Home | Where does it stand here that the joyous targeted butchering of civilians that is going on now is a legal means of "resisting occupation"?Originally posted by takeo
and now occupation-apologists shut up and learn to read!
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/b86...2560c3005da209!OpenDocument
according to the Geneva-conventions, armed resistance againts occupation is legal.
I'm sure i did read more accurate historic reports on the Middle East and jewish history than you did...
"and then tell me with
a straight face that most of the Arab countries, including the West Bank and Gaza Arabs, are not serious Jew-haters, and don't want to see the destruction of the state of Israel."
Some want it, some are certainly not jew-haters, which i know not only from books but as well from personal experience. Some want the destruction of Israel(because it caused a lot of suffering on the original population) but most would be happy with an own palestinian state next to israel.
"More importantly, tell me with the same straight face how the Islamic Fundamentalist movements and terrorists don't post a clear death threat to Israel, and tell me that it, in fact, it is not the clearly stated goal of many such groups to see the destruction of Isreal and elimination of the Jews - - a Palestinian state is only a mechanism towards this end. "
Some groups indeed have this goal, but NOT arafat nor the Palestinian autority, and most palestinians don't see the palestinian state as a goal to the destruction of israel but as a goal on its own to have a norma life.
"By the way, what have the fellow Arabic countries done for the West Bank and Gaza refugees recently ???? Think Jordan.
Think Lebanon. Do you know what the phrase "opportunity puppets" means - - good, I don't either, I just made it up
(smile) "
jordan has now 70% of her population that are palestinian refugees etnically cleansed from israel. Is this nothing???
Lebanon has 200000 and has suffered hard because of their presence which caused israeli interfearance.
"Back the ever-so serious argument:
I missed your factual analysis refuting the two ultimate scenarios I set forth. "
just search a bit on this forum and you will find, more than once, my factual analysis on scenarios very similar to yours.
"Believe it or not, I wished for a real peace treaty at Oslo."
Well, it's time to change again...
"Believe it or not, I have a non-so special feeling for Sharon
with respect to the Saabra camp incident in Lebanon. "
"But, my friend, Israel is a nation, a soveriegn, just like the United States, with a paramount duty to protect itself."
of course, i won't argue, but israel doesn't have the duty to occupy westbank and Gaza... protecting itself should happen with legal means that will actually stop the attacks, not by creating more hate and ennemies.
"Unfortunately,
it is time to say, enough is enough. This is becoming a slow war of attrition against Isreal. This is a question of Israel's ultimate survival. Isreal - a country for whom millions of Jews died and were tortured and persecuted for, for thousands of years - - beginning a long, long, long time before Islam was even created. "
Zionism was not based upon 1000's of years of Jewish religious presence but is a modern nationalist ideology.
This war is against the occupation and the suffering of the palestinians, it is a war against the injustice done to millions of palestinians. It may have been once a war for the destruction of israel (because the territory claimed by israel was alread inhabited by other people) , but not any more, now most palestinians have settled with the idea of the existance of israel and want the same what the world wants: settlement of the refugee-problem, end of occupation.
"You are offended by my reference to the Nazi's ???
Unfortunately, your response somewhat reveals the extent of your knowledge (or lack thereof) of Middle East and Jewish history.You ever hear of the Grand Mufti ? You've obviously heard of Adolph Hitler. Who traveled to Berlin during WWII and met with the Nazi's and Hitler, and helped convince Hitler to not expel the Jews in Europe to Palestine, but instead gas them, cook them,
and use their skin for lampshades ? Who helped convince the British to turn back Jewish refugees fleeing the ovens in Europe ?
You'll get the daily double if you can correctly answer that. "
Actually Palestinians are not responsible because the Brittish send jewish refugees back, nor were they responsible because hitler wanted a genocide against the Jews. I don't think the visit of the great-mufti did impress Hitler much (in his eyes Arabs and niggers were underhumans too), if you read his speeches since the 40's it's so clear what he had in mind for the jews...
Of course the Moufti hated zionism for obvious reasons (his land being colonised by newcomers) but that doesn't mean he was an anti-semite.
Moreover do YOU know that zionist organisations made a deal with nazi-germany in the 30's so that Jews from Germany and Czech could come to palestine and take their money with them? (it was somewhere on this forum you can search it) this deal was very much criticised by progressive nazi-hating jews all over the world.
"You grossly underestimate the number of Arabs that hate Israel and the Jews, and the West and the United States for that matter. I suggest, for many reasons, you carefully read not only about the history of the Middle East during the 20th century, but also listen to and read broadcasts of mainstream media and propoganda from many Arabic countries. Your mouth will drop open. Your ignorance of the blood lible is actually scary. "
actually i'm sure i know much more Arabs than you do, and none of them has ideas like that, most of them hate that fanatic people who broadcast hate, as you do too on the other side. but the mainstream arab media is not broadcasting hate to jews and the West, for example Al-jazeera is in fact quite moderate and shows as well the suffering of israeli victims, it is more moderate than many israeli newschannels and newspapers.
what happened on 11/9 and in pizza-restaurants was strongly condamned by most palestinian-supporters as well as by most Arabs and Palestinians as well. Arafat was one of the first to condamn both attacks, and he personally gave blood for the victims of 11/9.
