Liberals sack MP for Palestinian comments

[BillyTK]

Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy has <del>sacked</del> asked front bencher* Jenny Tonge (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3421669.stm) to step down following her remarks about Palestinian suicide bombers.

"Her recent remarks about suicide bombers are completely unacceptable," said Kennedy. "They are not compatible with Liberal Democrat party policies and principles. There can be no justification, under any circumstances for taking innocent lives through terrorism."

The decision follows Tonge's comments (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/libdems/story/0,9061,1129744,00.html) at the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign [PSC]. Her controversial comments were; "Many, many people criticise, many, many people say it is just another form of terrorism, but I can understand and I am a fairly emotional person and I am a mother and a grandmother. I think if I had to live in that situation, and I say this advisedly, I might just consider becoming one myself. And that is a terrible thing to say." Dr Tonge sought to clarify her comments by explaining on Newsnight that if she were an Israeli grandmother she would act like an Israeli grandmother, and if she'd been a French grandmother during the middle ages she would probably have done a lot of knitting and attended beheadings of aristos.**

She also said, "That doesn't mean to say I condone suicide bombers, I don't. I think it's appalling and loathsome. But we have to try and understand where they are coming from and understand the situation in which they live."

This was contradicted by a spokesman for the Israeli embassy who said, "We would not expect any human being - and surely not a British MP - to express an understanding of such atrocities." Her comments have been variously condemned by her own party as well as Labour MP Louise Ellman, who claims Dr Tonge's comments give the "green light to terrorism".

Dr Tonge also advocates legalising cocaine (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1942743.stm), saying, "I am a mother and a grandmother. I think if I had to live on a run-down inner city estate surrounded by crack-whore grannies, and I say this advisedly, I might just consider becoming one myself. And that is a terrible thing to say."***

*Front-bencher: British terminology for an MP who is allowed to sit in Parliament on the front bench with their leader of their party. See also, cabinet; shadow cabinet; bum-licker.

**I made the French thing up.

***And the crack-whore granny thing.

[Frank Newgent]

What do people in Dr Jenny Tonge's
constituency think think about this?

http://www.nobel-paix.ch/bio/portrait/begin.jpg

"Her recent remarks about
bombing civilians are
completely unacceptable."

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
What do people in Dr Jenny Tonge's
constituency think think about this?

http://www.nobel-paix.ch/bio/portrait/begin.jpg

"Her recent remarks about
bombing civilians are
completely unacceptable."
I dunno if they're big Roy Orbison fans?

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by BillyTK

I dunno if they're big Roy Orbison fans?

http://www.nobel-paix.ch/bio/portrait/begin.jpg

For you don't love me
And I'll always be crying for your love
Crying for your love
Yes now you're gone
And from this moment on
I'll be crying
Crying Crying
Crying Crying



Have you ever heard the version of this song from the movie Mulholland Drive? Silencio...

[demon]

If Jenny Tonge had said "if I were an Israeli suffering regular terror attacks, I might be tempted to support illegal oppression," would she have been sacked? No.
If she had said "if I were a battered woman who had suffered years of systematic abuse, I might be tempted to kill my husband," would she have been sacked? No.

Of course, it isn’t done to point out that the Palestinians are by far the bigger victim. That it is they who are an occupied people, suffering the obscenity of apartheid. That it is they who are trying, with stones and home-made explosives, to repel the fourth most powerful army in the world and stand up to a nation that, by virtue of its strategic value to the US, is immune from international law.

No: no sympathy for this victim is allowed.

Cheri Blair and Oona King expressed similar sentiments concerning the plight of occupied/oppressed Palestinians and they did not get sacked.
Bomber Harris under orders from Churchill firestormed Dresden and the USA dropped atom bombs on Japanese cities. Hundreds of thousands of civilians, children & women were annihilated because Brits and Americans were fighting against oppressive regimes.

Again, this just serves to illustrate the prevailing racism that still exists in England, that Palestinians/Arabs are not accorded the same prerogative in defending their own land and people.

Anti-Semitism in England? What a complete red herring.

[Skeptic]

[Bomber Harris under orders from Churchill firestormed Dresden and the USA dropped atom bombs on Japanese cities. Hundreds of thousands of civilians, children & women were annihilated because Brits and Americans were fighting against oppressive regimes.

Again, this just serves to illustrate the prevailing racism that still exists in England, that Palestinians/Arabs are not accorded the same prerogative in defending their own land and people.

There you have it in a nutshell: the difference between the jews and the Arabs.

When jews (or their sympathizers) complain about antisemitism in Britian, they complain that many Britons would not let jews do what the Britons were always allowed to do... like becoming prime minister.

When Arabs (or they sympathisers, like demon) complain about "anti-Arab" feelings in Britian, they, too, complain that many Britons would not let Arabs do what the Britons were always allowed to do... like butchering hundreds of thousands of their enemies.

"It's not fair! I, too, want to become prime minister!" might be a bit whiny, but "It's not fair! I, too, want to butcher my enemies!" is barbarism in its purest form. But then again, it shows you what the "poor, opressed" Palestinians or the Arab followers of the "religion of peace" REALLY have on their mind when they speak of "legitimate resistance to the occupation" and other such euphemisms, doesn't it?

[The idea]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy has <del>sacked</del> asked front bencher* Jenny Tonge (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3421669.stm) to step down following her remarks about Palestinian suicide bombers.

The headline I see says:
Jenny Tonge has been asked by Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy to quit his front bench following her remarks about Palestinian suicide bombers.
It sounds as though Tonge has been spending too much time under Charles Kennedy's front bench.

She was speaking to a pro-Palestinian lobby when she said of Palestinian suicide bombers: "If I had to live in that situation - and I say that advisedly - I might just consider becoming one myself."
How much longer do we have to wait before there is a vocal group asserting that there are no Palestinian suicide bombers, that it is a hoax? Then the comments might be rephrased as follows: "If there were Palestinian suicide bombers and if I had to live the way I imagine them being forced to live, then I might myself become one, not that there are any."

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic


When jews (or their sympathizers) complain about antisemitism in Britian, they complain that many Britons would not let jews do what the Britons were always allowed to do... like becoming prime minister.


A blatant and deliberate misrepresentation as usual.

We were discussing this in another thread when you fled in the face of simple questions you have no answer for.

The facts, sorry to allow them to get in your way again, are..A poll found that 18 percent disagreed with the statement that a Jewish prime minister would be "equally acceptable" to a leader from any other faith.

From this you feel you can now state that many britons would not let jews become prime minister. There is NOTHING in this poll to infer that "many" britons would "not let a jew be prime minister" it simply shows that a small minority would find a prime minister of one particular religion less acceptable than a prime minister of another religion. I hate to tell you this but most prime ministers are "less acceptable" to a lot more that 18% of people for a whole raft of reasons. How come these people still allow them to be prime minister? I'm sure that in your paranoid world you think they would be fine about a muslim Prime Minister and its just a conspiracy against the Jews.... Its just common old religious bigotry "skeptic" the sort of thing you loudly support, unless its targetted at Jews..

And while we are at it here's that scary question again. Is it possible for an Anglican to become prime minister of Israel? What percentage of Israelis would you think would find an Anglican prime minister "equally acceptable" to a Jewish prime minister.... After all, if religious bigotry in Britain rightly shocks and disgusts you why do you support it in Israel?

Your Hypocricy is amazing.

[The idea]

Originally posted by The Fool
[...] A poll found that 18 percent disagreed with the statement that a Jewish prime minister would be "equally acceptable" to a leader from any other faith.

it simply shows that a small minority would find a prime minister of one particular religion less acceptable than a prime minister of another religion. [...]
Is it possible that some of the 18% disagreed because they thought a Jewish PM would be preferable?

[Skeptic]

"The Fool", again, misses the point--intentionally--so he won't have to deal with things his beliefs don't like by pretending they don't exist. The point of me bringing up the PM-cannot-be-jewish bruhahaha in Britian is not, of course, that a jew cannot be a PM (they could). It is that if you ask the jews of Britian "what is antisemitism?", they would say, "well, 18% of the population opposing a jew be PM". This might be exagerrated (I myself am not at all sure this poll really shows antisemitism), but that's not the main issue. The main point is that they would NOT say, "well, for example, 18% of Britons opposing letting the jews butcher hundreds of thousands of Arabs, which is their right in a just war"--while demon says JUST THAT (in reverse) about what "anti-Arab racism" is.

For demon, as his post showed, "anti-Arab racism" is not letting the Arabs butcher the jews by the hundreds of thousands as part of "legitimate resistance to occupation" (or whatever the euphemism du jour for "murdering jews" is); "anti-Arab racism" is not supporting suicide bombers that blow up babies for no other reason than the fact that they're jewish. Let me repeat this: "demon" is complaining that British opposition to the Arabs genociding the jews is "racism". Which is a bit like saying that not letting a rapist rape a woman is "sexual repression", or that the police catching a thief is "kidnapping".

Simply put, demon let his mask slip for a moment and told us all, unintentionally, what he really wishes would happen to the jews--namely, that they'd be killed by the hundreds of thousands--and how awful and "racist" it is that some people oppose this, no doubt merely to spite the Arabs.

So, naturally, "The Fool" ignores it. It doesn't fit with his worldview. It must be my paranoia. But, unlike you, "The Fool", I do not ignore demon's words. Unlike you, when I find someone who claims that suicide bombers are just fine and that killing hundreds of thousands of jews would be perfectly legitimate "resistance to evil", I BELIEVE HIM. I do not think that he is just speaking out of "frustration" over the "sad situation in Palestine". I do not believe that if only he or his ilk will be given a bit more land, that israel will surrender some more territory, this hatered of jews will be satisfied. If history taught us anything, it taught us that when someone talks about how it's right and propert that more jews would be killed, THEY MEAN IT, and nothing the jews could do to appease them will work.

[demon]

"Simply put, demon let his mask slip for a moment and told us all, unintentionally, what he really wishes would happen to the jews--namely, that they'd be killed by the hundreds of thousands..."

Skeptic, unlike yourself, I never throw terms around like "hundreds of thousands", whether in the context of people being killed or people who want to do the killing. You need to trim your sails tiger.
I never used this gif before but this seems about as good a time as any.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
"The Fool", again, misses the point--intentionally--so he won't have to deal with things his beliefs don't like by pretending they don't exist. The point of me bringing up the PM-cannot-be-jewish bruhahaha in Britian is not, of course, that a jew cannot be a PM (they could).

Could an Anglican be prime minister of Israel. Why do you actively support discrimination based on religion in one country and condemn even a suggstion of the same thing in another?

simple question which you constantly ignore.

Simply put, demon let his mask slip for a moment and told us all, unintentionally, what he really wishes would happen to the jews--namely, that they'd be killed by the hundreds of thousands

I would like to join you in condemning thisw, unfortunately, I can't seem to find anywhere whhere he said this...can you quote it for me.....or is this just one of those "feelings" you get?



So, naturally, "The Fool" ignores it.
Lol....don't talk to me about ignoring things...you attempt to ignore your hypocricy and hope others won't notice....

I personally find it hard not to ignore something unless it actually exists...can you point it out to me?.... Sorry but I ignore all of your "feelings" as I find them the rantings of a paranoid racist.....once again, show me what it is I'm supposedly ignoring. Show me where Demon talks of his desire to see hundreds of thousands of jews killed.... Unfortunately your brain cannot cash the cheques your mouth writes....

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by demon
If Jenny Tonge had said "if I were an Israeli suffering regular terror attacks, I might be tempted to support illegal oppression," would she have been sacked? No.

Of course not. Placed in the context of regular terror attacks, your “illegal oppression” becomes “self-defense.”

Originally posted by demon
If she had said "if I were a battered woman who had suffered years of systematic abuse, I might be tempted to kill my husband," would she have been sacked? No.

She wouldn’t be sacked for advocating murder?

Originally posted by demon
Of course, it isn’t done to point out that the Palestinians are by far the bigger victim. That it is they who are an occupied people, suffering the obscenity of apartheid. That it is they who are trying, with stones and home-made explosives, to repel the fourth most powerful army in the world and stand up to a nation that, by virtue of its strategic value to the US, is immune from international law.

What were they the victim of before Israel captured the disputed territories?

Originally posted by demon
No: no sympathy for this victim is allowed.

It doesn’t matter what your cause is, when you advance it by murdering innocents you don’t get sympathy. It’s too bad that you don’t get that.

Originally posted by demon
Cheri Blair and Oona King expressed similar sentiments concerning the plight of occupied/oppressed Palestinians and they did not get sacked.
Bomber Harris under orders from Churchill firestormed Dresden and the USA dropped atom bombs on Japanese cities. Hundreds of thousands of civilians, children & women were annihilated because Brits and Americans were fighting against oppressive regimes.

I assume you are of the opinion that the firebombing of Dresden and the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were bad things?

Originally posted by demon
Again, this just serves to illustrate the prevailing racism that still exists in England, that Palestinians/Arabs are not accorded the same prerogative in defending their own land and people.

I’m confused, are you suggesting that the Palestinian-Arabs should have the prerogative to commit acts of destruction on the scale of Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima? If it was wrong when the United States and Britton did it, why should it be okay for the Palestinian-Arabs? Should we excuse every atrocity in the world on the basis that the United States and Britton did things you don’t agree with 60 years ago?

If we excuse Palestinian-Arabs acts of terror, why should we not also excuse Israeli actions of self-defense? Why do you think one is okay and the other is not?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
Could an Anglican be prime minister of Israel. Why do you actively support discrimination based on religion in one country and condemn even a suggstion of the same thing in another?


It seems unlikely that an Anglican would become Prime Minister of Israel, but do you presume that an Anglican couldn't?

[Underemployed]

An interesting question. Israeli citizenship is only up for grabs for 'genuine' Jews but I cannot find any information about what happens if you abandon your faith once you are a full citizen. It would certainly be extremely unlikely for any non-Jew to hold high public office in Israel just as it would be extremely unlikely for any non-Muslim to achieve the same status in a predominantly Muslim country.

I'm a card-carrying member of the LibDems in UK (I have run for local elections) and am seriously reconsidering my position. Jenny Tonge spoke plainly and reasonably - rare enough for a politician - and this is how the media, her fellow members and the public react. I'm ashamed.

Did she encourage suicide bombers? No. Did she apologise for them? No. She said she could understand what drove them to become suicide bombers. Understanding the cause of a problem is the first step to solving it. I can understand why drug addicts commit crimes to feed their habit. Does that mean I condone drug abuse?

[BillyTK]

So I leave this thread over night and look what happens; it gets vandalised and covered in nasty grafitti. Please people, can we stay on topic here and save the head-banging, strawmen and appeals to the peanut gallery for the other Israel threads?

Here's a few suggestions for discussion;
Was Dr. Tonge within her rights to say what she did?
Do her comments in anyway conflict with her position as a Liberal MP or as an MP in general?
Are her comments truthful?
What about the Israeli embassy's comments that "We would not expect any human being - and surely not a British MP - to express an understanding of such atrocities"?
Or Labour MP Louise Ellman's suggestion that Dr Tonge's comments give a green light to terrorism?

This list is not extensive or exclusive. Please feel free to introduce any subjects which you consider to be of relevance to the thread. Also feel free to address each other's posts, but in a civil way, using reasoned argument, not wild accusations, fallacious appeals or ad homs.

Thank you.

[BillyTK]

Hi Underemployed, thanks for your considered and thoughtful reply.
I'm a card-carrying member of the LibDems in UK (I have run for local elections) and am seriously reconsidering my position. Jenny Tonge spoke plainly and reasonably - rare enough for a politician - and this is how the media, her fellow members and the public react. I'm ashamed.
Would you say that the LibDems are heading for the forced-consense style of politics that appears to be popular in both the Labour and Tory parties, or is this a one-off?

Did she encourage suicide bombers? No. Did she apologise for them? No.
You don't think that in suggesting that under similar conditions, Dr Tonge might be a suicide bomber herself goes beyond understanding into giving approval for their actions?
She said she could understand what drove them to become suicide bombers. Understanding the cause of a problem is the first step to solving it. I can understand why drug addicts commit crimes to feed their habit. Does that mean I condone drug abuse?
What do you think of the Israeli Embassy's suggestion that there are some actions that their nature we shouldn't even seek to understand?

[Lothian]

I have no problem with Jenny Tonge’s comments. If you look at what she was saying rather than the headlines you would see that she is saying that she understands that people in certain situations feel that they have no alternative to violence. She does not condone it. Her statement That doesn't mean to say I condone suicide bombers, I don't. I think it's appalling and loathsome. But we have to try and understand where they are coming from and understand the situation in which they live makes a mockery of the opinions that are now being pinned on her.

I am very disappointed in the liberal party’s attitude in asking her to step down. It was looking for a while as if they would have my support at the next election but I am now reconsidering.

P.S. I also support her stance against religious schools.

[JamesM]

I think this is a big fuss about nothing, but that's politics for you. It's not so much about what you say, but what you give the impression of having said.

I disagree with her analysis of what makes a suicide bomber, but I don't see why she should have got sacked. Except I can sort of see it, if only in terms of the political circus. If you give your opponents even the slightest opening to accuse you of supporting something like terrorism, they'll be all over you, generating bad publicity for you and your party (particularly for those who don't read far beyond the headlines) and you could argue that someone who makes such an elementary slip isn't a safe pair of hands.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by JamesM
I think this is a big fuss about nothing, but that's politics for you. It's not so much about what you say, but what you give the impression of having said.

I disagree with her analysis of what makes a suicide bomber,
In what way do you disagree?
but I don't see why she should have got sacked. Except I can sort of see it, if only in terms of the political circus. If you give your opponents even the slightest opening to accuse you of supporting something like terrorism, they'll be all over you, generating bad publicity for you and your party (particularly for those who don't read far beyond the headlines)
I can appreciate your logic here, but I have to say it's a sad day for British politics if we've reached such a level of simplistic, conformist politics. But it also strikes me as inconsistent position for the Liberal Party as IIRC they were against the invasion of Iraq, which leaves them open to accusation of siding with Saddam Hussein and his terrorist-supporting regime.
and you could argue that someone who makes such an elementary slip isn't a safe pair of hands.
Although it would appear that Dr Tonge slips are intentional (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3424273.stm):
In an interview with BBC News Online last year, she said she was determined to talk about the issues which she believes people really care about.

"We don't talk about the things that people are talking about in the pubs," she says.

"It's down to politicians to raise those issues....however much flak you get."

[JamesM]

Originally posted by BillyTK

In what way do you disagree?
I think suicide bombers are a product of indoctrination and fanaticism rather than oppression and poverty. Evidence for this point of view is presented in Krueger and Maleckova's paper 'Education, Poverty, Political Violence and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection?', NBER Working Paper No w9704 (http://papers.nber.org/papers/w9074). Quoting from the abstract:
we analyze data on support for attacks against Israeli targets from public opinion polls conducted in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These polls indicate that support for violent attacks does not decrease among those with higher education and higher living standards. The core contribution of the paper is a statistical analysis of the determinants of participation in Hezbollah militant activities in Lebanon. The evidence we have assembled suggests that having a living standard above the poverty line or a secondary school or higher education is positively associated with participation in Hezbollah. We also find that Israeli Jewish settlers who attacked Palestinians in the West Bank in the early 1980s were overwhelmingly from high-paying occupations.

I can appreciate your logic here, but I have to say it's a sad day for British politics if we've reached such a level of simplistic, conformist politics.
I agree with you. But that's politics for you.

[Ed]

Originally posted by demon

Again, this just serves to illustrate the prevailing racism that still exists in England, that Palestinians/Arabs are not accorded the same prerogative in defending their own land and people.

.

This would be sort of a forward defense, right? In other words they are not defending against a specific attack, they are anticipating it. Right? So, if you can conjure up a threat you can wage agressive war. Right? Just like the US.

We thank you for your support.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by JamesM

I think suicide bombers are a product of indoctrination and fanaticism rather than oppression and poverty. Evidence for this point of view is presented in Krueger and Maleckova's paper 'Education, Poverty, Political Violence and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection?', NBER Working Paper No w9704 (http://papers.nber.org/papers/w9074). Quoting from the abstract:
Thanks for the link, I'll definitely have a read; it's certainly an interesting idea. But I have to note that the passage you've quoted from states "support for violent attacks". I don't know if this is a semantic issue, or an acknowledgement of the functional problems of polling the views of suicide bombers themselves.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Ed


This would be sort of a forward defense, right? In other words they are not defending against a specific attack, they are anticipating it. Right?

So, if you can conjure up a threat you can wage agressive war. Right? Just like the US.

We thank you for your support.
I'm not too sure if I follow your logic here; are you suggesting that the Israeli presence in the occupied territories is a matter of conjecture and speculation equivalent to Iraq's WMD's, or that the IDF poses no threat to Palestinians because it doesn't actually exist?

Btw, what do you think of Dr Tonge's comments?

[Ed]

Originally posted by BillyTK

I'm not too sure if I follow your logic here; are you suggesting that the Israeli presence in the occupied territories is a matter of conjecture and speculation equivalent to Iraq's WMD's, or that the IDF poses no threat to Palestinians because it doesn't actually exist?

Btw, what do you think of Dr Tonge's comments?

I was under the impression that Demon was suggesting that suicides were a form of defence.

They are understandable (Tonge, that is) however they smack of the same irrationality that gives us the bombings in the first place and as such make her a bit suspect as a person level headed enough to serve as representitive.

I certainly understand why they do it. I think that they are tools of old farts that somehow or other are far too important to blow themselves up. She (Tonge) sounds deluded when she goes beyond understand to suggesting that she would do it herself. A representitive that sees suicide and murder as a viable political tool, given the circunstances, is nutsie, IMO.

[Cain]

I think suicide bombers are a product of indoctrination and fanaticism rather than oppression and poverty. Evidence for this point of view is presented in Krueger and Maleckova's paper 'Education, Poverty, Political Violence and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection?', NBER Working Paper No w9704. Quoting from the abstract:

The findings of this study, which I believe the authors call "suggestive but not definitive." A professor from the Unviversity of Chicago summarized the paper in an op-ed published in the New York Times.

One of the more obvious problems is that there's a rigorous screening process for suicide bombers. The number of volunteers far surpasses the number a terrorist group can actually send.

The same study found that countries with more freedom (civil liberties and rights) had more willing terrorists. Poverty and oppression go together, but I see no reason why oppression cannot be a more important factor.

The Founding Fathers in America were by no means poor or less oppressed. Students, merchants, and affluent families may feel they play a critical role as leaders in their society. Religious fanaticism and suicide bombings could be twin consequences from years the decades of humiliation and limited opportunities that result from occupation.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Ed
I certainly understand why they do it. I think that they are tools of old farts that somehow or other are far too important to blow themselves up.

or more likely are excellent psychologists: they eliminate the people most likely to supplant them (people resolute enough to go to the end of their conviction at the point of committing suicide), and they cause a double traumatism to the victims - those who survive -, knowing the "suicide" element adds horror to the murders.



She (Tonge) sounds deluded when she goes beyond understand to suggesting that she would do it herself. A representitive that sees suicide and murder as a viable political tool, given the circunstances, is nutsie, IMO.

Given the kind of emotional language she uses, it sounds like she is simply telling the truth: she somehow realises she could be easily manipulated into doing it herself. This is the one good reason I see for getting rid of such a nutsie.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by BillyTK
I have to note that the passage you've quoted from states "support for violent attacks". I don't know if this is a semantic issue, or an acknowledgement of the functional problems of polling the views of suicide bombers themselves.
One of Krueger's students, Claude Berrebi, published a study on the links between poverty and education and members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorist cells, which you may find more relevant. It can be found here (warning: PDF) (http://www.princeton.edu/~cberrebi/edu-pov-terror.pdf).

Cain: I take your point. I will amend my stance to say that oppression is a factor in creating suicide bombers, but I think indoctrination is far more important.

[Cain]

Cain: I take your point. I will amend my stance to say that oppression is a factor in creating suicide bombers, but I think indoctrination is far more important.

I wholly concede that religious fanaticism is intimately linked with suicide bombings. Now what's the underlying cause for the asendency of explicit religious organizations and the relative decline of secular-minded groups? Strategies have changed after years of fruitless negotiation and worsening conditions. Before the Second Intifada it used to be 10 Palestinians killed for every Israeli. The ratio is down to 3:1. The MP's original comments discussed the increasingly desperate situation. Better schooling and a higher socio-economic status are not going to be very worthwhile in the face of limited opportunity and constant humiliation that comes from a foreign occupying power.

[renata]

Originally posted by Underemployed
An interesting question. Israeli citizenship is only up for grabs for 'genuine' Jews but I cannot find any information about what happens if you abandon your faith once you are a full citizen. It would certainly be extremely unlikely for any non-Jew to hold high public office in Israel just as it would be extremely unlikely for any non-Muslim to achieve the same status in a predominantly Muslim country.

Just wanted to correct this all too common misconception. There are Arabs and Christians who are full citizens of Israel- with voting rights and everything-about 18% of the citizenry of Israel is not Jewish. There are Arab representatives in the Knesset(8 seats out of 120), an Arab on the Israeli Supreme Court and Arabs and Christians in various posts in the government- ambassadors, mayors, and others. Ariel Sharon's first cabinet had a Druze as a minister.

Source-http://www.us-israel.org

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Ed


I was under the impression that Demon was suggesting that suicides were a form of defence.

They are understandable (Tonge, that is) however they smack of the same irrationality that gives us the bombings in the first place and as such make her a bit suspect as a person level headed enough to serve as representitive.

I certainly understand why they do it. I think that they are tools of old farts that somehow or other are far too important to blow themselves up. She (Tonge) sounds deluded when she goes beyond understand to suggesting that she would do it herself. A representitive that sees suicide and murder as a viable political tool, given the circunstances, is nutsie, IMO.
This is an interesting interpretation of Dr Tonge's view, and seems to parallel that echoed by the media. I have to say though, that I don't get the impression that she is suggesting that as a white liberal women living in Palestine she'd be a potential suicide bomber, but rather if she was born and raised in Palestine, the experience might lead her to consider such. As such, it's slightly different to suggesting that she advocates suicide bombing, which seems to be the charge laid at her door. Of course, I could be completely wrong on this.

Edited for grammar and idiot typos

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by renata

Just wanted to correct this all too common misconception. There are Arabs and Christians who are full citizens of Israel- with voting rights and everything-about 18% of the citizenry of Israel is not Jewish. There are Arab representatives in the Knesset(8 seats out of 120), an Arab on the Israeli Supreme Court and Arabs and Christians in various posts in the government- ambassadors, mayors, and others. Ariel Sharon's first cabinet had a Druze as a minister.

Source-http://www.us-israel.org


Some people pretend that they confuse the issue of citizenship( everybody who is born in Israel by Israeli parents is an Israeli--or if he is born out of Irsael at least by one Israeli parent etc etc ) with another issue the " The Law of Return" that goes back to the 1950 of course since Israel was founded so as the Jewish people all over the world return to their land.

Also the ignorance of some people in this forum is embarassing. ALL the Arabs are not Muslims!!!

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by JamesM

I think suicide bombers are a product of indoctrination and fanaticism rather than oppression and poverty. Evidence for this point of view is presented in Krueger and Maleckova's paper 'Education, Poverty, Political Violence and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection?', NBER Working Paper No w9704 (http://papers.nber.org/papers/w9074).


Furthermore, in summer we discussed in this forum the most recent survey on Suicide Terrorism, performed by Scott Atrand

Genesis and Future of Suicide Terrorism (http://www.interdisciplines.org/terrorism/papers/1/version/original).

He is driven to the same conclusions and he expands on the matter explaining why the American War Against Terror doesn't persuade anybody but the Americans.

In any case, it's a very interesting article. In this site you will find an excellent discussion that followed the publication of the article.

[Skeptic]

An interesting question. Israeli citizenship is only up for grabs for 'genuine' Jews but I cannot find any information about what happens if you abandon your faith once you are a full citizen.

Nothing. While jews have a right to automatic citizenship, there isn't any requirement to be observant, let alone remain observant. Also, it is quite possible for a non-jew to become an israeli citizen by immigration; the only difference is that it's not automatic.

[Skeptic]

Students, merchants, and affluent families may feel they play a critical role as leaders in their society. Religious fanaticism and suicide bombings could be twin consequences from years the decades of humiliation and limited opportunities that result from occupation.

You got to love Cain...

CAIN: "The cause of suicide bombing is A".

STUDY: "Actually, study shows the cause of suicide bombing is B".

CAIN: "Well... er... but it COULD be that POSSIBLY it was A that caused B over decades, so it's still the 'real cause' of suicide bombing. Not that I have any evidence for that, but never mind that..."

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Cain

I wholly concede that religious fanaticism is intimately linked with suicide bombings. Now what's the underlying cause for the asendency of explicit religious organizations and the relative decline of secular-minded groups? Strategies have changed after years of fruitless negotiation and worsening conditions.


A laughable analysis. Negotiations were not fruitless. The palestinians were offered quite a bit. But Arafat let that fruit rot on the vine, because he'd rather protect his own monopoly on power over the Palestinians than actually improve their lives. And their strategy only changed if you mean that now they're using women suicide bombers, not just men. Resorting to violence is reverting back to a previous, and unsuccess, strategy. The greatest enemy of the Palestinian people is not Sharon, but Arafat and Hamas.


Before the Second Intifada it used to be 10 Palestinians killed for every Israeli. The ratio is down to 3:1.


And yet the ratio for suicide bombing casualties (ie, the number of victims per suicide bomber) has actually dropped. Hmmm... makes you wonder...


The MP's original comments discussed the increasingly desperate situation. Better schooling and a higher socio-economic status are not going to be very worthwhile in the face of limited opportunity and constant humiliation that comes from a foreign occupying power.

Humiliation is indeed part of the problem. But it is a self-inflicted problem. The Isrealis are not to blame for the fact that Palestinians, and many other arabs, place their pride above human decency and even their own lives. The Palestinians could learn a lot from the Japanese in this regard:
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD64804

And better schooling and higher socio-economic status are not going to happen at all as long as the Palestinians are held in the stranglehold of a corrupt leadership like Arafat and his cronies. Israel could give them everything they want and they still wouldn't have either prosperity or peace, because their biggest problems are internal, NOT external.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by BillyTK
This is an interesting interpretation of Dr Tonge's view, and seems to parallel that echoed by the media. I have to say though, that I don't get the impression that she is suggesting that as a white liberal women living in Palestine she'd be a potential suicide bomber, but rather if she was born and raised in Palestine, the experience might lead her to consider such. As such, it's slightly different to suggesting that she advocates suicide bombing, which seems to be the charge laid at her door. Of course, I could be completely wrong on this.


I agree with your interpretation of her intentions, but her statement is still objectionable. Suicide bombing is wrong, and there are Palestinians who recognize this. That most do not does not excuse them. There is only one morally acceptable conclusion regarding suicide bombing, and the atractiveness of the immoral conclusion (that it is justified) does not absolve the bombers of their crime. Tonge's statement confuses what should be, what MUST be, moral clarity on this point. How serious a gaffe this was is certainly open for debate, but I do not consider it a point of debate that, being in a leadership position, she should not have made the statement.

[Skeptic]

I would like to join you in condemning thisw, unfortunately, I can't seem to find anywhere whhere he said this...can you quote it for me.....

You know, "Fool", in a dictionary of quotations, the old adage "none are so blind as those who would not see" should have your picture next to it.

Here--to repeat my previous post that quoted just this--is what demon wrote:

Bomber Harris under orders from Churchill firestormed Dresden and the USA dropped atom bombs on Japanese cities. Hundreds of thousands of civilians, children & women were annihilated because Brits and Americans were fighting against oppressive regimes.

Again, this just serves to illustrate the prevailing racism that still exists in England, that Palestinians/Arabs are not accorded the same prerogative in defending their own land and people.

OK, "Fool", time for English comprehension 101:

1). Demon is claiming that the British and Americans had a certain "prerogative" when fighting Hitler, and that the Palestinians should have the same "prerogative" when fighting israel.

2). What prerogative? The "same prerogative" that Bomber Harris and Truman had: according to Demon, it is the prerogative for massive bombing that would cause "hundreds of thousands of civilians, women & children" deaths.

3). Putting (1) and (2) together, we get the conclusion that it is a a "prerogative" of the Palestinians to butcher hundreds of thousands of "civilians, women and children", and that resisting this "legitimate right of the Palestinian people" (to use the usual euphemism for "a second holocaust", for a change) is "racist".

Now, was that clear enough, or do you want it repeated with pictures?

[American]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Dr Tonge sought to clarify her comments by explaining on Newsnight that if she were an Israeli grandmother she would act like an Israeli grandmother, and if she'd been a French grandmother during the middle ages she would probably have done a lot of knitting and attended beheadings of aristos.


The Wizard: "The way I look at it, when a man does a job, a man becomes that job."

Travis Bickle: "You know, that's probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard."

The Wizard: "Hey, whaddya expect? I'm a taxi driver!"





Your place, then, is all that a liberal knows. And there you should stay; someone else will make things change. Someone like Senator Palantine, err.... Kerry.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I would like to join you in condemning thisw, unfortunately, I can't seem to find anywhere whhere he said this...can you quote it for me.....

You know, "Fool", in a dictionary of quotations, the old adage "none are so blind as those who would not see" should have your picture next to it.

Here--to repeat my previous post that quoted just this--is what demon wrote:



OK, "Fool", time for English comprehension 101:

1). Demon is claiming that the British and Americans had a certain "prerogative" when fighting Hitler, and that the Palestinians should have the same "prerogative" when fighting israel.

2). What prerogative? The "same prerogative" that Bomber Harris and Truman had: according to Demon, it is the prerogative for massive bombing that would cause "hundreds of thousands of civilians, women & children" deaths.

3). Putting (1) and (2) together, we get the conclusion that it is a a "prerogative" of the Palestinians to butcher hundreds of thousands of "civilians, women and children", and that resisting this "legitimate right of the Palestinian people" (to use the usual euphemism for "a second holocaust", for a change) is "racist".

Now, was that clear enough, or do you want it repeated with pictures?
pictures would be nice.....

so, as I suspected the "wants hundreds of thousands of Jews dead" is one of your "feelings".

His statement, no matter how much you wish it did, make no reference to the scale of the actions of the palestinians. Its just another of you 1+1=3 efforts... he compares the two events in tems of the public support, not the size and scale of the events. He makes no statement of support for either event....Allied bombing or palestinian bombings. he point he launched clean over your head refered to peoples double standards......Nothing to do with wishing anyone dead.....you can go back to sleep now.

And congratulations too...since your spanking you have toned down the racist rants, good lad. Keep up the good work.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by renata


Just wanted to correct this all too common misconception. There are Arabs and Christians who are full citizens of Israel- with voting rights and everything-about 18% of the citizenry of Israel is not Jewish. There are Arab representatives in the Knesset(8 seats out of 120), an Arab on the Israeli Supreme Court and Arabs and Christians in various posts in the government- ambassadors, mayors, and others. Ariel Sharon's first cabinet had a Druze as a minister.

Source-http://www.us-israel.org

"full" citizens Renata? Is the 2nd class status of Arab Israelis a misconception?

[demon]

Mycroft:
"Isnt it the case that placed in the context of regular terror attacks, your “illegal oppression” becomes “self-defense.”"

The actions undertaken by the IDF in the Occupied territories do not amount to self-defence, for several reasons. Firstly, they occur in territory over which Israel, by legal consensus, holds no writ. So, if the motivation for the Palestinian resistance is the Occupation, the first act of genuine self-defence by Israel would be to withdraw to its legal boundaries. As a matter of simple common sense, deliberately trying to maintain within one’s effective borders, a hostile and embittered population is hardly conducive to security.
It might be objected that the attacks against Israel-proper (pre 1967 borders) might continue even if Israel withdrew, however I think this is very unlikely. For one thing, Israel’s ability to defend the 1967 border would be greatly enhanced. Secondly, the Palestinian population is exhausted and poorly equipped and unlikely to want to continue attacking Israel. Thirdly, the consequences for the Palestinians would be devastating, diplomatically speaking, as they would lose virtually all the sympathy the international community has for them.

Moreover, the real motivation for the Occupation is not security. This has been well documented by Yossi Beilin (in "Mechiro shel Ihud"), who was the principal advisor to Shimon Peres and the Labor Party and had access to internal documents from 67-77. In his account of the Israeli Cabinet’s internal record, he makes it clear that the motivations for the Occupation are to counter the "demographic problem" (what to do about "too many" Arabs in a Jewish state), and water. In fact water was arguably the major reason for seizing the so-called "security zone" in southern Lebanon -which includes the watershed of Mount Hermon (also the Litani river, which they were forced to give up). So the idea that the Occupation is for self-defence is not hardlyy plausible, since even the Israeli Government didn’t (and does not) hold that view.

The Occupation is imperial oppression, maintained because of the resources it yields. In that, I don’t see how it can be regarded as self-defence.

Of course, we can also mention these much used examples: when the Warsaw ghetto rose up against the Nazis, and the occupying power wiped out the resistance, was that was "self-defence"? When the mujahideen were our pals and attacking the Soviets in Afghanistan on a regular basis, were Soviet counter-attacks "self-defence"?

Mycroft:
"She wouldn’t be sacked for advocating murder?"

In fact, she would not be. This goes to the heart of this issue. If Jenny Tonge had made this statement, she would not have been advocating murder, just as she was not advocating suicide bombing of civilians.
There is a considerable difference between professing to understand the motivations for an action and advocating it, nor is this controversial. To take my hypothetical instance, for example, in the case of battered wives, if provocation can be demonstrated, then murder charges are generally reduced to manslaughter on account of diminished responsibility. This does not mean that the Courts "advocate" or condone murder, only that they recognise that there are mitigating circumstances.

The same applies to the case of Palestinian attacks on civilians. Tonge (I imagine) does not approve of, or advocate attacks on civilians; however she does understand the motivations behind them. Indeed, the category of "self-defence" is far more applicable to Palestinian actions, since they are trying to expel an invading force which is vastly superior (Israel could probably defeat any NATO country with the exception of the US), and is immune from international law by virtue of being a client state of the US.

Mycroft:
"What were they the victim of before Israel captured the disputed territories?"

This is an outragerous piece of sophistry that Zionists tend to use when excusing Israeli actions and it seems to boils down to this: "The Palestinians were oppressed before we came along by the Ottomans and the British. So what? Its our turn to be the oppressors now."

Firstly, they are not "disputed" territories any more than Poland was "disputed" in 1939 or the money is "disputed" following a bank robbery. They are illegally held in the eyes of the entire planet, with the obvious two exceptions of course. Indeed, if I recall, even the US signed up to Resolution 242 -only choosing to ignore it later when it was expedient to do so.
"Disputed territories" is nothing more than a piece of lawyer speak. The borders may be open to debate, but when it comes to the homes and property therein that the Israelis stole, there is no dispute.

Leaving aside all of this, the grievances of the Palestinians are pretty well summed up by Moshe Dayan, the former Israeli defence Minister. I believe this quote is accurate:

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahal arose in place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." (Address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Ha’aretz, April 4 1969).

Or this, from Israel's former Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion :

"If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" (quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif [The Jewish Paradox]).

Mycroft:
"It doesn’t matter what your cause is, when you advance it by murdering innocents you don’t get sympathy. It’s too bad that you don’t get that."

I don’t advocate the murder of innocents -and neither, I believe, does Jenny Tonge. No one is at ease with the killing of civilians behind the Green Line, though I accept, as legitimate resistance, the attacks on the IDF outside of Israel’s borders.
The issue of "settlers" is a thorny one, because they are in fact, invaders and, as such, legitimate targets. However, because of the fact they bring children with them, the matter is deliberately complicated and Israel puts "innocents" in the line of fire. That aside, I don’t condone murder, though I support the right of Palestinians to resist aggression.

I don’t accept your distinction between Israel "self-defence" and Palestinian "terror". Raining down rockets and bombs upon a civilian population, stealing their land, their water, and their crops is, in no sense "self-defence" and equally as terrible as blowing up Israeli civilian targtets...more so, in fact, since the Israeli actions are state controlled and thus legitimized.

Mycroft:
"I assume you are of the opinion that the firebombing of Dresden and the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were bad things?"

You assume correctly.
From your post we can perhaps assume that you consider the mass murder of civilians living in non-military areas to be perfectly OK.
The effectiveness of the above actions in saving allied lives, and their necessity for ending the war is very doubtful...have you read the findings of the US Strategic Bombing Survey, Barton Bernstein or Howard Zinn on the A bombs for instance?

Mycroft:
"If we excuse Palestinian-Arabs acts of terror, why should we not also excuse Israeli actions of self-defense? Why do you think one is okay and the other is not?"

Neither is "okay"; but if we condemn Palestinian-Arab acts of terror, why should we not condemn Israeli acts of "self-defence"? Who's occupying whom here? In the middle of the twentieth century, did Israel displace Palestinians or did Palestinians displace Israelis? In 1967, did Israel attack the Arab states, or did the Palestinians creep out from the Golan Heights and occupy Tel Aviv?

Mycroft:
"If it was wrong when the United States and Briton did it, why should it be okay for the Palestinian-Arabs? Should we excuse every atrocity in the world on the basis that the United States and Briton did things you don’t agree with 60 years ago?"

I hope not, and I take it you do not. However, we don`t have to go back 60 years to talk about what the US and Briton do on the atrocity theme. This attitude in the American and British warmongering elite prevails and has recently been reenacted by attacking a defenseless country using weapons such as cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells, which has caused and will continue to cause death and injury to many civilians. So we're not talking ancient history or bad old sentiments here which have been set aside.
Clearly the people in power consider such military acts of terror acceptable and describe its effects as "collateral damage"... obviously a double standard since the civilian Jewish victims of Palestinian/Arab suicide bombers would never be simply written off as 'collateral damage'.

Maybe you can tell us where/when the desire for a "Greater Israel" ends?
Palestinian Arabs looking/viewing the historical actions of Israel's paymaster and all-powerful military ally, the USA., obviously think there is no end in sight.
A thief is a thief, whatever their race or religion.

[a_unique_person]

Crikey, Demon, detailed, reasoned, and no abuse. However, I feel it is totally wasted on the likes of Mycroft.

[demon]

"Crikey, Demon, detailed, reasoned, and no abuse. However, I feel it is totally wasted on the likes of Mycroft."

Well, Mycroft didn`t accused me of advocating the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Jews so it was the least I could do.

[renata]

Originally posted by The Fool


"full" citizens Renata? Is the 2nd class status of Arab Israelis a misconception?

Full citizens with all the rights and responsibilities as Jewish citizens, yes. Voting, ability to buy land, same rights for education, employment, healthcare, etc. As far as I know the only legal difference is that Arabs, unlike Jews are not required to serve in the army, although they can if they wish.

There are, sadly still some socioeconomic gaps, of course. I am sure there are instances of discrimination. There are also reported instances of discrimation against Jews who are recent immigrants from the former Soviet Union, as well as Etiopian Jews.

So yes, Underemployed was incorrect in his statement- and I corrected him. You are asking something else- whether Arabs are second class citizens. That, I suppose depends on the definitions you may be using. Some may say they are, in reality, even though they have equal status in the law- just like there are instances of discrimination of minorities in US and many Western countries. That, of course is in contrast to status of women Jews and Christians in some Muslim countries, where they really are second class - mandated so by law.

http://www.dhimmitude.org/d_today.php

A sample from a Symposium: The Muslim Persecution of Christians

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=10242

Interlocutor: Welcome to Frontpage Symposium ladies and gentlemen. Let’s begin with the question that will build a foundation to this discussion: how widespread is the persecution of Christians in the Islamic world?


Marshall: Very widespread, there are few Muslim countries where it does not occur.

It takes four forms. First. there are direct, violent attacks by extremists on Christian communities. These occur in Egypt, Algeria, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Phillipines, Nigeria, Indonesia (the list is not exhaustive). In most of these cases the Government is either unable or unwilling to stop the attacks.

Second, there is civil war and communal violence where the Christian community has resisted the spread of radical varieties of Islam. Since the National Islamic Front (formerly the Muslim Brotherhood) took power in Sudan in the late 1980's two million people have been killed, mostly Christians and animists. In Nigeria some 11,000 people have been killed in the last three years over the introduction of Islamic sharia law. There is a similar death toll in eastern Indonesia, where paramilitary militant organizations such as Laskar Jihad, allied to international terrorists, have slaughtered local populations.

Third, there is widespread discrimination against Christians in Muslim countries. They are frequently at a disadvantage in marriage, custody and inheritance cases, are forced to subsidize Islam through taxes, are severly restricted in building and repairing churches, and are often excluded from government positions. This happens in most Muslim countries. In some cases, as in Pakistan or Iran or Nigeria, the testimony of a Christian counts less in a court case.


Fourthly, blasphemy and apostasy laws disproportionately target minorities.

In Saudi Arabia, Christianity is entirely forbidden.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by renata


Full citizens with all the rights and responsibilities as Jewish citizens, yes. Voting, ability to buy land, same rights for education, employment, healthcare, etc. As far as I know the only legal difference is that Arabs, unlike Jews are not required to serve in the army, although they can if they wish.

There are, sadly still some socioeconomic gaps, of course. I am sure there are instances of discrimination. There are also reported instances of discrimation against Jews who are recent immigrants from the former Soviet Union, as well as Etiopian Jews.

So yes, Underemployed was incorrect in his statement- and I corrected him. You are asking something else- whether Arabs are second class citizens. That, I suppose depends on the definitions you may be using. Some may say they are, in reality, even though they have equal status in the law- just like there are instances of discrimination of minorities in US and many Western countries. That, of course is in contrast to status of women Jews and Christians in some Muslim countries, where they really are second class - mandated so by law.

http://www.dhimmitude.org/d_today.php

A sample from a Symposium: The Muslim Persecution of Christians

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=10242

Its just your description of Arabs as "full" citizens seemed to infer that discrimination in access to government services was not widespread. It can certainly is true, as you point out, that the same and worse happens in a lot of places, including my country....
Do you see it as being possible to have control by one ethnic group and democracy at the same time? What happens when inevitably jews are the minority in Israel?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by renata


Full citizens with all the rights and responsibilities as Jewish citizens, yes. Voting, ability to buy land, same rights for education, employment, healthcare, etc. As far as I know the only legal difference is that Arabs, unlike Jews are not required to serve in the army, although they can if they wish.

There are, sadly still some socioeconomic gaps, of course. I am sure there are instances of discrimination. There are also reported instances of discrimation against Jews who are recent immigrants from the former Soviet Union, as well as Etiopian Jews.

So yes, Underemployed was incorrect in his statement- and I corrected him. You are asking something else- whether Arabs are second class citizens. That, I suppose depends on the definitions you may be using. Some may say they are, in reality, even though they have equal status in the law- just like there are instances of discrimination of minorities in US and many Western countries. That, of course is in contrast to status of women Jews and Christians in some Muslim countries, where they really are second class - mandated so by law.

http://www.dhimmitude.org/d_today.php

A sample from a Symposium: The Muslim Persecution of Christians

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=10242


I don't think we were asking what is it like in other countries. I know that these countries do have issues. However, Israel continually portrays itself as not being like them. Are you saying it is just the same?

[renata]

Originally posted by The Fool

Its just your description of Arabs as "full" citizens seemed to infer that discrimination in access to government services was not widespread. It can certainly is true, as you point out, that the same and worse happens in a lot of places, including my country....
Do you see it as being possible to have control by one ethnic group and democracy at the same time? What happens when inevitably jews are the minority in Israel?

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I don't think we were asking what is it like in other countries. I know that these countries do have issues. However, Israel continually portrays itself as not being like them. Are you saying it is just the same?

I was merely pointing out that legally they have the same rights- unlike the parallel Underemployed was drawing of non Muslims in Muslim countries. He was incorrect. I corrected him.

Legally they are citizens with all rights and privileges of Jews- with the single exception of having a choice of entering the army. That is starkly different than legal rights and priveleges that non Muslims enjoy in Muslim countries. Please refer to his/her quote if you need to refresh your memory as to why I used the examples I did.

And with that- I think I corrected your misunderstanding of my post.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by renata



And with that- I think I corrected your misunderstanding of my post.

I think you have.... The impression I got from your use of the term "full citizenship" was that you believed that Arabs have equal rights and oportunities in Israel.

Indigenous Australians, for example, are "full Citizens" of Australia but are habitually refused rental accomodation in many areas, government services outlets are scarce in areas where they live. Many people don't want them living in thier street etc....
I see a definite parallel with the way Jews are treated in many places and with the way Arabs are treated in Israel.....so you'll forgive me when I get uneasy when I see the words "full citizen" used to describe what is, for all practical purposes, an underclass.

[charley_bigtime]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Crikey, Demon, detailed, reasoned, and no >abuse<.


However, I feel it is totally wasted on the likes of Mycroft.

Just what is the "like of Mycroft."

I'm genuinely curious.

[renata]

Originally posted by The Fool


I think you have.... The impression I got from your use of the term "full citizenship" was that you believed that Arabs have equal rights and oportunities in Israel.

I am glad we straightened the confusion out. I was not aware that my terminology would trigger any associations.



Indigenous Australians, for example, are "full Citizens" of Australia but are habitually refused rental accomodation in many areas, government services outlets are scarce in areas where they live. Many people don't want them living in thier nieghourhood etc....


As I explained in another quote, there is a great difference between practical discrimination and legal discrimination. As I understood Underemployed, he was saying both non Jews in Israel (and even secular Jews) and non Muslim in Muslim countries would face legal discrimination. He was incorrect- non Jewish citizens in Israel are equal citizens, unlike some instances of non Muslims in Muslim countries. That was the issue I focused on.

There is no question, as I mentioned earlier that there are practical problems- like with minorities in every Western country. There is most certainly fear and real discrimination. Some may even claim it is state sanctioned- or state is not doing enough to prevent it. But, once again this is apples and oranges- I was responding to something entirely different.




I see a definite parallel with the way Jews are treated in many places and with the way Arabs are treated in Israel.....so you'll forgive me when I get uneasy when I see the words "full citizen" used to describe what is, for all practical purposes, an underclass.

Well, once again you may feel that. I respectfully disagree- you only have to read the link in my earlier post to see how Jews (and other non Muslims) were treated rather differently- and much worse- in some Muslim countries, for example. Arab citizens of Israel have more rights and opportunities in Israel than their brethren in many other Middle East countries. But, once again this is not the topic of the discussion- and was not the purpose of my correction.

I prefer to deal with facts- I felt Underemployed was factually incorrect about legal rights, I fixed the error. Debating what is and is not and underclass, comparing rights from country to country...comparing grievances. And we have another 10 page thread just the same as all the previous ones.

And with that- I am out.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by renata


he was saying both non Jews in Israel (and even secular Jews) and non Muslim in Muslim countries would face legal discrimination. He was incorrect- non Jewish citizens in Israel are equal citizens, unlike some instances of non Muslims in Muslim countries. That was the issue I focused on.
(snip)
I prefer to deal with facts- I felt Underemployed was factually incorrect about legal rights, I fixed the error.

Did you consider the marriage legislation of 13 July 2003 that prevents Palestinians who marry Israelis from becoming citizens or residents. Is this an example of legal discrimination ?


And with that- I am out.
Thats a shame... I would really have liked to hear what you thought about the marriage legislation. I can see a point that it is "pre citizenship" discrimination, I guess it gets to the question of if unequal opportunity to obtain citizenship based on racial typing is compatable with "full citizenship" for all.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by renata



There is no question, as I mentioned earlier that there are practical problems- like with minorities in every Western country. There is most certainly fear and real discrimination. Some may even claim it is state sanctioned- or state is not doing enough to prevent it. But, once again this is apples and oranges- I was responding to something entirely different.




