rights record is nothing to boast about), I never unconditionally support any organisation. I have not spoken against Jews or indeed Israelis but Israel does not however have any right to invade the West bank and wage war on the civilian population there. You are correct however in my view of Sharon as a facist butcher, his record speaks for itself here.

I have no problem with Jews but I do not believe (as you appear to) that the Jews had a perfect right to confiscate Palestinian owned land, give it to their own people and make the Palestinians homeless. No doubt you are consistant in your view here and support Mugabe's confiscation of White owned farmland in Zimbabwe and that his men are justified in killing anyone who resists.

And actually the Arab nations were on friendly terms with the West before the creation of the state of Israel. You talk about democracy as if Israel is a democracy, I suppose it is so long as you're not of Palestinian origin, an apartheid state is not a democracy.

So Oxygenee you try to portray me as anti-semitic because I rigourously condemn Sharon's actions (no doubt Ami Ayalon, head of Shi Beth until May 2000, is also anti-semitic). So by your logic all who do not support Israel's actions in the West Bank and Zionism in general are anti-Semites. That's bollocks and you know it.

Sharon doesn't want peace with the Palestinians. Sharon will never view Palestinians as equals, even those that live within his own country. He's a facist who'd dearly love to drive every Palestinian out of his homeland forever.

Hobgoblin
Oxygenee
Posted on Sunday, April 7, 2002 - 12:51 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

OK Hobgoblin, we understand.

Having objectively studied the situation, you unconditionally support the saintly, peaceloving, humanistic, kindly, trustworthy, democratic Palestinian administration in its heroic and principled struggle with the evil, murdering, butchering, babies-blood-drinking Jewish populace of the illegal, illigitimate Israeli state, in excess of 70% who now inexplicably support the murderous nazi butcher Sharon.

And the rest of the democratic, free-press loving, human rights orientated Muslim world. would be faithful friends of the West, were in not for the USA's ridiculous and wicked support for the damn Jews, who, as any sane person knows, have not the slightest historical or moral right to be in the Middle East in the first place.
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Sunday, April 7, 2002 - 12:10 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

The Saudi's are our friends and we are on half-decent terms with Jordan and Egypt. The Arabs (and Muslims) are not our natural enemies. Why do a fair few of them hate us? Because of our support for Israel (despite what she does). These people do not have to be our enemies, most of them don't want to be our enemies.

Israel was of some strategic importance (much over-rated I'd say) during the Cold War. These days the West has much more to lose than gain from its blind support of Israel.

Are we really to give the message to Sharon to do what he likes to the refugee camps in the West Bank and we'll stand by you (just as we did at Sabra and Shatilla)? What message will this send out to the entire Muslim world? How will this make the West's great 'war on terrorism' look? How much support and co-operation from the Muslim world will there be for it as a result?

Hobgoblin
Head_Prosthesis
Posted on Saturday, April 6, 2002 - 4:08 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

YELLAH YELLAH YELLAH
YELLAH YELLAH YELLAH
YELLAH YELLAH YELLAH
YELLAH YELLAH YELLAH!!!
Perruche_Verte
Posted on Saturday, April 6, 2002 - 4:05 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

That old thing has got to go.

Bury your car.

And what about our other good old friend in the region -- the ultra-fundamentalist Wahabi Islam-preaching, Jihad-funding, Ottoman mosque-whitewashing, veil-enforcing capital of illiterate, barefoot & pregnant womanhood: Saudi Arabia?

What are they, chopped pork liver?

The enemies of our friends are not our enemies, or something like that.
Mr_Rabid
Posted on Saturday, April 6, 2002 - 3:33 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Well what the fuck else are we going to do? We have no friends over there, and that matters a great deal because of that little oil-dependency thing.
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Saturday, April 6, 2002 - 8:41 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

So as Israeli helicopter gunships fire indisciminately into heavily populated civilian areas of Jenin as we speak, a town which has been cut off from water of electricity for 4 days, where the International Red Cross have described the situation there as "Catastrophic", are we really to believe that this is part of a selective and targetted search from individual suicide bombers?

At least when Colin Powell gets there on Wednesday the Israelis will have to pull out, but you can be sure that between now and then they'll really step up the slaughter of Palestinian civilians. Is the West yet again going to turn a blind eye to what has been done by Israel and continue backing her? I really hope not, but I think I'm hoping in vain.

Hobgoblin

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page