"Number 2: try this experiment. Research what they say about Israel and Jews in many mosques in the Middle East. Now compare what is being taught in most Jewish Temples.
Now explain to me how it is that "God" is worshipped and respected so differently. "
i don't know what is taught in both religious places, i know that both religions can and are interpreted in an extreme or moderate way. (some rabbi's are very extremist as well)
"I'm sorry, #2. I wish the world was as safe for Isreal as you apparently think it is. But when the Russian wall came-a-tumbling down, the few sane people in the military and intellensia warned us that the new "enemy" of the millenium will fanatical Islamic terrorists. And, unfortunately, they were right. "
actually i think the new ennemy is american unilateralism and the division between the rich part of the world and the poor part, which is growing every day. (and is responsible for more desperation, war, and refugees from the poor parts of the world, and more hate) fundamentalism is a serious danger for islamic countries, but not for the west and not really for israel. (actually fundamentalism in SA is very profitable for the US, a dictatorship oppressing its people and providing cheap oil all under the barrier of islam, how convenient!!)
most palestinians fighting israel do not fight israel because they are fundamentalist but because they want rights for their own people. only some are fundamentalist. Osama bin laden was a lunatic, but quite isolated and he carried out his attack on 11/9 with little support from the islamic world. such attacks could and did happen as well by lunatic us-born extremists as well.
"And unfortunately, the innocent West Bank and Gaza Arabs are lead and brainwashed with blood libel by, you guessed it, fanatical Islamic terrorists. "
No, hamas-support is less than 20%, many who fiight israel are not even religious (pflp).
"I wished it were different, I truly do. I do hope for democracy and prosperity the Arabs in the region, but Isreal must survive, and, for at least today, a Palestinian state will prove to be nothing more than a Trojan Horse for insane, fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. "
on the contrary, a lack of palestinian rights and a lack of palestinian state will be a constant source of support for fundamentalism and terror against israel. Once people are satisfied and have an own state, they will no longer support terrorists but start building an own life.
"#2: Final point: please articulate how Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Al-Quada- and the rest will stop attacking Israeli citizens if the West Bank and Gaza Arabs are given a state, and please articulate why the resulting Palestinian state will not arm itself with tanks, missles, and fighter jets, and bombers, and use these items for even more devastating terrorist attacks on Israel ??? "
Well, very simple, of course palestine will arm itself against a possible israeli attack, but palestinians know that if they want peace and build up their state (for which they fought so long) they have to provide israel security(now they have nothing to loose, but in case of an independant palestinian state they will have a lot to loose). also palestinians would loose al foreign support if they would use their new state to attack israel.
Also most palestinians are sick and tired of war, i can assure you, now they fight israel because they have nothing to loose, war or ongoing occupation and living on isles of palestinian self-controll that can be sealed off any moment, it doesn't make much difference, but once they have acquired a peacefull state, they will harshly punish anyone trying to endanger that peace and give israel a new excuse for interfearing by attacking israel.
but anyway to make sure 100% the safety of israel would be garanteed, foreign troops can be placed to insure the demilitarisation of the border area.
"And how could you even have a Palestinian airport, from which another misguided Arab could take off in a small plane loaded with explosives and fly into the nearest Israeli hi-rise ? "
well, the pa, in an independant state at least, would have enough means to prevent that.
actually no planes are taking off from egypt or Jordan as well, do they? israel gave back the sinai in a mutual treaty and got peace with egypt in return. the same will happen with palestine
nowhere, of course this is unhuman and illegal,
but resisting the occupation force and responsible politicians is allowed.
"actually i think the new ennemy is american unilateralism and the division between the rich part of the world and the poor part, which is growing every day. (and is responsible for more desperation, war, and refugees from the poor parts of the world, and more hate)"
The biggest income gap between rich and poor in terms of multiples, is in non western countries like Taiwan, Brazil, central Africa. I believe the last copy of the atlas that I have that tracks this puts the US certainly in the top ten. There is at least one EU country there as well but I forget which.
Unilateralism is the response to EU driven-by-committee-PC-homgenized-non-stance-ism. You might hate our opinions but at least we see the world as more than suppliers and customers.
no, on the contrary, the whole american foreign policy is driven by economic interests, own safety and geo-political strongholds.
they don't care ethical concerns as for proliferation of mines, etc. which are questioned by the EU.
I mean the gap between the poor countries and the rich countries. There is certainly a serious gap too in most thirth world countries, but in general these countries are still poor, even when the rich are taken into account. I went to Guatemala and indeed the gap is extreme, which is also a consequence of unlimited capitalism and free market, as well as the growing gap between poor and rich countries.
Globalization is indeed a very complex issue. For every maquilladora that hires Mexican labor at 50% wage premium there is a textile mill that forces pregnant women to work 20 hr days. I doubt that is a uniquely western problem.Originally posted by takeo
no, on the contrary, the whole american foreign policy is driven by economic interests, own safety and geo-political strongholds.
they don't care ethical concerns as for proliferation of mines, etc. which are questioned by the EU.