???? I can't see how that is different to the person being discriminated against. Either way, they feel like they are being treated as less than human. Apart from that, I would disagree that having a legal protection makes a huge difference, if the law is ignored, as it routinely is in Israel. I read of a Supreme Court judgement in favour of Arab landholders that was promptly ignored. The phrase that is important is "The rule of law", if the law is ignored, or favours one side over another, then it is not a valid legal process. Many countries routinely manipulate "the law" for unfair ends.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


???? I can't see how that is different to the person being discriminated against. Either way, they feel like they are being treated as less than human. Apart from that, I would disagree that having a legal protection makes a huge difference, if the law is ignored, as it routinely is in Israel.

First of all I would like to see reports of International Organizations that state two things: 1.That the Law in Israel is routinely ignored. 2. That in case of violations of the legislation ( the way it occurs in every country) the government refuses to comply with the court decisions that have been evoked by the action of the organizations of human rights in Israel.

There is a descrimination towards the Palestinian-Israeli citizens. For example their cars have to carry distinctive car number plates something that I personally consider a gross discrimination. Also the new legislation with the marriages between Arab and Israelis is another example. Something that I read only yesterday is that Israeli citizens who live outside Israel ( like me for example) risk to lose their citenship. Those two laws are reflecting nothing but the policy of Likud. This is what happens to democracies you know, those who have the majority in the Parliament pass Laws that serve their policy.

The basic problem in fighting those discriminative laws in Israel is the problem of security. Have you ever tried to persuade a victim of suicide terrorism that Arabs must not have distinctive templates on their cars since the Palestinian Guerillas use even the ambulances of Red Cross to harm the civilians?

All I am saying is that it's easy to criticize when you are an outsider and you live far away from a War zone. What measurements you would require from your government if a bus exploded next to your son's school?

The great issue in our societies is to balance the need for security with the protection of Human Rights.

Israel is not different than other countries in that. I'd say that we are doing pretty well considering that we are in War.

I read of a Supreme Court judgement in favour of Arab landholders that was promptly ignored. The phrase that is important is "The rule of law", if the law is ignored, or favours one side over another, then it is not a valid legal process. Many countries routinely manipulate "the law" for unfair ends.


I am sorry but I call BS on you. In the country I live and I practice Law The Supreme Court's judgements need a lot of time to be applied. As you said this is common in many countries and your example can be brought only in Israel's defense.

edited to add:

Of course the discussion wasn't about Irsael's stance regarding Human Rights. It's just that it's really difficult for some people to get over their obsessions.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


A laughable analysis. Negotiations were not fruitless. The palestinians were offered quite a bit. But Arafat let that fruit rot on the vine, because he'd rather protect his own monopoly on power over the Palestinians than actually improve their lives.
What was Arafat offered in negotiations?

I agree with your interpretation of her intentions, but her statement is still objectionable. Suicide bombing is wrong, and there are Palestinians who recognize this. That most do not does not excuse them. There is only one morally acceptable conclusion regarding suicide bombing, and the atractiveness of the immoral conclusion (that it is justified) does not absolve the bombers of their crime.
What is your argument for suicide bombing being immoral? I've tried to frame one myself, but keep coming back to the principles that taking the lives of others is wrong, regardless of the means (which is problematic) and taking one's own life is wrong, regardless of the means (which is also problematic).
Tonge's statement confuses what should be, what MUST be, moral clarity on this point.
Should moral clarity overwhelm any attempt to understand why people commit certain acts?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Students, merchants, and affluent families may feel they play a critical role as leaders in their society. Religious fanaticism and suicide bombings could be twin consequences from years the decades of humiliation and limited opportunities that result from occupation.

You got to love Cain...

CAIN: "The cause of suicide bombing is A".

STUDY: "Actually, study shows the cause of suicide bombing is B".

CAIN: "Well... er... but it COULD be that POSSIBLY it was A that caused B over decades, so it's still the 'real cause' of suicide bombing. Not that I have any evidence for that, but never mind that..."
This is an apparently intentional mischaracterisation of the exchange that took place in this thread. I am respectively requesting that you please restrict yourself to constructive comments and criticisms.

[Skeptic]

For example their cars have to carry distinctive car number plates something that I personally consider a gross discrimination.

(puzzled look)

Since when?

All israelies, jews or arabs, have the same license plate on their cars (the "yellow number" sort). Palestinians in the territories have a different number, but they aren't israelies.

Something that I read only yesterday is that Israeli citizens who live outside Israel ( like me for example) risk to lose their citenship.

(puzzled look)

Since when?

There's no such law. It sounds more like a "brain fart" by some politician.

What measurements you would require from your government if a bus exploded next to your son's school?

Oh, "The Fool" doesn't have to worry about THAT. His ancestors made quite sure--by indiscriminate slaughter--that no annoying natives that might bother white people with that sort of thing will remain. If you slaughter all the natives right at the start, you avoid accusations that you are opressing them later on.

The underlying message of the Australians, who avoided being "colonialists" by the simple expidient of eradicating the natives so there's nobody to "opress", but criticize israel, is simple: "You fools! Why didn't you just kill all the Palesinians in the beginning? That way, you would be in our situation today!"

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Skeptic
What measurements you would require from your government if a bus exploded next to your son's school?

Oh, "The Fool" doesn't have to worry about THAT. His ancestors made quite sure--by indiscriminate slaughter--that no annoying natives that might bother white people with that sort of thing will remain. If you slaughter all the natives right at the start, you avoid accusations that you are opressing them later on.

The underlying message of the Australians, who avoided being "colonialists" by the simple expidient of eradicating the natives so there's nobody to "opress", but criticize israel, is simple: "You fools! Why didn't you just kill all the Palesinians in the beginning? That way, you would be in our situation today!"
Could posters please ignore Skeptic's blatant and ridiculous trolling? Thank you.

[Cain]

I missed two posts. One of them was Skeptic's. As per Billy's instructions, I will ignore it. He is a known communist and I do not want to get sent to the Gulag.


Originally posted by Ziggurat
A laughable analysis. Negotiations were not fruitless. The palestinians were offered quite a bit. But Arafat let that fruit rot on the vine, because he'd rather protect his own monopoly on power over the Palestinians than actually improve their lives.

Are you referring to any specific negoation? Barak's offer is characterized in elite papers here as "extremely generous." Only two later did it take someone from the _The New REpublic_ to write an op-ed in the _NYT_ saying, "well, it wasn't quite as generous as made out to be." The criticisms on this point are not difficult to find. See Edward Said or Noam Chomsky. Chomsky regularly emphasizes the point that a map of the new land distribution is rarely (if ever) shown. Then there are more complicated issues like water rights and right of return.

And their strategy only changed if you mean that now they're using women suicide bombers, not just men. Resorting to violence is reverting back to a previous, and unsuccess, strategy. The greatest enemy of the Palestinian people is not Sharon, but Arafat and Hamas.



And yet the ratio for suicide bombing casualties (ie, the number of victims per suicide bomber) has actually dropped. Hmmm... makes you wonder...

:rolleyes:

Humiliation is indeed part of the problem. But it is a self-inflicted problem. The Isrealis are not to blame for the fact that Palestinians, and many other arabs, place their pride above human decency and even their own lives.

Nonsense.

And better schooling and higher socio-economic status are not going to happen at all as long as the Palestinians are held in the stranglehold of a corrupt leadership like Arafat and his cronies. Israel could give them everything they want and they still wouldn't have either prosperity or peace, because their biggest problems are internal, NOT external.

No doubt Palestinians have internal problems, but this is just more of the same blaming the victims bullsh*t.

[demon]

In the specific case of the Camp David talks of 2000, I can do no better than refer you to the following (which, for the Guardian, is pretty good). A myth has grown up around these talks.
__________________________________________________ __
The Brilliant offer Israel never made
To get peace talks started again means confronting a few myths
David Clark
Guardian

Wednesday April 10, 2002

Yesterday's carnage in the West Bank provided a bloody illustration of the limits of Ariel Sharon's military strategy. Armed force cannot provide his people with the security they crave because the terrorist infrastructure he has set out to destroy consists of little more than the willingness of ordinary Palestinians to kill themselves while taking as many Israelis with them as possible. This week, the hatred on which it is built burns deeper than ever. In the absence of a meaningful peace process, further atrocities are inevitable, and when they happen, the consequences may be far worse than anything we have so far seen.

Israeli leaders are trapped in a mindset in which further military escalation appears to be their only option. Yet it is difficult to see how much further they can go without triggering a wider regional conflagration that might threaten the state of Israel itself. The "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians from large tracts of the occupied territories? The murder of Arafat? The consequences are unthinkable. Left to his own devices, Ariel Sharon may yet turn out to be the ultimate suicide bomber.

Into the maelstrom steps Colin Powell on a mission that could represent the best hope of avoiding such a catastrophe. His task is clear: to secure a ceasefire and persuade both parties to return to the negotiating table. To succeed, however, he will need to do more than indulge in hand-wringing. He will need to come armed with some harsh truths and some even harsher consequences.

