• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

2008-2009 Israeli-Palestinian conflict


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#31 mentatpsi

  • Guest
  • 904 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Philadelphia, USA

Posted 19 January 2009 - 10:19 AM

Frankly I'm sick of the Palestinians cries and outrage over the deaths of 'women and children'. It’s tragic and I hate it as much as anyone but the Palestinians are the last people who should cry foul. They don’t mind cheering for joy and praising their 'martyrs' for blowing themselves up on a bus full of children. They also don’t mind having their own children put in the front lines just so they can be killed to make Israel look bad. These children aren't being killed so much because of Israel; they are being killed for Hamas's political point scoring. And this war is not new. Israel has lost many more lives than the handful over the past few weeks. Imagine if your country had to put up with frequent suicide bombers and threats like 'your country should not exist'. What would you want your government to do about it?

I don’t quite get the disproportionate response issue. The fact is, compared to the weapons Israel has at its disposal, their response is quite tame and at least their objective isn't the obliteration of all of Palestine! Now do you think if Hamas had the capability of weapons of mass destruction like atom bombs or 'dirty' bombs that they wouldn't use it? Hamas throws everything they have indiscriminately at Israel. They don’t play fair. They are the biggest hypocrites and BS artists this world has seen. What is their ultimate objective you have to ask and then think about what side of morality you would rather stand on.


ditto :)

#32 Lotus

  • Guest
  • 71 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Stockholm

Posted 19 January 2009 - 12:20 PM

I think there are good possibilities of having a good discussion here. We are a crowd of people who believe in using logic and solving problems through rational thinking. Even though there are some emotional aspects that influence us, like relatives being involved in the conflict, we probably have a better chance of keeping level-headedness than most.

About the emotional aspects of the conflict, I'm only an amateur psychologist with no education in the field, but I've read a bit about Maslows hierarchy of needs and it seems to make sense to me. According to this theory, you can only care about things like morality when a whole bunch of lower needs are met. Take a look at the pyramid and check out where these things are: morality, creativity, problem solving, lack of prejudice, acceptance of facts. They're at the very top! And these are the abilities I believe we need for resolving a conflict of this complexity. If this theory is correct, then it would be useless to expect these things from people who do not have their basic needs met.

I also think that people need time to grieve for their dead on both sides to reach a mental state where they can think straight.

Obviously, if we were to try work on the problem by improving the conditions of the people in the area, then it would take a lot of time, hard work and resources. But then again, so does this conflict. I know I can often sound like a hippy but I am actually trying to be realistic and I know that this is far from being a simple solution. But if we're going to spend all this time, work and resources on something, shouldn't we try to develop a plan that might have a bigger chance of succeeding than what's going on now?

Edited by Lotus, 19 January 2009 - 12:20 PM.


#33 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 19 January 2009 - 01:53 PM

any of u took the effort to listen to the Noam Chomsky talk ? Maybe needed to continu with this discussion

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#34 Cyberbrain

  • Guest, F@H
  • 1,755 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Thessaloniki, Greece

Posted 19 January 2009 - 02:46 PM

Frankly I'm sick of the Palestinians cries and outrage over the deaths of 'women and children'. It’s tragic and I hate it as much as anyone but the Palestinians are the last people who should cry foul. They don’t mind cheering for joy and praising their 'martyrs' for blowing themselves up on a bus full of children. They also don’t mind having their own children put in the front lines just so they can be killed to make Israel look bad. These children aren't being killed so much because of Israel; they are being killed for Hamas's political point scoring. And this war is not new. Israel has lost many more lives than the handful over the past few weeks. Imagine if your country had to put up with frequent suicide bombers and threats like 'your country should not exist'. What would you want your government to do about it?

I don’t quite get the disproportionate response issue. The fact is, compared to the weapons Israel has at its disposal, their response is quite tame and at least their objective isn't the obliteration of all of Palestine! Now do you think if Hamas had the capability of weapons of mass destruction like atom bombs or 'dirty' bombs that they wouldn't use it? Hamas throws everything they have indiscriminately at Israel. They don’t play fair. They are the biggest hypocrites and BS artists this world has seen. What is their ultimate objective you have to ask and then think about what side of morality you would rather stand on.

I don't support either side for the attacks. I agree with you, that like many other Arabs in the Muslim world, some Palestinians use these deaths as a political tool and I too think this is disgusting. I also agree that Israel has the right to defend itself, just like Palestinians have the right to defend themselves. I also agree with you that the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel are unjustified and wrong. But at what cost does Israel have the right to defend itself to this extent, ultimately? You say the Palestinians cries and outrages over the deaths of 'women and children' is strategic to their political goals, and it may be true for some, but the point still is that those women and children are dead. At 1,300 dead vs. only 3, Israel has gone way too far! The destruction of churches, schools, hospitals, the UN headquarters? What kind of defense tactics are these? If Israel wanted the fighting to stop, the rocket attacks to stop, and the hatred to stop, then they shouldn't oppress the Palestinians so much. They place sanctions on them, cut their power, bomb them, close the borders, cut aid, etc, all while occupying them. Don't forget that it was the British that forced them out to make way for Jewish settlers 70 years ago at gun point. It may be true that there are some fanatical fundamentalists out there that want the complete destruction of Israel and I hate these guys just as much as you, but not everyone Muslim is a terrorist. I believe Israel should be recognized by the Palestinians (and the rest of the Arab world) just as much as the right of Palestinians should be recognized by Israel. They may have different views, and some may be fundamentalists, but they have humanitarian rights too. Oppressing them, bombing them, and cutting basic aid such as food and medicine will only generate more fundamentalists. At this rate, this war will never end. Both sides are to blame for all this destruction and death, but Israel is only putting more oil on the fire.

Edited by Kostas, 19 January 2009 - 02:56 PM.


#35 .fonclea.

  • Guest, F@H
  • 300 posts
  • 2
  • Location:none

Posted 19 January 2009 - 08:21 PM

We apparently all think the same thing: in Israel they need safety and in palestine they need all the vital need of doctor, education, health, school,.... the list is quite long.
For me nothing excuse such level of violence and more than 1000 deads is over proportions.

(shifter @ 19-Jan 2009, 02:47 AM) Posted Image Frankly I'm sick of the Palestinians cries and outrage over the deaths of 'women and children'. It's tragic and I hate it as much as anyone but the Palestinians are the last people who should cry foul. They don't mind cheering for joy and praising their 'martyrs' for blowing themselves up on a bus full of children...."


Shifter i can't belive such stupid words! We had to watch for almost a decade the dead following the attac of the world trad center and it has been the justification of two war and hard political relations between US and the rest of the world. Would you appreciate from me such comments about your deads ????

Nothing justify a war
, nodody here live in a contry in war exept the few israelian here... they could may be the only one to forgive for such thoughts.

We let the nazism killed 3 millions jews from 1939 to 1945 and the only one way our gouvernment found to feel less gilty is giving colonized territories... it is so easy to give something we don't owned. Our gouvernment created a mess there, the minimum we can do is supporting them efficantly with "doctor, education, health, school,.... "(the same long list)


I don't have hate for israelien but i lost all truth in this gouvernment since long. How you israelian could you have let a guy like Netanyaou or sharon at the head of a contry ? I know some of you had been against those attacks, it's comforting to know that.




Now i propose a deal to israelians and palestinians: let's make a nice calendar with some male member of tsahal, we could sold it to make money to send to palestians...
.. and why not the same deal to make money for SENS ? Volanteers ?

#36 shifter

  • Guest
  • 716 posts
  • 5

Posted 19 January 2009 - 09:02 PM

(shifter @ 19-Jan 2009, 02:47 AM) Posted Image Frankly I'm sick of the Palestinians cries and outrage over the deaths of 'women and children'. It's tragic and I hate it as much as anyone but the Palestinians are the last people who should cry foul. They don't mind cheering for joy and praising their 'martyrs' for blowing themselves up on a bus full of children...."


Shifter i can't belive such stupid words! We had to watch for almost a decade the dead following the attac of the world trad center and it has been the justification of two war and hard political relations between US and the rest of the world. Would you appreciate from me such comments about your deads ????


Couldn't agree more. It is stupid. That’s why I'm sick of hearing it. Don’t you find it odd that the Palestinians (I won’t generalise them all here) cheer for the death of Israeli civilians and children, but those same cheerers don’t seem to have a problem with Hamas leaders hiding out in hospitals, schools and launching their rockets from those sites, so that the bombs can come down on the civilians?


Hamas wants war and death it seems. Or why (when they supposedly get what they want - an Israeli cease fire) they then fire back?

I don't know everything about the conflict, so it’s hard to take a firm side. BOTH sides need to work and compromise and they both have a right to exist. I do find it hard to feel sympathy for any country however, which supports suicide bombing. Especially when it’s only purpose is to create terror and kill innocent people. (How many suicide bombers have you heard that targeted government leaders)?

Edited by shifter, 19 January 2009 - 09:04 PM.


#37 .fonclea.

  • Guest, F@H
  • 300 posts
  • 2
  • Location:none

Posted 19 January 2009 - 09:27 PM

(shifter @ 19-Jan 2009, 02:47 AM) Posted Image Frankly I'm sick of the Palestinians cries and outrage over the deaths of 'women and children'. It's tragic and I hate it as much as anyone but the Palestinians are the last people who should cry foul. They don't mind cheering for joy and praising their 'martyrs' for blowing themselves up on a bus full of children...."


Shifter i can't belive such stupid words! We had to watch for almost a decade the dead following the attac of the world trad center and it has been the justification of two war and hard political relations between US and the rest of the world. Would you appreciate from me such comments about your deads ????

I don't know everything about the conflict, so it’s hard to take a firm side. BOTH sides need to work and compromise and they both have a right to exist. I do find it hard to feel sympathy for any country however, which supports suicide bombing. Especially when it’s only purpose is to create terror and kill innocent people. (How many suicide bombers have you heard that targeted government leaders)?



1-Don't expect anything from the hamas they are evil.
2-some leader from both side had been involved in terrorist actions, sharon when he was youger for exemple.
If you really want to help those tow contries, try to inform you the most: victimes are not allways the ones we think.
3-Without education you can't expect a lot from life: there it's DO or DIE..... they are not allowed to travel but israelian have the chance to escape from a certain reality.

Now try to imagine: you live in a territorie smaller than the new jersey, overpopulated, without skills, education, constant humiliation from worldwide gouvernemental administration and you can't escape.


Here we talk about Maslow and try to live longer, while they try to survive.

#38 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 19 January 2009 - 10:52 PM

Carlos Alberto Montaner
Madrid, Spain

Carlos Alberto Montaner is a Cuban-born writer, journalist, and former professor. He is one of the most influential and widely-read columnists in
the Spanish-language media, syndicated in dozens of publications in Latin America, Spain and the United States. He is also vice president of the
Liberal International, a London-based federation devoted to the defense of democratic values and the promotion of the market economy. He has written
more than twenty books, including Journey to the Heart of Cuba; How and Why Communism Disappeared; Liberty, the Key to Prosperity; and the novels A
Dog's World and 1898: The Plot. He is now based in Madrid, Spain

Gaza's True 'Disproportion'
The Current Discussion: What's the most likely outcome of Israel's invasion
of Gaza? A wider war? A Hamas defeat? Just more of the same?

Israelis are being accused of suffering too few casualties in their confrontation with the Hamas terrorists. Those who reason thus usually speak
the words "disproportion" or "asymmetry" in an indignant tone. While at this writing close to a thousand Arab Palestinians have died or been wounded as a
result of the bombings, the Israeli losses amount to just over a dozen.

Tel Aviv's critics -- from whom an anti-Semitic stench often rises -- do not say whether Israel should increase its quota of cadavers or if it must
reduce the Arabs' quota to achieve the reasonable proportion of blood that will soothe the peculiar itch for parity that afflicts them. Nor do they
specify the morally permissible number of casualties to end the rain of rockets that for years has been constantly falling on the heads of Israeli civilians.

This demand for "proportionality" can only be called surprising. Until this conflict began, history books everywhere always expressed great satisfaction
and a certain chauvinistic pride when a nation's army inflicted on the enemy a large number of casualties, vis-à-vis a trifling price paid by "our boys."
Israel is the only country expected to behave differently and, in fact, it does; I know of no other nation that announces where and when it will drop
its bombs, thus enabling civilians to evacuate the territory. Of course, in this it behaves asymmetrically, because the Hamas terrorists, forever eager
to cause the greatest damage possible, never announce when or where they will launch their rockets against Israel's civilian population.

In turn, Israel has not the slightest interest in causing casualties. All it wants is to stop Hamas' attacks the only way it can: by eliminating the
terrorists and destroying their arsenals. There's no other way to deal with them. Hamas is not a political organization with which agreements can be
reached, but a fanatical gang intent on wiping Israel off the map. To achieve this objective, its members are even willing to turn their own
children into human bombs, just to kill the hated Jews.

Here's another very important asymmetry. The Jews build underground shelters in all houses near the border; they close the schools and hide the children
at the least sign of danger; they treat the death of a single soldier as a national tragedy; they do everything possible to rescue their prisoners, and
protect the civilian population from the consequences of war. In contrast, the authorities in Gaza, drunk with violence, fire their machine guns
irresponsibly into the air to express joy or grief (causing numerous injuries), do not hesitate to install their headquarters or hide their guns
in schools, mosques or hospitals, use human shields to protect themselves, turn to suicidal terrorists and reward the families of such "martyrs" with
money.

One week before Hamas broke the truce and stepped up its rocket attacks against the Jewish state (the spark that set off this conflict), I was in
Israel, where I had been invited to deliver a lecture at the University of Tel Aviv. As part of the contacts organized by my hosts, I visited the
Wolfson Medical Center to learn about the program "Save a Child's Heart." I was very moved. It is a foundation devoted to providing heart surgery for
very poor children, most of them from the Arab world. As it happened, I witnessed the hurried arrival of a tiny 5-day-old girl, who had to be
operated on at once to keep her from dying. She was brought in by her mother, a woman in a black head covering that allowed me to see only her
tear-filled eyes, and her husband, a small, bearded man who watched with amazement the indescribable kindness with which a group of doctors and
nurses treated the baby. The family came from Gaza.

Since the war erupted, I have asked myself constantly what became of them all.

#39 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 20 January 2009 - 01:34 AM



#40 Prometheus

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -3
  • Location:right behind you

Posted 20 January 2009 - 07:31 AM

Frankly I'm sick of the Palestinians cries and outrage over the deaths of 'women and children'. It’s tragic and I hate it as much as anyone but the Palestinians are the last people who should cry foul. They don’t mind cheering for joy and praising their 'martyrs' for blowing themselves up on a bus full of children. They also don’t mind having their own children put in the front lines just so they can be killed to make Israel look bad. These children aren't being killed so much because of Israel; they are being killed for Hamas's political point scoring. And this war is not new. Israel has lost many more lives than the handful over the past few weeks. Imagine if your country had to put up with frequent suicide bombers and threats like 'your country should not exist'. What would you want your government to do about it?

I don’t quite get the disproportionate response issue. The fact is, compared to the weapons Israel has at its disposal, their response is quite tame and at least their objective isn't the obliteration of all of Palestine! Now do you think if Hamas had the capability of weapons of mass destruction like atom bombs or 'dirty' bombs that they wouldn't use it? Hamas throws everything they have indiscriminately at Israel. They don’t play fair. They are the biggest hypocrites and BS artists this world has seen. What is their ultimate objective you have to ask and then think about what side of morality you would rather stand on.


Rubbish. This is the sort of propaganda that perpetuates wars, drives lynchings and all other subhuman responses to dealing with conflict. Absolute rubbish.

#41 mentatpsi

  • Guest
  • 904 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Philadelphia, USA

Posted 20 January 2009 - 07:57 AM

Frankly I'm sick of the Palestinians cries and outrage over the deaths of 'women and children'. It’s tragic and I hate it as much as anyone but the Palestinians are the last people who should cry foul. They don’t mind cheering for joy and praising their 'martyrs' for blowing themselves up on a bus full of children. They also don’t mind having their own children put in the front lines just so they can be killed to make Israel look bad. These children aren't being killed so much because of Israel; they are being killed for Hamas's political point scoring. And this war is not new. Israel has lost many more lives than the handful over the past few weeks. Imagine if your country had to put up with frequent suicide bombers and threats like 'your country should not exist'. What would you want your government to do about it?

I don’t quite get the disproportionate response issue. The fact is, compared to the weapons Israel has at its disposal, their response is quite tame and at least their objective isn't the obliteration of all of Palestine! Now do you think if Hamas had the capability of weapons of mass destruction like atom bombs or 'dirty' bombs that they wouldn't use it? Hamas throws everything they have indiscriminately at Israel. They don’t play fair. They are the biggest hypocrites and BS artists this world has seen. What is their ultimate objective you have to ask and then think about what side of morality you would rather stand on.


Rubbish. This is the sort of propaganda that perpetuates wars, drives lynchings and all other subhuman responses to dealing with conflict. Absolute rubbish.


How can you be so quick to destroy his comment? He looked at some of the psychology of martyrdom and found it to be idiotic and hypocritical. It was an observation into the nonsensical behavior of killing civilians while destroying every sense of rationality by going against every instinct to persevere and live...

What is subhuman anyways? Are not all responses human by the mere aspect of being an attribute of humanity? Is rationality not an attribute of humanity? So by this very associations one would call martyrdom subhuman...

The only aspect i can understand is that the Palestinian people do deserve the same liberties and freedoms that Israelis gain, but the constant conflicts does not put good favor towards any advancements. Shifter made an excellent point of demonstrating the proportions of Israel's attack in comparisons to the Hamas, and the fact the people buy so quickly into the notion that Israel is commiting a war crime by protecting itself...

What would you have Israel do? Negotiate with people who don't support its existence? What nation acts outside its own self-interest, and more importantly what person? For cannot the nature of humanity be reflected into the nature of a populace... of a nation?

Edited by mysticpsi, 20 January 2009 - 07:59 AM.