I mean the gap between the poor countries and the rich countries. There is certainly a serious gap too in most thirth world countries, but in general these countries are still poor, even when the rich are taken into account. I went to Guatemala and indeed the gap is extreme, which is also a consequence of unlimited capitalism and free market, as well as the growing gap between poor and rich countries.
it is not, but it is for sure a problem created by radical capitalism and unlimited free-market and enforced by imf-policy in the 90's.
it doesn't say which territoritories and was worded that way specifically, for the billionth time it is still true that lawyers write words with care for every one and every missing one.
What the IMF typically does is transfer economies to cash-import-export economies. What can happen for example is that subsistance farmers convert to cash farming, which is not always a good thing to do.Originally posted by takeo
it is not, but it is for sure a problem created by radical capitalism and unlimited free-market and enforced by imf-policy in the 90's.
I think (and i'm not alone in this opinion) that the biggest mistake they made was to ask the total opening of the economy, which flooted those poor countries with foreign products and destroyed any local production. Also the total privatisation let to an economy increasingly in foreign hands, but usually WITHOUT a strong increasement in investment or technology (the only possible advantage of foreign companies controlling the economy).
Also less tax-revenues means less to invest in better roads, etc. or in education etc. all important for the economy and general well-being.
"it doesn't say which territoritories and was worded that way specifically, for the billionth time it is still true that lawyers write words with care for every one and every missing one."
for the billionth time "territories gained in the recent conflict" is pretty obvious to me and i guess to any unbiased lawyer!
all occupied territories were gained in 1967, so...
The wording was highly disputed at the time it was signed precisely because it was seen as ambigous.
The gap between the rich and poor countries isn't caused (IMO) because the poor countries are getting poorer. It's because the rich are getting richer.
Are you just giving an explaination for the tension, or are you saying that the rich countries are morally responsible for the position of the poor countries.
Skogan
LoL!!!Originally posted by takeo
it is not, but it is for sure a problem created by radical capitalism and unlimited free-market and enforced by imf-policy in the 90's.
"Radical capitalism and unlimited free market" are supposed to be bad things??
Hey Comrade Takeo, did you tell them yet that you are a real-life Communist party activist? Because I think that would be relevant here...
"Radical capitalism and unlimited free market" are supposed to be bad things??
Yes, that's right (i said radical capitalism and unlimited free-market)
those are the ones responsible for the widening gap and the chronic poverty of poor countries. actually a mix of state-interfearance and free market proove to be the best solution for thirth world-countries as is prooven in Vietnam and China with booming economies(and are the few asian countries not affected by the asian crisis). countries who applied the ultra-liberal imf-programms failed, such as most african nations, most latin-american nations (most spectacular case Argentine, which was a develloped country before) and some asian nations as the philippines, indonesia or Thailand .
it is right by the way that the gap is growing primarily because rich countries are getting richer, but in a world economy the wealth of the rich countries is partly responsible for the poverty of other countries. You know- economic competition, domination of the markets, low prices for basic products, dumping etc.
in a total free market those poor countries have no real chance to devellop because they can never compete against the multinationals and have no money for industrialisation, especially because the us and other rich countries make the rules in the WTO and international economy and allow themselves to have trade barriers while poor countries have no such rights.
It's my impression, though I could be wrong, is that rich countries are responsible for causing more wealth in poor ones, rather then less. They don't have the infrastucture to produce the hi tech goods that we do, so they are not missing any income there. In fact, we allow them to purchase items that wouldn't be on the market but for our existance, and these item make there economies more effiecient.it is right by the way that the gap is growing primarily because rich countries are getting richer, but in a world economy the wealth of the rich countries is partly responsible for the poverty of other countries. You know- economic competition, domination of the markets, low prices for basic products, dumping etc. in a total free market those poor countries have no real chance to devellop because they can never compete against the multinationals and have no money for industrialisation, especially because the us and other rich countries make the rules in the WTO and international economy and allow themselves to have trade barriers while poor countries have no such rights.
Most rich countries don't produce their own low-tech items. They either buy them from the poor countries, or at least produce them there, creating more employement. (Not that these are the best jobs in the world, but they are better then whatever alternative they may have.) This allows benefits poor countries.
Poor countries typically are ones, who for one reason or another, fell behind a few years in production technology. Man has been on the planet a long time, for one country to be within 100 years of the production capability of another is really pretty remarkable, statistically. But imagine how inefficeint the U.S. was 100 years ago. Even a 20 year lag in production muturity means a distinct competitve disadvantage, considering the employment of electronics in modern production.
Beyond that, internal government policies and natural resources matter a great deal. 100 years ago, when all the world was market was agrarian, single family farms, government policies weren't as important. Today, if a dictator spends him money enriching his own coffers, rather then ensure a stable energy supply, the countries economy will suffer.
I don't know much about the WTO, or how it effects the poorer countries, you may have a point there.
But I could be completely wrong on all of that.
Skogan
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks