Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Israel, when it conquered the occupied territories in 1967, could have established a sovereign Palestinian state. This would have made the Palestinians, not a subject people at the mercy of their conqueror, but an independent people, responsible for their own acts and for keeping the peace with other sovereign states. Had the Palestinians then attacked Israel, Israel would have had the right to respond in self-defense.
But Israel didn't do that. Instead, it kept the Palestinians at its mercy, and its mercy didn't materialize. Israel embarked on a settlement policy that amounted to a declaration of war on a helpless population. The settlements were part of a project to take the Palestinians' land, all of it, for the use and enjoyment of the Jewish people. Of course Israel did not explicitly say it was going to take from the Palestinians the very ground on which they stood. But the settlements kept spreading, mopping up an increasing share of vital resources, and behind them was a settler movement, hugely powerful not only in the occupied territories but in Israel itself. This bunch of coddled fanatics, many of them American, quite openly proclaimed their determination to secure the whole of Biblical Israel for exclusively Jewish use. The Israeli government backed these racial warriors with unlimited military protection and extensive financial support.
These trends continue to the present day. Sure, Israel got the settlers out of Gaza, and I'm convinced that even Ariel Sharon, not to mention his successors, truly desired to resolve the conflict by withdrawing from the occupied territories and allowing something like a Palestinian state. But my convictions have no weight against what any reasonable Palestinian, or any reasonable human being, has to conclude: that given the continued strength of the settler movement, the continued popularity of the Israeli right, the continued military protection of the West Bank settlements, their continued expansion, and the Israeli government's all-too-obvious readiness to fight for whatever is politically popular to the last drop of Palestinian blood... given all this, the Palestinians are still faced with a mortal threat. They are still faced with a sovereign whose intentions, if not entirely clear, clearly countenance alternatives leading to an extreme humanitarian disaster for the Palestinians, and perhaps to the entire expropriation of most Palestinians' necessities of life.
This means that Israel is the aggressor in this conflict, and the Palestinians fight in self-defense. Under these circumstances, Israel's right of self-defense cannot justify Israeli violence. Israel is certainly entitled to protect its citizens by evacuation and other non-violent measures, but it is not entitled to harm a hair on the head of a Palestinian firing rockets into Israeli cities, whether or not these rockets kill innocent civilians.
http://www.trentu.ca/globalpolitics/doc ... eumann.pdf
bks wrote:Percival, Israel has no right to violent self defense so long as it is in violation of UN Resolution 242, and so long as it violates international law by imprisoning Gaza. It is the Gazans that possess a right to self-defense. That's what you are missing.
Once you understand this, the situation becomes a great deal more clear.Israel, when it conquered the occupied territories in 1967, could have established a sovereign Palestinian state. This would have made the Palestinians, not a subject people at the mercy of their conqueror, but an independent people, responsible for their own acts and for keeping the peace with other sovereign states. Had the Palestinians then attacked Israel, Israel would have had the right to respond in self-defense.
But Israel didn't do that. Instead, it kept the Palestinians at its mercy, and its mercy didn't materialize. Israel embarked on a settlement policy that amounted to a declaration of war on a helpless population. The settlements were part of a project to take the Palestinians' land, all of it, for the use and enjoyment of the Jewish people. Of course Israel did not explicitly say it was going to take from the Palestinians the very ground on which they stood. But the settlements kept spreading, mopping up an increasing share of vital resources, and behind them was a settler movement, hugely powerful not only in the occupied territories but in Israel itself. This bunch of coddled fanatics, many of them American, quite openly proclaimed their determination to secure the whole of Biblical Israel for exclusively Jewish use. The Israeli government backed these racial warriors with unlimited military protection and extensive financial support.