#42 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 20 January 2009 - 11:39 AM

Frankly I'm sick of the Palestinians cries and outrage over the deaths of 'women and children'. It’s tragic and I hate it as much as anyone but the Palestinians are the last people who should cry foul. They don’t mind cheering for joy and praising their 'martyrs' for blowing themselves up on a bus full of children. They also don’t mind having their own children put in the front lines just so they can be killed to make Israel look bad. These children aren't being killed so much because of Israel; they are being killed for Hamas's political point scoring. And this war is not new. Israel has lost many more lives than the handful over the past few weeks. Imagine if your country had to put up with frequent suicide bombers and threats like 'your country should not exist'. What would you want your government to do about it?

I don’t quite get the disproportionate response issue. The fact is, compared to the weapons Israel has at its disposal, their response is quite tame and at least their objective isn't the obliteration of all of Palestine! Now do you think if Hamas had the capability of weapons of mass destruction like atom bombs or 'dirty' bombs that they wouldn't use it? Hamas throws everything they have indiscriminately at Israel. They don’t play fair. They are the biggest hypocrites and BS artists this world has seen. What is their ultimate objective you have to ask and then think about what side of morality you would rather stand on.


Rubbish. This is the sort of propaganda that perpetuates wars, drives lynchings and all other subhuman responses to dealing with conflict. Absolute rubbish.


How can you be so quick to destroy his comment? He looked at some of the psychology of martyrdom and found it to be idiotic and hypocritical. It was an observation into the nonsensical behavior of killing civilians while destroying every sense of rationality by going against every instinct to persevere and live...

What is subhuman anyways? Are not all responses human by the mere aspect of being an attribute of humanity? Is rationality not an attribute of humanity? So by this very associations one would call martyrdom subhuman...

The only aspect i can understand is that the Palestinian people do deserve the same liberties and freedoms that Israelis gain, but the constant conflicts does not put good favor towards any advancements. Shifter made an excellent point of demonstrating the proportions of Israel's attack in comparisons to the Hamas, and the fact the people buy so quickly into the notion that Israel is commiting a war crime by protecting itself...

What would you have Israel do? Negotiate with people who don't support its existence? What nation acts outside its own self-interest, and more importantly what person? For cannot the nature of humanity be reflected into the nature of a populace... of a nation?



Again my question, did you listen to the Noam Chomsky talk on Gaza ? Maybe you would hear that Hamas was prepared to talk and to recognize Israel as a state. They even prepared talks with Fatah in Cairo on 5 november before Israel prevented this to happen. Israel doesn't want to settle the conflict,they simply don't want peace and they have no interest in a two state solution or a political stable Gaza/West Bank.

#43 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 20 January 2009 - 12:52 PM

Frankly I'm sick of the Palestinians cries and outrage over the deaths of 'women and children'. It’s tragic and I hate it as much as anyone but the Palestinians are the last people who should cry foul. They don’t mind cheering for joy and praising their 'martyrs' for blowing themselves up on a bus full of children. They also don’t mind having their own children put in the front lines just so they can be killed to make Israel look bad. These children aren't being killed so much because of Israel; they are being killed for Hamas's political point scoring. And this war is not new. Israel has lost many more lives than the handful over the past few weeks. Imagine if your country had to put up with frequent suicide bombers and threats like 'your country should not exist'. What would you want your government to do about it?

I don’t quite get the disproportionate response issue. The fact is, compared to the weapons Israel has at its disposal, their response is quite tame and at least their objective isn't the obliteration of all of Palestine! Now do you think if Hamas had the capability of weapons of mass destruction like atom bombs or 'dirty' bombs that they wouldn't use it? Hamas throws everything they have indiscriminately at Israel. They don’t play fair. They are the biggest hypocrites and BS artists this world has seen. What is their ultimate objective you have to ask and then think about what side of morality you would rather stand on.


Rubbish. This is the sort of propaganda that perpetuates wars, drives lynchings and all other subhuman responses to dealing with conflict. Absolute rubbish.


How can you be so quick to destroy his comment? He looked at some of the psychology of martyrdom and found it to be idiotic and hypocritical. It was an observation into the nonsensical behavior of killing civilians while destroying every sense of rationality by going against every instinct to persevere and live...

What is subhuman anyways? Are not all responses human by the mere aspect of being an attribute of humanity? Is rationality not an attribute of humanity? So by this very associations one would call martyrdom subhuman...

The only aspect i can understand is that the Palestinian people do deserve the same liberties and freedoms that Israelis gain, but the constant conflicts does not put good favor towards any advancements. Shifter made an excellent point of demonstrating the proportions of Israel's attack in comparisons to the Hamas, and the fact the people buy so quickly into the notion that Israel is commiting a war crime by protecting itself...

What would you have Israel do? Negotiate with people who don't support its existence? What nation acts outside its own self-interest, and more importantly what person? For cannot the nature of humanity be reflected into the nature of a populace... of a nation?



Again my question, did you listen to the Noam Chomsky talk on Gaza ? Maybe you would hear that Hamas was prepared to talk and to recognize Israel as a state. They even prepared talks with Fatah in Cairo on 5 november before Israel prevented this to happen. Israel doesn't want to settle the conflict,they simply don't want peace and they have no interest in a two state solution or a political stable Gaza/West Bank.

Carlos Alberto Montaner
Madrid, Spain

Tel Aviv's critics -- from whom an anti-Semitic stench often rises ...

#44 Prometheus

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -3
  • Location:right behind you

Posted 20 January 2009 - 01:55 PM

What would you have Israel do? Negotiate with people who don't support its existence? What nation acts outside its own self-interest, and more importantly what person? For cannot the nature of humanity be reflected into the nature of a populace... of a nation?


So what if they don't support its existence? Up until recently Iran thought the USA was the pinnacle of evil and should be destroyed. You didn't see a nuke dropped on Tehran because of it!

Last time the Israeli's bombed the crap out of Lebanon because 2 of their soldiers were abducted. Another absurdly disproportionate response.

Israel is very quickly losing sympathy with these bully tactics. If there's anything to be sick of, is Israel crying the defenseless victim when it conducts such vicious and barbaric campaigns.

#45 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,076 posts
  • 2,001
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 20 January 2009 - 05:26 PM

Even with some inflammatory remarks, this Israel-Palestine discussion has remained somewhat civil. Maybe things are getting better.

3-Without education you can't expect a lot from life: there it's DO or DIE..... they are not allowed to travel but israelian have the chance to escape from a certain reality.


I agree with .fonclea., education is the key, especially education for women in Palestinian areas.
  • dislike x 1

#46 Connor MacLeod

  • Guest
  • 619 posts
  • 46

Posted 20 January 2009 - 06:15 PM

Last time the Israeli's bombed the crap out of Lebanon because 2 of their soldiers were abducted. Another absurdly disproportionate response.


...and 8 others will killed if I recall correctly. That was proceeded by another abducted Israeli soldier few weeks earlier. You may still believe the response was "disproportionate", but you should make an effort to get the facts straight.

#47 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 20 January 2009 - 08:19 PM

Last time the Israeli's bombed the crap out of Lebanon because 2 of their soldiers were abducted. Another absurdly disproportionate response.


...and 8 others will killed if I recall correctly. That was proceeded by another abducted Israeli soldier few weeks earlier. You may still believe the response was "disproportionate", but you should make an effort to get the facts straight.



then please put your facts in perspective :


#48 Prometheus

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -3
  • Location:right behind you

Posted 20 January 2009 - 09:43 PM

I'm appalled at the hawkish nature of 'immortalists' who can deliberate at great length on fanciful life extension interventions and with great indignation proclaim how aging is killing hundreds of thousands a day, yet have such little regard for the lives of innocents being slaughtered.

#49 StrangeAeons

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 732 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Indiana

Posted 20 January 2009 - 10:12 PM

I appreciate everybody's input, and it seems like the vast majority agree on one particular thing; that unless something is done about the quality of life in Gaza, the Palestinians will become more susceptible to the meme of radical Islam. As to what Israel is justified in doing, and disproportionate response: I think Israel is in many ways a sophisticated and compassionate nation, and highly progressive.
However, responding to an incident isn't so much about "proportionate response". To solely gauge the issue as a ratio of lives lost and damages done to one side over the other is missing the point. The question is whether or not Israel is behaving in a manner that will resolve the conflict. I think that the nature of their behavior clearly had a more vindictive intent. More importantly, the Israelis think that killing Hamas leaders and militants killed Hamas. As Zach de la Rocha once angrily sang, "You can kill a revolutionary, but you can't kill a revolution." The key flaw in Israel's mentality is failing to identify what predisposes a person to ally themselves with these deplorable causes, and instead identifying them as combatants and therefore justified kills.
The strength of the Israelis relative to Hamas is sufficiently great to warrant evaluation in terms beyond "kill or be killed".

#50 medicineman

  • Guest
  • 750 posts
  • 125
  • Location:Kuwait

Posted 20 January 2009 - 10:36 PM

I was hoping this doesn't come up in this forum. Hamas is evil, but to me, they are just a byproduct of the evil of wholesale terrorism. While groups like Hamas and Hezbollah do bad things, things that are very upsetting and go against the very ideas of ethics and such, they are only retail terrorists. They do kill people, and they do use scare tactics and guerilla warfare, but to me, Israel and America have committed the same, with one exception, they are more powerful, much more powerful, they are more calculated and commit murder on a mass scale that is efficient, and they have killed more people than any of the peon retail terrorists ever could. They are the wholesale terrorists. They distribute terror on a mass scale, with top of the line tech and military to do so.



"Similarly, Israel can invade other countries freely, bomb them at will, and kill civilians there with a free hand without penalty. Each time it has invaded Lebanon, killing many thousands of civilians and deliberately creating large refugee populations, this has led to no substantive responses whatever on the part of the United States and its allies, and the mainstream media have reported these de facto aggressions with great understanding of Israel's position and alleged “security” needs. Even mass slaughters of civilians are permissible for Israel, as in the case of Ariel Sharon's admitting the Christian Phalange to the Sabra-Shatila camp in 1982 where 2,000 or more Palestinian women, children, and old men were butchered in cold blood. We may recall the official and media outrage at the alleged massacre of some 40 Kosovo Albanians by the Serbs at Racak in January 1999—a massacre which may never have occurred, as shown in a belatedly released analysis of the forensic findings on the bodies in Forensic Science International [116: 171-185, 2001]—and recall also that the figure 2,000 has been widely accepted as the total of killings on all sides in Kosovo in the year preceding the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. But in the case of the 2,000 purely civilian victims of Israel, the international outcry was modest and resulted in no penalty or constraint on Israel's ability to kill. Israel was also free to organize and maintain a proxy army in South Lebanon to serve its post-invasion “iron fist” cross-border policies. If done by Libya such an arrangement would be condemned as sponsorship of international terrorism, but again, both the sponsorship of a terrorist army and the numerous “iron fist” killings were not condemned by the United States or its allies and this approved international terrorism could proceed at the terrorist's discretion.

Israel's occupation has produced two “Intifadas,” both rooted in the severity of Israel's abuse of Palestinians in the occupied territories. In the first, which lasted some five years, over a thousand Palestinians were killed and many thousands were injured. The West did not intervene at all in this process even though Israel's abuses were in violation of UN resolutions and international law; U.S. economic and military aid to the ethnic cleanser did not shrink, and Israel was therefore free to kill and repress with no apparent limit. The same has been true in the case of the second Intifada, which began in September 2000. Israel has so far killed about 400 Palestinians, injured thousands, and escalated the brutality of its army's repression in the occupied territories in a genuine anti-civilian war, preventing Palestinians from working, harvesting crops, and obtaining medical care. But again the United States supports Israel without limit and the international community in general does nothing substantive for the victims.

Yasar Arafat has asked for UN intervention to protect the Palestinians who have been under harsh military attack and Amnesty International has called for international observers. But Israel is against this, the United States supports Israel, so no protection is forthcoming. As noted earlier, the contrast with Kosovo, and the consistency with U.S. (and British) deference to Indonesia's rights to ethnically cleanse East Timor in 1999 and earlier, are enlightening. It was also noted that Israel's and Indonesia's violence and ethnic cleansing have taken place in illegally occupied territory, whereas Yugoslavia's occurred within its own borders and in territory where international observers had already been admitted."


And also:

Hamas better be careful next time they fire their gun powder laced paper-toilet tubes at Israel, cuz as we all know, roughly, 1 Israeli life is worth 100 palestinian lives.



#51 StrangeAeons

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 732 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Indiana

Posted 20 January 2009 - 11:32 PM

I really wish people wouldn't come here just to espouse Chomsky; you go down the slippery slope of being outraged against all sovereign nations because, well, historically humans are violent. The U.S. has obviously done things we're not proud of, and I don't think we would have inaugurated the man we just did into office if we thought everything our country has done was just. As per Israel, the country was forced into a militaristic society since before its inception; and while that mentality was at one point highly necessary it has become a problem now. Look at Biblical Israel in the books of Joshua, Judges, Kings, etc. The country was always engaged in some sort of struggle against the gentiles, or at times against the other tribes; not to mention the more obvious reason for Israel's xenophobia, its formation from the ashes of the Holocaust. What's truly bizarre about all of this is that the majority of Israelis don't know all that much about Judaism or the Bible; they're quite secular. Anyways, I'd like to try and focus on this particular conflict and what you perceive should be done. I don't think characterizing whole nations as terrorists is in any way productive; and as per the "retail" terrorists, I am trying to get at the fact that they may be salvageable as members of a civilized society under the right circumstances and should therefore not be killed unless they are actively in the process of killing innocents and no other options are available.

#52 medicineman

  • Guest
  • 750 posts
  • 125
  • Location:Kuwait

Posted 21 January 2009 - 12:02 AM

I really wish people wouldn't come here just to espouse Chomsky; you go down the slippery slope of being outraged against all sovereign nations because, well, historically humans are violent. The U.S. has obviously done things we're not proud of, and I don't think we would have inaugurated the man we just did into office if we thought everything our country has done was just. As per Israel, the country was forced into a militaristic society since before its inception; and while that mentality was at one point highly necessary it has become a problem now. Look at Biblical Israel in the books of Joshua, Judges, Kings, etc. The country was always engaged in some sort of struggle against the gentiles, or at times against the other tribes; not to mention the more obvious reason for Israel's xenophobia, its formation from the ashes of the Holocaust. What's truly bizarre about all of this is that the majority of Israelis don't know all that much about Judaism or the Bible; they're quite secular. Anyways, I'd like to try and focus on this particular conflict and what you perceive should be done. I don't think characterizing whole nations as terrorists is in any way productive; and as per the "retail" terrorists, I am trying to get at the fact that they may be salvageable as members of a civilized society under the right circumstances and should therefore not be killed unless they are actively in the process of killing innocents and no other options are available.


no naom chomsky needed. you would either be blind or American to not see of the great wrong that is being committed. having been bred an American over 8 years of my life, I can't blame any American for this state of denial.. i dont think you are in denial, but you make it sound like we can all just rally and make things happen, when we are as impotent as the UN.

just shows what big guns coupled with Global Terrorism is capable of. I am glad the UN was revealed for what it is. an impotent, castrated, pitiful group run by a bunch of tree huggers who suck on brandy and eat caviar for breakfast. typical burgiouse wankers who run under a catchy slogan. just throw a token, doesnt matter as long as not white, as the leader of this pitiful piece of shite group, and fool the rest of the world. not fooling anyone though are they.

as for Obama... i don't see much from him. he is going to need alot more than empty promises and bullshit leftist speeches to convince me that he is actually fit for this job..

Edited by medicineman, 21 January 2009 - 12:17 AM.

  • like x 1

#53 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 21 January 2009 - 12:28 AM

Out of the money from several sources destined for the Palestinians, it is reported that Arafat amazed a personal fortune of between 1 and
3 billion dollars. The corruption in the Fatah controlled administration continued unabated. This corruption prompted
Palestinians to vote against Fatah and in favor of Hamas in the June 0f 2007 elections.

Fatah continue to prevail in the west bank and its supporters killed many Hamas members there. On the other hand Hamas took control of the Gaza strip
and assessinated large numbers of Fatah supporters.

At about the same time Hamas increased the firing of rockets towards Israeli populations.
Several thousand rockets were fired by Hamas when at the end of last year Israel attacked Hamas targets in Gaza.

One can only wonder why some people completely ignore killings perpetuated by Hamas and Palestinians in general, while denying Israel
the right to defend its population. The answer can only be the conclusion reached by the distinguished writer Carlos Alberto Montaner:
"Tel Aviv's critics -- from whom an anti-Semitic stench often rises --"

#54 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 21 January 2009 - 12:56 AM

Found this at another forum:

A Country in a Hostile Region

Say there's a country sitting in a hostile area. A big part of the hostility has to do with religion - the greater part of the country's
population has a faith different than that of the neighboring countries, and which is somewhat despised by the neighbors.

There's also something else - the folks in neighboring countries consider the folks in that country to be newcomers to the region, and
usurpers of their land. In fact, the country owes its existence to an Outside Power that had conquered the region, and later to various
international agreements delineating borders. Part of the country's population (and here I speak of those of the despised faith in
particular) are descendant of folks that were long indigenous to the region - in fact, many were at one point refugees from some of the
neighboring countries where being a member of that faith meant being treated horribly. But truth be told, many of them descend from people
who immigrated when the Outside Power ruled the area.

Anyhow, the country has been in quite a few wars, some of which were launched by neighboring countries to annihilate that country and its population,
and some of these launched by the country itself keeping the intent of its neighbors in mind. In a number of cases, these wars were even
proxy battles between Outside Powers. Along the way, the country's borders changed a number of times. Fast forward to a relatively recent
date. There's a power struggle going on between two other groups that lay claim to this country's land, and a ceasefire between one of
those groups and the country gets violated. Accusations fly over who did the violating, etc., and a full-scale war breaks out.

At this point, no doubt, you're assuming I'm discussing Israel and the recent events in Gaza. I'm not. I'm discussing Bosnia in March 1992. Now,
there are some differences; Bosnia was on the losing end of that particular war, and the world stepped in to help. There are other
differences; I don't remember anyone marching on the streets of London or New York insisting that Bosnia should not exist, and that Muslims
don't belong in the region. In fact, that would have been considered quite the gauche position to take. So I was wondering what the
difference is in people's minds between Israel today and Bosnia in the early 90s.