These trends continue to the present day. Sure, Israel got the settlers out of Gaza, and I'm convinced that even Ariel Sharon, not to mention his successors, truly desired to resolve the conflict by withdrawing from the occupied territories and allowing something like a Palestinian state. But my convictions have no weight against what any reasonable Palestinian, or any reasonable human being, has to conclude: that given the continued strength of the settler movement, the continued popularity of the Israeli right, the continued military protection of the West Bank settlements, their continued expansion, and the Israeli government's all-too-obvious readiness to fight for whatever is politically popular to the last drop of Palestinian blood... given all this, the Palestinians are still faced with a mortal threat. They are still faced with a sovereign whose intentions, if not entirely clear, clearly countenance alternatives leading to an extreme humanitarian disaster for the Palestinians, and perhaps to the entire expropriation of most Palestinians' necessities of life.
This means that Israel is the aggressor in this conflict, and the Palestinians fight in self-defense. Under these circumstances, Israel's right of self-defense cannot justify Israeli violence. Israel is certainly entitled to protect its citizens by evacuation and other non-violent measures, but it is not entitled to harm a hair on the head of a Palestinian firing rockets into Israeli cities, whether or not these rockets kill innocent civilians.
http://www.trentu.ca/globalpolitics/doc ... eumann.pdf
17breezes wrote:
Percival wrote:crikkett wrote:seemslikeadream wrote:The War Against Israel
The approach was implemented in the 2002 Jenin massacre myth, when Palestinian lies alleging Israeli atrocities were reported by the mainstream media and NGOs as facts. This strategy was further perfected in the 2006 Lebanon and 2009 Gaza wars, when Hezbollah and Hamas respectively attacked Israeli civilians while hiding behind their own civilian populations. Israel was then held responsible for the unavoidable death of civilians in the cause of its legitimate self-defense. In each case, false allegations of "war crimes" were published by NGOs and then adopted by U.N. inquiries, such as the deeply flawed Goldstone report.
Wow, just wow. That's from the Wall Street Journal. The language is so slanted that I'd easily mistake it for vintage Soviet.
You dont think there is some truth to this. Some of you seem to really believe that Hamas is completely innocent and a victim in all of this.
Hamas ALWAYS uses its civilian population as human shields in war.
There is propaganda coming out of both sides.
What is NOT propaganda is the Hamas vow to exterminate every Jew in the region.
What do you suggest Israel do about that?
Percival wrote:Frankly I dont give 2 cents what the UN says, where was the UN during the Holocaust.
Peregrine wrote:Percival wrote:Frankly I dont give 2 cents what the UN says, where was the UN during the Holocaust.
I believe the UN was created in 1945, correct? Before them was the League of Nations, around until 1935. I think...
seemslikeadream wrote:Percival wrote:crikkett wrote:seemslikeadream wrote:The War Against Israel
The approach was implemented in the 2002 Jenin massacre myth, when Palestinian lies alleging Israeli atrocities were reported by the mainstream media and NGOs as facts. This strategy was further perfected in the 2006 Lebanon and 2009 Gaza wars, when Hezbollah and Hamas respectively attacked Israeli civilians while hiding behind their own civilian populations. Israel was then held responsible for the unavoidable death of civilians in the cause of its legitimate self-defense. In each case, false allegations of "war crimes" were published by NGOs and then adopted by U.N. inquiries, such as the deeply flawed Goldstone report.
Wow, just wow. That's from the Wall Street Journal. The language is so slanted that I'd easily mistake it for vintage Soviet.
You dont think there is some truth to this. Some of you seem to really believe that Hamas is completely innocent and a victim in all of this.
Hamas ALWAYS uses its civilian population as human shields in war.
There is propaganda coming out of both sides.
What is NOT propaganda is the Hamas vow to exterminate every Jew in the region.
What do you suggest Israel do about that?
What would you suggest Palestinians about this?
Ken O'Keefe, Mavi Marmara passenger who fought Israeli soldiers wrote:
June 7, 2010
Reflections by a Former US Marine on the Mavi Marmara
On Cowardice and Violence
By KEN O'KEEFE
Istanbul
In 2002 I initiated the TJP Human Shield Action to Iraq because I knew that the invasion of Iraq had been planned well in advance, that it was part of a ‘Global Spectrum Dominance’ agenda as laid out by the Project For A New American Century. I knew that protests had no chance of stopping the invasion, and that largely these protests were just a way of making us feel better about the coming mass murder; by being able to say “I protested against it.” With that understanding I argued that the only viable way to stop the invasion was to conduct a mass migration to Iraq. A migration in which people from around the world, especially western citizens, would position themselves at sites in Iraq that are supposed to be protected by international law, but which are routinely bombed when it is only Iraqi, Palestinian, generally non-white, western lives who will be killed. I felt 10,000 such people could stop the invasion, or at the very least, expose the invasion for what it was from the start, an act of international aggression, a war crime and a crime against humanity.
I have for many years understood that we, people of conscience, are the true holders of power in this world. Frustratingly however we have largely relinquished that power and failed to reach our full potential. Our potential to create a better world, a just world. Nonetheless I have conspired with others of like mind to reveal and exercise our true power.
When our two double decker busses travelled from London to Baghdad through Turkey, it was ever clear that the people of Turkey also could sense the power of this act, and they were the biggest participants in it. In the end we did not get the numbers required to stop the war, with at least one million Iraqi’s dead as a result, but I remain convinced that it was within our power to prevent the invasion. A massive opportunity lost as far as I am concerned.
In 2007 I joined the Free Gaza Movement with its plan to challenge the blockade of Gaza by travelling to Gaza by sea. From the moment I heard of the plan I knew it could succeed and ultimately I served as a captain on the first attempt. The Israeli government said throughout our preparation that we were no better than pirates and they would treat us as such. They made clear we would not reach Gaza. And still I knew we could succeed. And we did. Two boats with 46 passengers from various countries managed to sail into Gaza on August 23, 2010; this was the first time this had been done in 41 years.
The truth is the blockade of Gaza is far more than three years old, and yet we, a small group of conscientious people defied the Israeli machine and celebrated with tens of thousands of Gazans when we arrived that day. We proved that it could be done. We proved that an intelligent plan, with skilled manipulation of the media, could render the full might of the Israeli Navy useless. And I knew then that this was only the tip of the iceberg.
So participating in the Freedom Flotilla is like a family reunion to me. It is my long lost family whose conscience is their guide, who have shed the fear, who act with humanity. But I was especially proud to join IHH and the Turkish elements of the flotilla. I deeply admire the strength and character of the Turkish people, despite your history having stains of injustice, like every nation, you are today from citizen to Prime Minister among the leaders in the cause of humanity and justice.
I remember being asked during the TJP Human Shield Action to Iraq if I was a pacifist, I responded with a quote from Gandhi by saying I am not a passive anything. To the contrary I believe in action, and I also believe in self-defence, 100 per cent, without reservation. I would be incapable of standing by while a tyrant murders my family, and the attack on the Mavi Marmara was like an attack on my Palestinian family. I am proud to have stood shoulder to shoulder with those who refused to let a rogue Israeli military exert their will without a fight.
And yes, we fought.
When I was asked, in the event of an Israeli attack on the Mavi Marmara, would I use the camera, or would I defend the ship? I enthusiastically committed to defence of the ship. Although I am also a huge supporter of non-violence, in fact I believe non-violence must always be the first option. Nonetheless I joined the defence of the Mavi Mamara understanding that violence could be used against us and that we may very well be compelled to use violence in self defence.
I said this straight to Israeli agents, probably of Mossad or Shin Bet, and I say it again now, on the morning of the attack I was directly involved in the disarming of two Israeli Commandos. This was a forcible, non-negotiable, separation of weapons from commandos who had already murdered two brothers that I had seen that day. One brother with a bullet entering dead center in his forehead, in what appeared to be an execution.
I knew the commandos were murdering when I removed a 9mm pistol from one of them. I had that gun in my hands and as an ex-US Marine with training in the use of guns it was completely within my power to use that gun on the commando who may have been the murderer of one of my brothers. But that is not what I, nor any other defender of the ship did. I took that weapon away, removed the bullets, proper lead bullets, separated them from the weapon and hid the gun. I did this in the hopes that we would repel the attack and submit this weapon as evidence in a criminal trial against Israeli authorities for mass murder. I also helped to physically separate one commando from his assault rifle, which another brother apparently threw into the sea.