And the fact that Israel is winning this particular war is not the difference; its still surrounded by neighbors who swear they
will one day destroy it, and you can bet that if they ever pull it off, the protesters on the streets of London and New York will
rejoice. And frankly, I don't think its the extra time that Bosnia has been existence. In two hundred or five hundred years, assuming Israel
is around, there will still be protesters on the streets of London and New York saying Israel should not exist and that Jews do not belong
there; the equivalent of the gauche position when it comes to Bosnia has always been and will apparently always remain quite acceptable
when it comes to Israel.

And by the way, just to drive the point - it occurs to me that I could change one sentence and the story could be
about Singapore, Taiwan, and Jordan, and that's just off the top of my head. (Granted, its a different sentence in each case, but its still
a very, very similar story - in the case of Singapore and Jordan, even some of the main players are there to play essentially the same
roles.)

I have never heard anyone protesting the existence of Singapore and Jordan, and I doubt I ever will. Taiwan, well, China
does "want it back" but again, nobody is protesting their existence on the streets of London and New York either.

Every possible reason I can think of for this difference in the way Bosnia (or Singapore or Taiwan
or Jordan) and Israel are perceived falls apart when I think about it.
Every possible reason but one: the elephant in the living room.

#55 mentatpsi

  • Guest
  • 904 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Philadelphia, USA

Posted 21 January 2009 - 02:09 AM

inawe your comments and quotes of others are too rational... I'm afraid they don't belong here lol. I can agree with most of the article by Carlos Alberto, but i don't think it's entirely antisemitism. In fact, i had read an article that one of the main reasons a puritan America supported Israel's formation was it's desire to see Judaism "evolve" into Christianity... they believed if Israel was treated kindly we'd see an accepting of Jesus as a Messiah. I'm not sure of the legitimacy of such a claim, but i've never researched the topic extensively to have a weighted say. The other poster; MedicineMan, PetaKiaRose, Connor, i really have to agree with, the whole point is that as a people we should be true scientists and research the history of the nation of Israel rather than throwing our opinions as to whether "morally" it is acceptable.

Because if anyone had taken the time to read Inawe's post by Carlos Alberto, they might have looked into Israel's side of the story.

True, one could use the argument of proportion as to whether or not the actions were just, but as another poster mentioned, we weigh proportions by lives lost, even though throughout history losing your own soldiers was not considered a virtue in war.

There is so much corruption that it seems so uneducated to complain about how unfairly the Palestinian people are being treated when the formation of America occurred under similar situations, and how the populace decided to declare independence by allying themselves with the French due to excessive taxation. Now the situation isn't mirrored precisely, but the land was taken away from the Native American's... and look at the quality of life we enjoy now because of the industrialization of America.

Dr Manhattan (cool name btw), you spoke of the hawkish attitude that have been employed here by Immortalists, as if being an extreme left is the most rationale choice for an immortalists. But the people who speak of who you see are innocent... not all of them are innocent. I don't understand how a people who are happy with aiming missiles at civilians can be looked upon as innocent, when the perspective of the people is that martyrdom is acceptable, praise-worthy behavior... how can you praise the intentional death of your own family for the deaths of another, especially when the other isn't even involved in the fight? Now contrast that with what inawe quoted from Carlos Alberto; Israel warning the people of Gaza, taking in their wounded, even when the enemy is able to use this information to its own advantage.

Now another question that must be raised is why not just assimilate into the Israeli state, as PetaKiaRose mentioned, it's a pretty secular state, with the exception of Jewish holy sites, the people there get kinda crazy, especially if your clothing is outside their concept of modesty. But the economy was doing pretty nicely, industry's boom there, the standard of living is pretty high... why not just assimilate? In the end isn't the pursuit of every man his happiness? That's what i haven't been able to understand aside from the mandatory military service as a cause.

Edited by mysticpsi, 21 January 2009 - 02:10 AM.


#56 Prometheus

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -3
  • Location:right behind you

Posted 21 January 2009 - 08:59 AM

A nation as sophisticated, affluent and populated by some very, very smart people as Israel, can do better than launching such an asymmetrical campaign that will only serve to foster anti-semitism whilst killing so many innocents. The strength of Israel has been its high moral ground, a position that it is very far from now.

#57 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 21 January 2009 - 09:07 AM

I really wish people wouldn't come here just to espouse Chomsky; you go down the slippery slope of being outraged against all sovereign nations because, well, historically humans are violent.



Outraged against all sovereign states ? Like Argentina, Nazi Germany, Imperialistic America, Nicaragua, East-Timor ? A sovereign state doesn't say anything about it's leaders at all and history proved that there are enough reasons to be outraged against most of those sovereign states. Usually states make the decissions to get violent, to make war, to murder a population, to employ geopolitics, to violently assure that there is enough oil for the coming years, to violently force norms and values on a population and so on.....
I think Noam Chomsky is a great source with alot of knowledge of how things work, he has a great network and he is very dedicated to analyzing the the information streams generated by the media and states.

So telling that Noam Chomsky is outraged against all sovereign nations is a real oversimplifications of his critique against the role of some states in unequality and bloodshed.

I think it's time for Israel to do what, hopefully, America is going to do now, after Bush....If not it will end up with same image as America after the Iraq/Afghanistan War, unilateral state terror is not for this century, same goes for Hamas. It's time to talk and forget about games played in the past, time for some thrust instead of the xenophobic attitude against each other.I understand Israel sees the gaza strip as an ideal place for Iran to place their missiles on, but a terror campagne like the last month doesn't change anything in the minds of the moderate Gaza strip inhabitant. I saw a 8 year boy sitting on the rubble of his home, he lost his whole family and he said...what do i have to do, cry, revenge ? Israel breads hate for the future and has done this already for years. If you constantly kick a dog he will eventually bite. I find it strange that alot of people find it weird or are supprised when the dog bites....blaming the dog that it bit without asking yourself where this behaviour came from.....They just end up saying the dog was born like that.

#58 medicineman

  • Guest
  • 750 posts
  • 125
  • Location:Kuwait

Posted 21 January 2009 - 01:20 PM

inawe, semitism or antisemitism has nothing at all to do with anything in my opinion... you have one group of people firing pea shooters, because they have been blocked, they have their houses destroyed, turned into Israeli lebensraum. 1500 houses has been bulldozed since the Oslo Peace Treaty. Thats disregarding the 6500 houses prior to that.

The fact is, the countries you mentioned that violated the "UN" laws, were met harshly by the US and allies, where countries who are the US's 'bitches' and and US itself being Israel's 'bitch', well, they have violated UN laws many times over and have met no such end.

Bosnia, Iraq, etc.... compared to recent evens with Israel, Indonesia, Egypt etc.

Please take the time to read this article I found very interesting:

"
We have to recognize that in the Imperial New World Order (INWO), with the Soviet Union gone, and an aggressive and highly militarized United States projecting its great power across the globe, destabilizing and devastating in all its major areas of operation in the alleged interest of liberation and stability, a revised set of principles should be discernible. Most of these are hardly new, but even more audaciously than in the past they translate power relationships into affirmations of rights or the denial of these very same rights, with the ensuing double standards applicable pretty much across the board. The real-world significance of these INWO principles thus depends on three factors: (a) whether Washington affirms them for itself (and directly or by implication for its close allies, clients and hangers-on); (b) whether Washington denies them to its enemies; and © whether Washington doesn't care one way or the other. As we show below, these power-based affirmations or denials of rights are accepted among the powerful, from the leaders of the Western states, political candidates, and top UN officials, to the establishment media and the intellectuals whose voices can be heard. They represent the institutionalization of a system of power in which justice is inoperative and its perversion hidden in clouds of rhetoric and obfuscation.
1. Aggression rights: The United States enjoys first-class aggression rights and has long been able to violate the UN Charter prohibition against the "supreme international crime" as a matter of course and without the slightest penalty (Vietnam and the whole of Indochina, Panama, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq). Its most important client, Israel, has been able to do the same (Lebanon in 1982 and 2006, along with Syria, Algeria, and the Occupied Palestinian Territories), also without penalty. Among the intellectual and political classes of both countries, the objections raised to these aggressions have been almost entirely pragmatic and concerned with their effectiveness, costs (to the aggressor), and possible mismanagement. But the aggression rights have not been challenged, either within the aggressing states or internationally. The rule of law implicitly applies only to others. In sharp contrast, in the cases of cross-border invasions by countries on the U.S. and Western enemies-list, such as Vietnam invading Cambodia in 1979 or Iraq occupying Kuwait in 1990, indignation by Western leaders and pundits is intense, and both invaders were severely punished (a retaliatory Chinese invasion of Vietnam, U.S. sanctions against Vietnam, and the Khmer Rouge awarded Cambodia's seat at the UN; Iraq forced out of Kuwait by a massive Security Council-approved U.S.-led war that devastated Iraq and laid the basis for 13 years of sanctions and, ultimately, the March 2003 U.S. invasion). One key difference between 1979 and 1990, however, is that whereas in 1979, the Soviet Union vetoed a draft Security Council resolution calling on Vietnam to withdraw its forces from Cambodia, despite the Australian ambassador's remark that "We cannot accept that the internal policies of any government [Cambodia], no matter how reprehensible, could justify a military attack on it by another government [Vietnam],"[1] during no Council debate following Iraq's August 2, 1990 invasion of Kuwait did a member of the Permanent Five veto a resolution calling for Iraq to withdraw its forces or imposing sanctions on the aggressor. The relevant difference was the existence of the Soviet Union as a world-power in 1979 versus 1990 and beyond.
2. Terrorism rights(and the right to kill large numbers without being labeled terrorist): This parallels aggression rights, as the borderline between terrorism and aggression is fuzzy and is commonly simply a matter of scale; in either case, U.S. actions in bombing and killing are not designated with the invidious words. The U.S.'s initial "shock and awe" attack on Iraq was openly planned to terrorize Iraqi military personnel and civilians, and the U.S. assaults on Fallujah[2] and elsewhere have had an open terrorist design. The same is true of Israeli military attacks. It is a matter of political form in the West that Israel only "responds" to and "retaliates" against terrorists, but never terrorizes. The introduction to House Resolution 951, adopted on March 5 by the overwhelming margin of 404 to 1 even as Israel's Defense Force was savagely attacking Palestinian refugee camps in the Gaza,[3] proclaims that "the Government of Israel's military operations in Gaza only target Hamas and other terrorist organizations," and adds that "the inadvertent inflicting of civilian casualties as a result of defensive military operations aimed at military targets, while deeply regrettable, is not at all morally equivalent to the deliberate targeting of civilian populations as practiced by Hamas and other Gaza-based terrorist groups."[4] This is straightforward apologetics for Israeli state terror. For one thing, Israeli leaders from Abba Eban to Ariel Sharon and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert today have openly admitted to the aim of terrorizing the Palestinian civilian population. Second, it glosses over the fact that the allegedly "inadvertent" killings of Palestinians by Israelis have exceeded that of the allegedly deliberate Hamas and Palestinian killings of Israelis by a huge ratio (i.e., before the second intifada, by 25 to 1; since the beginning of the second intifada in 2000, by 4.6 to 1; and since last November's "peace" conference in Annapolis, back up to 21 to 1).[5] Third, the allegedly "inadvertent" killings by Israel are in actual fact quite deliberate, given that the Israeli forces don't hesitate to use their powerful weapons in crowded civilian areas of Gaza and in Lebanon in the summer of 2006, where the civilian deaths are predictable and numerous.[6]