I and hundreds of others know the truth that makes a mockery of the brave and moral Israeli military. We had in our full possession, three completely disarmed and helpless commandos. These boys were at our mercy, they were out of reach of their fellow murderers, inside the ship and surrounded by 100 or more men. I looked into the eyes of all three of these boys and I can tell you they had the fear of God in them. They looked at us as if we were them, and I have no doubt they did not believe there was any way they would survive that day. They looked like frightened children in the face of an abusive father.
But they did not face an enemy as ruthless as they. Instead the woman provided basic first aid, and ultimately they were released, battered and bruised for sure, but alive. Able to live another day. Able to feel the sun over head and the embrace of loved ones. Unlike those they murdered. Despite mourning the loss of our brothers, feeling rage towards these boys, we let them go.
The Israeli prostitutes of propaganda can spew all of their disgusting bile all they wish, the commandos are the murderers, we are the defenders, and yet we fought. We fought not just for our lives, not just for our cargo, not just for the people of Palestine, we fought in the name of justice and humanity. We were right to do so, in every way.
While in Israeli custody I, along with everyone else was subjected to endless abuse and flagrant acts of disrespect. Women and elderly were physically and mentally assaulted. Access to food and water and toilets was denied. Dogs were used against us, we ourselves were treated like dogs. We were exposed to direct sun in stress positions while hand cuffed to the point of losing circulation of blood in our hands. We were lied to incessantly, in fact I am awed at the routineness and comfort in their ability to lie, it is remarkable really. We were abused in just about every way imaginable and I myself was beaten and choked to the point of blacking out… and I was beaten again while in my cell. In all this what I saw more than anything else were cowards… and yet I also see my brothers. Because no matter how vile and wrong the Israeli agents and government are, they are still my brothers and sisters and for now I only have pity for them. Because they are relinquishing the most precious thing a human being has, their humanity.
In conclusion; I would like to challenge every endorser of Gandhi, every person who thinks they understand him, who acknowledges him as one of the great souls of our time (which is just about every western leader), I challenge you in the form of a question.
Please explain how we, the defenders of the Mavi Mamara, are not the modern example of Gandhi’s essence? But first read the words of Gandhi himself. I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour. – Gandhi And lastly I have one more challenge. I challenge any critic of merit, publicly, to debate me on a large stage over our actions that day. I would especially love to debate with any Israeli leader who accuses us of wrongdoing, it would be my tremendous pleasure to face off with you. All I saw in Israel was cowards with guns, so I am ripe to see you in a new context. I want to debate with you on the largest stage possible. Take that as an open challenge and let us see just how brave Israeli leaders are.
Ken O'Keefe is a former US Marine and Gulf War veteran.
To teach the children of Gaza?! Ms. Leitrer, the children of Gaza do not need your musical lessons. Most of them, starting at age 6, have already been taught how to handle the AK-47 and prepare suicide belts, while reading by heart passages from the Koran condemning Jews as the most implacable enemies of the Islam. The best classical music for their ears is the sound of a shooting Kalashnikov!
compared2what? wrote:17breezes wrote:smiths wrote:i will excuse your complete ignorance of the point barracuda and put it down to feeling a little on the defensive yourself
to simplify it for you,
israel is a 'jewish' state (a racial designation which is pretty fucking flimsy)
It's actually a religious designation, which is pretty fucking flimsy.smiths wrote:there are a pre-existing non-jewish population who are living in prison camps
Where?
They live in something very close to prison camps in Lebanon. Which also doesn't allow them citizenship, restricts their movements, and forbids them from working in some jobs, and so forth, although many of them were born and have lived in Lebanon all their lives. Nevertheless. There are checkpoints and, I'm sure, lots of petty harassment and degradation by Lebanese guards on a daily basis, and so on. But the difference between "prison" and "not prison" is pretty significant. As just about anyone who's ever even visited one always says. And as far as I know, whilethe Palestinians in Lebanon live in barely livable conditions in refugee camps. To which they're not permitted to make improvements and where they're not allowed to have construction materials, and so on. But which are nevertheless, refugee and not prison camps.
The Palestinians in Gaza (about two thirds of whom lived or are descended from people who lived in what's now the despicable state of Israel) are also, without question. living in deplorable conditions, due not only to attrition and deterioration from the blockade, but also the the damage done during the war that preceded it, and the damage done by the fighting between Hamas and Fatah that preceded that. Which, IIRC, was an American-created-and-funded conflict.
So there's a housing shortage. On top of which, per numerous news reports that may not be true, Hama was bulldozing occupied house last month. Although they are getting UN building materials, so maybe it's just the western press spinning what's actually a public housing project into an assault. I wouldn't be a bit surprised, if so.
Anyway. Many of them are poor, sick, hungry, and unemployed, and some are homeless. But as far as I'm aware, they live in houses, aren't guarded by anyone, can go the store that has not much in it, and so forth. I'm not saying that's good. In fact, it's damnable and repugnant: They're boarded up in isolation from the world like animals -- women, little children, young and old -- and just for having had the temerity to hold the election they were being urged to hold, basically.
But again, as far as I know, they're not prison camps. I could be wrong. And I'm not trying to minimize the devastation of their circumstances. It's just that -- at least as I understand their situation -- that's not just simplifying, it's incorrect.smiths wrote:it has created a legal system with this racist division as the foundation
now you tell me, is that the same as america?
It's not exactly the same. But I'd say it's comparable. I mean, America is much larger and also much more aggressive, so if you're going by stuff like body count or number of amoral acts of violent hatred committed, America is many, many times worse by every measurable standard that I can think of. However, since it's my position that some crimes are absolutely evil, including the subjugation or destruction of another people, that's immaterial from my point of view.
In any event, yes, as far as it goes, America's the same. We're still occupying a country that used to be populated with hundreds of thousands of pre-existing natives before we illegally bullied our way in and killed them, for example. To say nothing of the hundreds of thousands more who are now living as refugees. Also, America does have a legal system that gives it a free pass to lock up whomever it wants whenever it wants for no reason at all, as a matter of fact. Plus, the state can authorize the assassination of American citizens by special forces without penalty for political reasons. Which it does. Or so I read, anyway.
And... Let's see. What else? Well. It's also perfectly legal for huge corporations to use what's basically slave labor here, and as long as they use visa workers from very remote continents who don't speak English and are too exhausted to leave the metal trailers they share with twenty other people when they get off work, nobody gives a damn about that at all.
Plus, per the conditions of your question as I understand them, I'm not even getting into the racial discrimination, subjugation, disenfranchisement and denial of rights that's illegal on paper but routine in practice. But it's massive. And there are also the several dozen or so genocides, politicides or ethnic cleansings that we've committed abroad both overtly and by proxy, of course. But you already know about those.
Which does not lessen the absolute nature of Israel's culpability by one iota.Incidentally.smiths wrote:i live in australia, we have a thing called the Racial Discrimination Act so as Australia's "domestic laws meet Australia’s international obligations, including with respect to racial equality and preventing racial discrimination."
"The Racial Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in many areas of public life. These include in employment, renting or buying property, the provision of goods and services, accessing public places and in advertising. The Act also prohibits offensive behaviour based on racial hatred (racial vilification)."
is it perfect? no; was there abuse of the indigenous population? fuck yeah; are we as a nation trying to deal with it and make it right? yes, however imperfectly
does australia have a legalised racist law system? no
America does, though. And while it's true that those laws aren't racially specific, that's less a sign that they're not racial (or ethnic or national or whatever) than it is that the people who saw to it that they were enacted didn't want to be restricted to using them against just one race, ethnicity or nation. If you ask me. I mean, it also would have been politically unpopular to get racially specific, naturally. But I very much doubt anyone in power saw that as a drawback.smiths wrote:the only places that do are unmentionable due to comparisons that no-one really wants to get into
I don't know what or whom you have in mind. But lots of places do it, or have done it. Including (notably) Turkey.