3. Rights to ethnically cleanse: The West finds ethnic cleansing reprehensible, and sheds a sea of tears over its victims—but only when carried out by, or when it can be imputed to, target entities such as the Bosnian Serbs and Milosevic's Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, and the Sudan's Muslim government today. In fact, the ethnic cleansing by the Bosnian Serbs was carried out in a largely tit-for-tat process of a civil conflict in which the competing groups (Bosnian Muslims and Croats) did their own share of cleansing. Milosevic in Kosovo did not ethnically cleanse to replace Kosovo Albanians with Serb settlers; the population flights were features of a civil war and then, with the NATO bombing, a much wider war.[7] Following in this misleading frame, the New Republic finds "Plenty of parallels between Darfur today and Kosovo in 1999....When rebellions came to Kosovo and Darfur, both Belgrade and Khartoum decided to fight the guerrillas by targeting the civilian populations from which they sprang."[8] But TNR's facts are as wrong with respect to Darfur as they are for Kosovo; the only real parallel here lies in the selectivity and ideological uses to which Western powers put the two theaters of conflict. In 2007, an assessment by the UN Environment Program found that "Environmental degradation, as well as regional climate instability and change, are major underlying causes of food insecurity and conflict in Darfur....[T]he region is beset with a problematic combination of population growth, over-exploitation of resources and an apparent major long-term reduction in rainfall. As a result, much of northern and central Darfur is degraded to the extent that it cannot sustainably support its rural population."[9] On the other hand, the truly genuine case of ethnic cleansing, and one that has had global implications because of the Arab and Muslim resentment that it inspires, has been the steady Israeli expulsion of Palestinians from their lands in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in order to allow Jewish settlements. The phrase "ethnic cleansing" is almost never applied to this case in the West. This despite the fact that it has been openly acknowledged by Israeli leaders for many years that the aim of these settlements is to displace Palestinians with Jews, and that in the process they have killed many thousands, demolished over 18,000 Palestinian homes since the occupation began in 1967,[10] and pushed out scores-of-thousands of non-Jews. John Dugard, the UN's Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, has repeatedly warned of Israel' efforts "to make the city more Jewish," and thereby deprive any future Palestinian state of a capital. "The clear purpose of these changes is to remove any suggestion that East Jerusalem is a Palestinian entity capable of becoming the capital of a Palestinian State," Dugard explains. "The construction of the wall, the expansion of settlements and the de-Palestinization of Jerusalem threaten the viability of a Palestinian State."[11] Yet, in a marvel of Western double standards and hypocrisy, this decades-old systematic ethnic cleansing process has been given positive support by Western leaders and media, and Israel has been honored while its target victims are villainized.[12] Despite the clear Israeli intent to ethnically cleanse, and to steal land belonging to the Palestinians, the process is rationalized in the West on the grounds of Israel's "security needs"—in the racist double standard of the West, Palestinians have no "security needs," and the fact that the latter are mainly responding to Israel's wholesale terror and the dispossession process is ignored. This is the true Israeli "miracle."

4. Subversion rights: Paralleling the aggression-rights enjoyed by the United States, and employed by it even more frequently during the post-World War II period, has been the U.S. right to interfere with and subvert any government of its choice. The counter-revolutionary intervention in Greece (1947-1949), and the overthrows of Mohammad Mosaddeq in Iran (1953) and Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in Guatemala (1954) during the first decade of the post-war period are outstanding examples of U.S. power already being applied with little constraint.[13] The U.S. "counter-guerrilla" intervention in the Greek civil war witnessed "almost total command of the operation by Americans and the presence of advisers on combat operations," Michael McClintock writes, a practice "that would remain at the top of the agendas of American counterinsurgents from Vietnam to El Salvador."[14] (As McClintock's history ends with the year 1990, we would extend this agenda minimally to cover Colombia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, too.) Regarded by many as the "cradle of U.S. Cold War strategy," as a 1960s U.S. military assessment called it, the intervention in Greece established hallmarks of U.S. counterinsurgency strategy renamed though not superseded in practice by the mythical "Petraeus Doctrine" and the updated U.S. Counterinsurgency Field Manual (2006-2007) now alleged to be on display as part of the U.S. "surge" in Iraq. Yet, beyond the nominal changes in terminology to reflect the "end of the Cold War" and the proclamation of the "War on Terror," in which a "new wave of insurgencies" is fueled, it alleges, not by old-style "communist" subversion but by "weak and failed states" and above all by "non-state actors" or "terrorists," the actual strategy remains the same.[15] But U.S. subversion policy has taken many forms. In the 1982 study The Real Terror Network, in a section on "The U.S. Natural Right to Subvert,"[16] a table is provided that shows 12 different classes of subversion engaged in by the United States across eight countries in Latin America and the Caribbean between 1950 and 1980. (See Table One in our Appendix, below.) Included are many forms of violence against people and property, many types of bribery, "black propaganda," and the large-scale subsidization of opposition candidates and protest movements such as students' and women's organizations. There is also a summary of the late Philip Agee's description of this multi-leveled process of subversion in Ecuador in the early 1960s. These processes were employed in Brazil (1964) and Chile (1973), and all are still in use todayand we are struck by the similarities between this earlier golden age of subversion and the efforts underway today in theaters such as Iran and Tibet (i.e., western China).[17] But whereas the earlier efforts were cloaked as countering "Communist subversion," today they are allegedly part of "democracy promotion," "transformational diplomacy," the defense of "human rights," and the like.

5. Rights to impose sanctions: Hegemonic power not only provides aggression, terrorism and subversion rights, it also allows the hegemon to impose sanctions on a target, to cause its people to suffer and its leaders to be discredited, usually with international community cooperation. The Soviet Union, Castro's Cuba, Vietnam from 1975 to 1994, Nicaragua under the Sandinistas, Iran since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, Libya, Iraq after the August1990 invasion of Kuwait, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 1992 (and the Republic of Serbia through the present day), and Afghanistan under the Taliban, all have been subjected to sanctions pressed by the United States. But it goes almost without saying that the United States and its clients are never subjected to sanctions, even for Nuremberg-class criminality such as aggression and major war crimes; the double standard here is blatant. In another miracle of double standards, not only is Israel never subjected to sanctions for its endless violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention's protection of civilians in militarily-occupied territory and the collective punishment of the Gaza Palestinians, but since 2006, the "international community" has joined the U.S. -Israel axis in imposing sanctions against these deliberately immiserated, starved, and in every way deprived victims. In the words of eight U.K.-based humanitarian groups, the Israeli siege of the Gaza has turned its roughly 1.5 million people into an "imprisoned population," dismantling their economy, destroying the physical infrastructure, and crippling basic services such as health care and education. Now, at least 80% of the Gaza Palestinians are "dependent on humanitarian assistance" for daily survival. "Israel's policy," these groups report, "affects the civilian population...indiscriminately and constitutes a collective punishment...illegal under international humanitarian law."[18] Describing life for the Gaza Palestinian as "under siege," UN Special RapporteurJohn Dugard notes that they "have been subjected to possibly the most rigorous form of international sanctions imposed in modern times...the first time an occupied people have been so treated....Israel is in violation of major Security Council and General Assembly resolutions dealing with unlawful territorial change and the violation of human rights and has failed to implement the 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, yet it escapes the imposition of sanctions....It is interesting to recall that the Western States refused to impose meaningful economic sanctions on South Africa to compel it to abandon apartheid on the grounds that this would harm the black people of South Africa. No such sympathy is extended to the Palestinian people or their human rights."[19] But we can resolve the Special Rapporteur's wonder once we remember that the real principles of the INWO divorce punishments from genuine crimes, and rewards from good behavior. Power, and power alone, is its ruling principle.

6. Rights to resist aggression: In sharp contrast to the perspective that informs John Dugard's work, the Gaza Palestinians in the eyes of the Western establishment possess no right to resist Israeli attacks, although these assaults are features of an illegal occupation and cruel ethnic cleansing process. In Western ideology, the Palestinian attacks on Israel, while not "aggression," are an intolerable form of "terrorism," not legitimate resistance, and they serve to justify anything powerful Israel chooses to inflict on Gaza as collective punishment. In a press release in early April, the Palestinian National Initiative Secretary-General and member of parliament Mustafa Al-Barghouthi noted that since the Annapolis conference concluded in late November, "Israeli attacks on the Palestinians had increased by 300 percent," while "in the West Bank alone [they had] surged by 46 percent," these West Bank attacks showing that Israel's real objective has "nothing to do with the rocket attacks carried out by Palestinian resistance in Gaza." Through early April, Israel had released 788 Palestinian prisoners since Annapolis, but it detained 2,175 new prisoners; it also increased the number of checkpoints on the West Bank, and continued building the separation wall; and most important, it continued to expand the number of Jewish settlements on the West Bank.[20] John Dugard has even likened Palestinian suicide bombers and Qassam rocket attacks on Israel to the resistance to the German occupation of European countries during World War II. "Common sense...dictates," Dugard argues, "that a distinction must be drawn between acts of mindless terror...and acts committed in the course of a war of national liberation against colonialism, apartheid or military occupation...a painful but inevitable consequence of colonialism, apartheid or occupation. History is replete with examples of military occupation that have been resisted by violence....This is why every effort should be made to bring the occupation to a speedy end. Until this is done peace cannot be expected, and violence will continue."[21] In cross-border attacks where the invader does not possess aggression rights—the Vietnamese in Cambodia, and Iraq in Kuwait—the victims of these illegal attacks do possess resistance rights, and the international community rushes to their aid. In contrast, those who resists attacks by states that possess aggression rights—Israel invading Lebanon in 1982 and 2006, and the United States and its coalition attacking and occupying Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq over the past ten years—lack resistance rights, and their resistance is labeled by invidious terms such as "terrorism." Even though operating inside Lebanon, Hezbollah is thus declared a "terrorist" organization supported by a state-sponsor of terrorism, Iran. In the post-invasion settlement of August 2006, the blue-helmeted UN troops were deployed inside Lebanon rather than inside Israel, even though Israel had invaded Lebanon; the UN's reason for the deployment to Lebanon is to contain Hezbollah and protect the aggressor's northern border.[22] Similarly, the resistance to the U.S. invasion-occupation of Iraq is called "insurgency," as if it were taking place in major Western capitals, rather than in a country occupied by an invader's military. In his testimony before the U.S. Congress in early April, General David Petraeus defined the "fundamental nature of the conflict" inside Iraq as "competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources," the competing forces including "[t]errorists, insurgents, militia extremists, and criminal gangs," so-called "Al Qaeda in Iraq," Syria, and the "Special Groups" that the U.S. Central Command alleges are working on behalf of Iran.[23] Thus the "fundamental nature of the conflict" excludes any causal role for the state that militarily invaded Iraq, seized its territory, and is now well into its sixth year of savagely repressing the resistance to its occupation, no matter from what quarter. The international community recognizes the right of this particular invader to crush the resistance that it meets by any means. This right to destroy a country in order to save it is an integral part both of aggression rights and the denial of the right to resist aggression. 7. Rights to self defense: Targets of the hegemon possess no right of self-defense. When tiny Guatemala in 1953-1954 and Nicaragua in the 1980s, both under serious threat of attack by the United States, sought arms from the Soviet bloc, this caused outrage and panic in U.S. political and media circles. These were allegedly threatening states and their search for arms could not be legitimate defense, it was a menace to the pitiful giant and the neighbors of the target. Similarly, with Iran on the U.S. hit-list in recent years, even though surrounded by hostile U.S. forces and openly threatened by both the United States and Israel, its right to self-defense is cancelled. Under U.S. prodding the Security Council imposed three rounds of sanctions on Iran's legal nuclear program, and Iran is clearly unable to counter U.S. and Israeli nuclear weapons with any of its own—it is threatened with attack right now, when no serious analyst claims it has any nuclear weapons capability. In short, it has no right to self-defense. Meanwhile, the United States and Israel can arm-to-the-teeth and threaten war as part of their "security" needs and right to self-defense. But their targets possess no such rights or legitimate needs. As UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told an emergency meeting of the Security Council on March 1: "I condemn Palestinian rocket attacks, and call for the immediate cessation of such acts of terrorism....While recognizing Israel's right to defend itself, I condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed and injured so many civilians, including children. I call on Israel to cease such attacks."[24] Here we note that this statement was made following four days of ferocious attacks by the Israel Defense Forces on the Gaza Palestinians, leaving by then approximately 120 Palestinians dead, with as many as 60 killed this one day alone, including 39 civilians.[25] Yet in keeping with his office's longstanding protocol, Ban Ki-Moon's address was careful to introduce its statement about Israel's bloody and illegal assault on the Gaza Palestinians with a subordinate clause "recognizing Israel's right to defend itself." As with the hegemon, the hegemon's favorite client only defends itself.