But places where it's happened more recently or still is happening, off the top of my head: Idonesia, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, and (maybe? I'm not sure)-- on an on-and-off basis -- some parts of India.
Plus Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Taliban-era Afghanistan. And, I don't doubt, many others I'm not thinking of at the moment. But China, I'm almost sure. And a few Latin American countries, too. Plus the Phillipines, although that isn't all that recent by now, I guess.
Anyway. Lots of places do it.17breezes wrote:Unless you have a history of condemning all the Muslim racial states as well you have little credibility.
That's also a religious and not a racial distinction. And a ridiculous thing to say, too.
Percival wrote:
I admit that is a problem and not something we are all proud of but I would suggest that is a response to threats of extermination more than anything else.
Percival wrote:
I admit that is a problem and not something we are all proud of but I would suggest that is a response to threats of extermination more than anything else.
“We’ll have to expel the overwhelming majority of West Bank Arabs from here and remove Israeli Arabs from [the] political system,” he declared in 2006. In 2008, Eitam merged his small Ahi Party into Netanyahu’s Likud. And for the 2009–2010 academic year, he is Netanyahu’s special emissary for overseas “campus engagement.” In that capacity, he visited a dozen American high schools and colleges last fall on the Israeli government’s behalf. The group that organized his tour was called “Caravan for Democracy.”
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman once shared Eitam’s views. In his youth, he briefly joined Meir Kahane’s now banned Kach Party, which also advocated the expulsion of Arabs from Israeli soil. Now Lieberman’s position might be called “pre-expulsion.” He wants to revoke the citizenship of Israeli Arabs who won’t swear a loyalty oath to the Jewish state. He tried to prevent two Arab parties that opposed Israel’s 2008–2009 Gaza war from running candidates for the Knesset. He said Arab Knesset members who met with representatives of Hamas should be executed. He wants to jail Arabs who publicly mourn on Israeli Independence Day, and he hopes to permanently deny citizenship to Arabs from other countries who marry Arab citizens of Israel.
You don’t have to be paranoid to see the connection between Lieberman’s current views and his former ones. The more you strip Israeli Arabs of legal protection, and the more you accuse them of treason, the more thinkable a policy of expulsion becomes.
The Madagascar Plan was a suggested policy of the Nazi government to relocate the Jewish population of Europe to the island of Madagascar.
Percival wrote:17breezes wrote:Percival wrote:crikkett wrote:seemslikeadream wrote:The War Against Israel
The approach was implemented in the 2002 Jenin massacre myth, when Palestinian lies alleging Israeli atrocities were reported by the mainstream media and NGOs as facts. This strategy was further perfected in the 2006 Lebanon and 2009 Gaza wars, when Hezbollah and Hamas respectively attacked Israeli civilians while hiding behind their own civilian populations. Israel was then held responsible for the unavoidable death of civilians in the cause of its legitimate self-defense. In each case, false allegations of "war crimes" were published by NGOs and then adopted by U.N. inquiries, such as the deeply flawed Goldstone report.
Wow, just wow. That's from the Wall Street Journal. The language is so slanted that I'd easily mistake it for vintage Soviet.
You dont think there is some truth to this. Some of you seem to really believe that Hamas is completely innocent and a victim in all of this.
Hamas ALWAYS uses its civilian population as human shields in war.
There is propaganda coming out of both sides.
What is NOT propaganda is the Hamas vow to exterminate every Jew in the region.
What do you suggest Israel do about that?
The simplest logic tells us that if the blockade is broken Hamas will be able to acquire more and better weapons. They will use them. Israel will respond violently...there will be war. It's a simple equation beyond the thought processes of the single minded. They don't want war but their goals will lead to more war. Of course I suspect there are plenty on the left who would love to see Hamas "resisting" Israel until Israel responds of course. But there will never be an epiphany for them.
Thats the sad truth. The blockade is pretty much the one thing that is preventing all out war and the Gaza being wiped off the map forever.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 164 guests