8. Rights to acquire nuclear weapons: The United States and the other Great Powers all enjoy the right to possess nuclear weapons, as does any other state that meets with U.S. approval (i.e., Israel of course, but also India and Pakistan). But for targets like Iran and North Korea, the United States vehemently denies them the right to acquire nuclear weapons; and in the extreme case of Iran, the United States refuses to allow Iran even its legal rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium "for peaceful purposes without discrimination."[26] Instead, the United States uses Iran's alleged less-than-perfect cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and, more important, Iran's refusal to surrender its rights under the NPT, as the basis for derogation, for sanctions, and for plans (excuses) for a long-desired attack on Iran and possible "regime change." Just as the UN and international community have cooperated with the United States in supporting its aggressions in Afghanistan and Iraq, so they go along with the hegemon in denying Iran its peaceful nuclear rights and in fostering the moral environment for another U.S. and Israeli aggression.[27] Israel of course suffers no penalty whatsoever, either for refusing to join the NPT or for having developed nuclear-weapons in rogue-like fashion as many as 40 years ago.[28] Nor has the U.S. rejection of its NPT-obligations to negotiate "in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race" and on a "treaty on general and complete disarmament" limited the credibility of its calls for the policing and punishment of much lesser NPT-violations by other states.[29] As with virtually everything else within the international order, the greater powers lay claim to rights they deny to the lesser powers, and do so without any regard to their own violations of agreements or international law.
9. Rights to having their civilian victims found worthy of international sympathy: The world community was of course aghast at the Al Qaeda actions of 9/11 that took nearly 3,000 civilian lives on U.S. territory. But even small massacres of Western civilians, such as the murder of eight students at the Mercaz Harav yeshiva in West Jerusalem on March 6, are treated with front-page headlines and great indignation. The word "massacre" is regularly applied to such events. Indeed, the attack by the lone Palestinian gunman on the seminary students was described as "savage" by Ban Ki-Moon, and a "barbaric and vicious attack on innocent civilians [that] deserves the condemnation of every nation," in George Bush's words.[30] On the other hand, the post-9/11 retaliatory killing of well over three thousand Afghanis in U.S. air raids, and the killing of some 127 Gaza Palestinians during the two-week Israel Defense Force's Operation "Hot Winter" (Feb. 27 -March 10), a majority of them unarmed civilians, including many children, are treated in low-key, are not designated "massacres" or "savage," and are regularly given implicit apologetics as "collateral damage" and "tragic errors." Israel may sometimes be criticized for the "disproportionate and excessive use of force" and cautioned to "exercise maximum restraint," but it is never condemned for killing maliciously and deliberately and doing so with a clear and unambiguous chain-of-command that reaches from the pilots at the controls of F-16s or Apache Helicopters up through the ranks of the IDF and stops at the Office of the Prime Minister. "There is a clear distinction between terrorist rocket attacks that target civilians and action in self-defense," U.S. National Security spokesman Gordon Johndroe explained[31]—and few Western establishment figures will fail to make this distinction, and then only at peril to their careers. In an even more dramatic case, then-UN Ambassador's Madeleine Albright's 1996 admission over U.S. television that the deaths of "half-a-million" small children in Iraq, attributable to the U.S.-U.K.-UN- "sanctions of mass destruction," were "worth it," was not only never described as apologetics for a "massacre"—the admission was hardly noted in the West.[32] We are dealing here with the long-standing distinction between "worthy" and "unworthy" victims, and between "people" and "unpeople," a distinction that has allowed the West to kill and dispossess untold millions of savages, niggers, gooks, hajis, and assorted non-white Westerners for centuries without the slightest damage to its self-perception as morally elevated.[33] True, at this point, it may no longer be acceptable to describe them as niggers (though hajis still appears to be common), but it is OK to note that "we don't do body counts" and occasionally to admit that directly attacking a civilian support base—draining the seas in which the terrorist fish swim—is an acceptable feature of military action. The beauty is that the ancient dichotomy between US and THEM is preserved so well and handled with such aplomb—mainly by silence and an implicit double standard—that it is normalized and unnoticed by the public. Thus, there is the vocal concern over civilian victims in Darfur and Zimbabwe and Tibet, as all three fall within the national territories of Western targets;[34] while benevolent concern over civilian victims is systematically channeled away from Afghanis, Iraqis, Congolese, Colombians, and Palestinians, abused by the West and its clients.
10. "Right to exist"(and the right to demand targets admit one's "right to exist"): This "right" came into existence as a tool to buttress the U.S. and Israeli policy of rejecting a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, thus prolonging the conflict, leaving boundaries unsettled, and Palestinian land ripe for Israeli expropriation. It gives Israel and its benefactor an ace-in-the-hole for withholding recognition of whomever they choose—non-state actors such as the PLO, Hamas, and Hezbollah, and regional states such as Iran and Syria, and Egypt much earlier—whenever they choose, on the charge that the other party is delinquent in not recognizing "Israel's right to exist." Apart from the fact that negotiations imply recognition and that the material existence of Israel can hardly be threatened, much less denied, by its exceedingly weak antagonists, the propaganda beauty of this right lies in its ambiguity: Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state? Right to be accepted without honoring the right of return of the ethnically-cleansed non-Jewish refugees to their homeland? We believe that this murky "right" is just another device to pre-empt a settlement of the Israel - Palestinian conflict, while Israel continues to dispossess the very people allegedly refusing to recognize its right to exist. Yet, these are matters not discussible in the West, where the affirmation of Israel's right to exist and the demand that it be volunteered without prompting serve above all as a kind of loyalty test and enforcement or disciplinary mechanism. The truth of these observations is revealed by the fact that usage of the phrase "right to exist" turns up almost exclusively in relation to Israel, and not for any other state or people in the world. To illustrate this, we constructed a series of searches of the Factiva and the Nexis databases for mentions of the exact phrase "Israel's right to exist" over a 31 month period from September 1, 2005 through March 31, 2008; thereafter, we repeated the same searches, but substituted the names of 28 different entities in place of "Israel." (For example, "Palestine's right to exist," "France's right to exist," and so on.) When searching the Factiva database's most comprehensive "All Sources" category, we found 8,689 items that mentioned the phrase "Israel's right to exist," but only 15 that mentioned "Palestine's right to exist," and 7 that mentioned "Palestinians' right to exist." Using the Nexis database to search the New York Times produced similarly one-sided results: Whereas 120 items mentioned "Israel's right to exist," Nexis could find no items (zero) within the New York Times's archive that mentioned any of the other 28 entities as possessing a "right to exist" comparable to "Israel's right to exist." (For our complete results, see Table Two and Table Three in our Appendix below.) What is this attribute, the right to exist, that relates only to the nuclear-armed and U.S. protected state of Israel, but no other state, no other people, no other race? On the other hand, Palestine's right to exist is a real—we might even say, an existential—issue, as Israel has refused for six decades to admit even the existence of a Palestinian nation, let alone recognize a Palestinian state with clearly defined borders. The structured bias in evidence here runs deep.
Concluding Note: Rights to democratic substance or farce? Underlying the consolidation of the principles of the Imperial New World Order is the global decline of substantive democracy, as the global political elites have been able to do what they want in service to their interests—the holy trinity of the neoliberal program, militarization, and power-projection—in the face of widespread opposition on the part of the underlying populations. This had a dramatic manifestation in a recent exchange between ABC - TV News correspondent Martha Raddatz and Vice President Dick Cheney. Asked what he thinks about the two-thirds of the American public that says the Iraq war is "not worth fighting," Cheney replied: "So?"[35] The contempt for what the public wants and the widely held belief among the politicians in charge about the public's irrelevance—except as workers, consumers, and as a field whose votes can be harvested once every election cycle—could hardly be more blatant. Elite contempt for the consent of the governed radiates throughout the U.S. media as well. In an important opinion poll released just two days after the Raddatz - Cheney exchange (and one that in fact used their exchange to highlight the poll's findings), 77% of U.S. respondents agreed with Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that "the will of the people [should] be the basis of the authority of government." A dramatically high 94% said that U.S. government leaders "should pay attention to the views of the people as they make decisions." But when asked whether they believe the United States "is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves," or "run for the benefit of all the people," 80% said "by a few big interests."[36] Remarkably, although conducted during a presidential election year, and devoted to what Americans think about their own political lives, this opinion poll went unreported in the U.S. media, while a separate poll conducted by the same firm that asked people in six different countries what they think about China was reported widely.[37] The U.S. public was hostile to the Iraq invasion-occupation even before it occurred,[38] as was the global public,[39] and for some years now polls have shown a solid majority in the United States wanting a fairly prompt and complete exit,[40] and a reduction of the role the United States plays globally, particularly in its readiness to use force;[41] but this has had zero effect on U.S. policy, with the Democrats as well as the Republicans failing to respond to what the voting public wants. Polls in Iraq also show a definite majority there want the United States out,[42] but again with zero effect on U.S. policy or the response of leaders of the supposedly democratic states in Europe and elsewhere who have put no pressure on the invader-occupier to withdraw. It has also been long established that the U.S. public would like to see a smaller military budget, greater infrastructure spending and greater efforts at diplomatic and collective resolution of international issues. A 2007 poll showed that 73 percent of U.S. citizens would favor an agreement for the elimination of all nuclear weapons, an opinion that runs exactly counter to the policies of the Bush administration (which have not been noticeably opposed by the Democratic Party).[43] In keeping with the principle of elite contempt for the consent of the governed, the U.S. government continues to pursue next-generation nuclear weapons capabilities, and does everything in its power to prevent the NPT's disarmament requirement from even being raised in multilateral forums. Abroad as well, public opinion seems to have little effect on policy-makers, who fall readily into line with the ruler of the Imperial New World Order. A series of polls within the Czech Republic these past 16 months report consistent majorities (sometimes reaching as high as 75 percent) that oppose the placement of any component of the U.S. anti-missile program on their territory.[44] But the Czech government rushes toward acceptance, and Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek resists all calls for a national referendum on the issue; in analyst Philip Coyle's words, "Czech government officials have even been known to say that the decision to host the radar is too important to be left to the voters."[45] The same scenario has played out in Poland, with a majority of Poles consistently opposing their country's participation in the U.S. anti-missile program, while Prime Minister Donald Tusk also refuses to permit a referendum on the issue. "The truth is brutal," Tusk explained, "there will not be decisions of a military character approved through universal vote."[46] The publics in Europe's largest countries also oppose the U.S. anti-missile program, with pluralities opposed in Britain (44%) and Italy (49%), and clear majorities in France (58%), Spain (61%), and Germany (71%).[47] In each case, the leadership of these NATO members support the program—which is to say, oppose their own publics. Similarly in Canada, the most recent public opinion poll shows that 59% disagreed with the decision of Parliament to extend their mission to Afghanistan for another three years. Some 70-80% of Poles are opposed to their government's participation in what has become NATO's war in Afghanistan; Tusk as well had strongly opposed participation just before his election, but switched to support after he secured his victory. A French poll showed that 68% opposed President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to send more French troops to Afghanistan.[48] In short, the consolidation of Imperial New World Order principles rests on the United States and its allies, clients, and hangers-on being pseudo-democracies, ruled by elites free to ignore their own publics—failed states, in effect. This in turn rests on the huge and growing inequalities that have come to prevail, both within and between states, the plutocratization of politics, the erosion of a constitutional public sphere, the gatekeeper and propaganda services of an increasingly centralized media, and publics that thus far have been too easily managed despite the disadvantages the great majority has suffered under this unjust and ever-more threatening regime. The INWO is not likely to disappear anytime soon, unless it causes its own catastrophic destruction. (By no means impossible, given its trajectory, as "little changes, and much gets worse.") Otherwise, it is not likely to end until the mass of humanity ceases to be manageable, organizes at home and abroad, and fights back. "


#59 StrangeAeons

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 732 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Indiana

Posted 21 January 2009 - 04:45 PM

Like I said earlier, I would like this discussion to focus on this specific conflict and what you think needs to be done. I oversimplified Chomsky because I really don't feel it has pertinence to this particular discussion and don't wish to discuss him in detail. If you want to go on about the New World Order and all that jazz start another thread. Deciding who you blame isn't the most helpful aspect of this discussion, and it's going downhill fast. So I'll pose the question again, more directly:

What do you believe needs to be done in Israel/Palestine, what compromises can realistically be made, and what role should the U.S. and other foreign interests play in mediation of the conflict?

#60 Cyberbrain

  • Guest, F@H
  • 1,755 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Thessaloniki, Greece

Posted 21 January 2009 - 05:49 PM

Going back to the invasion of Gaza, did Israel have the right to use phosphorus shells?

Posted Image

http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/7841999.stm




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users