With Israel, it will be necessary to challenge some deeply held illusions about the peace process and why it broke down. Chief among these is the assertion that the Palestinians rejected a "generous" Israeli offer at Camp David two years ago. It is a view that spans the Israeli political spectrum, uniting the hard right with born-again rejectionists like Ehud Barak, confirming all in their belief that political dialogue has been exhausted and that Arafat is an inveterate terrorist. It is time for some constructive revisionism.

Barak's proposal for a Palestinian state based on 91% of the West Bank sounded substantive, but even the most cursory glance at the map revealed the bad faith inherent in it. It showed the West Bank carved into three chunks, surrounded by Israeli troops and settlers, without direct access to its own international borders.

The land-swap that was supposed to compensate the Palestinians for the loss of prime agricultural land in the West Bank merely added insult to injury. The only territory offered to Palestinian negotiators consisted of stretches of desert adjacent to the Gaza Strip that Israel currently uses for toxic waste dumping. The proposals on East Jerusalem were no better, permitting the Palestinians control of a few scattered fragments of what had been theirs before 1967.

Barak offered the trappings of Palestinian sovereignty while perpetuating the subjugation of the Palestinians. It is not difficult to see why they felt unable to accept. The only surprise is how widely the myth of the "generous offer" is now accepted.

For this, Bill Clinton must accept responsibility. With the end of his presidency in sight, Clinton saw time running out along with the hope that he might be remembered in history for something more dignified than blow jobs in the Oval Office. He needed a quick deal rather than a just deal and chose to attempt to bounce Arafat into accepting Israel's terms. When this failed, Clinton vented his wrath at the Palestinian leader.

Maladroit diplomacy played its part, but the failure at Camp David was the product of a deeper problem for which the Palestinians must also accept their share of blame. With the benefit of hindsight, the 1993 Oslo agreement that embodied the land-for-peace compromise was a mirage. Although both sides signed up to a two-state solution, neither was completely sincere in accepting its implications. The Palestinians clung to maximalist demands on refugee returns in the hope that demographics would allow them to rewrite the past. The Israelis insisted on territorial demands that made a mockery of the idea of a viable Palestinian state.

It is here that the Saudi peace initiative has come to play such a critical role in getting the peace process back on track. In calling for Israel's withdrawal from all of the occupied territories and holding out the prospect of a compromise on the refugees that would meet Israeli concerns, it forces both sides finally to come to terms with each other's existence.
Tony Blair's call for the Saudi plan to be enshrined in a new UN resolution is a tacit acceptance that Camp David was a botched job. Progress will now depend on Colin Powell's willingness to spell that out to Sharon and Arafat this week.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,681673,00.html
__________________________________________________ __

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Skeptic
(puzzled look)

Since when?

Errr since ever.:) The Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem are not Israeli citizens, they are considered just residents. You cannot have the yellow plates if you are not a citizen. The situation of the residents of East Jerusalem is just tragic. Both sides have put them in the middle. For example neither of the sides gives them a passport etc.


Since when?

There's no such law. It sounds more like a "brain fart" by some politician.

Yes I know that there is not such a law, I wasn't clear.I meant that I read that they plan to vote such a law. I hope they won't although it sounds consistent with Likud's ambitions to make as many Israelis-Jews as possible to return to Israel in order to face the demographic problem.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Errr since ever.:) The Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem are not Israeli citizens, they are considered just residents. You cannot have the yellow plates if you are not a citizen. The situation of the residents of East Jerusalem is just tragic. Both sides have put them in the middle. For example neither of the sides gives them a passport etc.

Well, Israel won't give them passports because they don't want more Arab citizens. They're already concerned about the "Arab problem" as it is.

And the Palestinians can't give them passports. If they give the East Jerusalem residents passports, Israel screams bloody murder about the PA claiming East Jerusalem--even most Avodah types don't want the PA controlling East Jerusalem. To say nothing of Sharon and Likud.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by demon
Barak offered the trappings of Palestinian sovereignty while perpetuating the subjugation of the Palestinians. It is not difficult to see why they felt unable to accept. The only surprise is how widely the myth of the "generous offer" is now accepted.
__________________________________________________ __

The percentage of what was offered seems to climb over time. Soon it will be well over 100% and heading towards 200%.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by BillyTK

What is your argument for suicide bombing being immoral? I've tried to frame one myself, but keep coming back to the principles that taking the lives of others is wrong, regardless of the means (which is problematic) and taking one's own life is wrong, regardless of the means (which is also problematic).


I seriously hope that what you're saying is that you're having a hard time formulating a rational argument for what your gut is telling you is wrong, because if your gut ISN'T telling you that these suicide bombings are wrong, you need to do some serious soul searching.

There's a number of reasons why it's immoral. Terrorism is sometimes thought of as simply war by unconventional means, and people try to justify it on these grounds, splitting off the question of methods from the question of goals. But I'd like to point out that for the suicide bombers, and for Islamic terrorists in general, the goals they seek are immoral in themselves - in this case, genocidal murder of Jews is the goal, but more broadly, the spread of radical Islam by violence. Some who sympathise with the Palestinians prefer to overlook this fact, because it is conveniently far from happening right now, but that is a foolish perspective to take. Since the goals themselves are immoral, they can never justify objectionable actions.

On to the question of methods: the murder of innocent civilians, with no real military value, is immoral as well. Abandoning your children because of a fantasy ideology is immoral. And the kicker is that her suicide bombing was harmful to the very community she claimed to act on behalf of, the Palestinians, which is also immoral.


Should moral clarity overwhelm any attempt to understand why people commit certain acts?

That's the wrong question, because her statement doesn't even further efforts to understand suicide bombing. It paints the individual desperation of palestinians as the sole motivator in the suicide bombing. But this isn't even the case. Palestinian suicide bombing happens only in the context of religious fanaticism and fantasy ideology, fostered by the Palestinian leadership and other arab nations.

[demon]

We always hear what a democracy Israel is so can we ask, what exaclty is the "Arab problem/demographic problem" here?
It sounds a little rascist to me but then, what do I know?
Comments appreciated.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Cain
Then there are more complicated issues like water rights and right of return.


Water rights are indeed complicated. Right of return doesn't seem so complicated to me: granting it means the eventual destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, something Israel will therefore never agree to. Fair or not, it seems like the Palestinians are going to need to accept this if they actually want peace. Israel has the upper hand, and that's the reality the Palestinians are going to have to face. Because if they can't, Israel can just wall them off permanently, and let their supposed supporters, the other Arab nations, deal with propping up Arafat's corrupt regime. I may be missing a few subtleties to it all, I haven't brushed up on Chomsky's take on the right of return. Why don't you regurgitate that for us all, Cain?


Nonsense.


Wow. You convinced me. Of what, I'm not sure. But the conviction, the sincerity, the eloquence of this argument have persuaded me wholely.


No doubt Palestinians have internal problems, but this is just more of the same blaming the victims bullsh*t.

You're an idiot, Cain. I'm blaming the Palestinian leadership, who steals money nominally donated for the sake of the people to maintain their own corrupt power and wealthy lifestyle while their people live in squalor. Is Arafat, with his vast bank accounts in Europe, the victim in all this? I blame the religious fanatic leaders, who send others' children to die but don't even have the consistency to send their own. Are they the victims? I blame a woman who decided she wanted to kill innocent Israelis, and thought that God would actually reward her for doing so. She blew herself up, the Israelis didn't do that. So don't even try to claim that *I'm* the one blaming the victims here. Hey, why don't you award yourself the GDFM award this week? Seems you can't tell a victim from a perp.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Water rights are indeed complicated. Right of return doesn't seem so complicated to me: granting it means the eventual destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, something Israel will therefore never agree to. Fair or not, it seems like the Palestinians are going to need to accept this if they actually want peace. Israel has the upper hand, and that's the reality the Palestinians are going to have to face. Because if they can't, Israel can just wall them off permanently, and let their supposed supporters, the other Arab nations, deal with propping up Arafat's corrupt regime. I may be missing a few subtleties to it all, I haven't brushed up on Chomsky's take on the right of return. Why don't you regurgitate that for us all, Cain?



Wow. You convinced me. Of what, I'm not sure. But the conviction, the sincerity, the eloquence of this argument have persuaded me wholely.



You're an idiot, Cain. I'm blaming the Palestinian leadership, who steals money nominally donated for the sake of the people to maintain their own corrupt power and wealthy lifestyle while their people live in squalor. Is Arafat, with his vast bank accounts in Europe, the victim in all this? I blame the religious fanatic leaders, who send others' children to die but don't even have the consistency to send their own. Are they the victims? I blame a woman who decided she wanted to kill innocent Israelis, and thought that God would actually reward her for doing so. She blew herself up, the Israelis didn't do that. So don't even try to claim that *I'm* the one blaming the victims here. Hey, why don't you award yourself the GDFM award this week? Seems you can't tell a victim from a perp.

Not quite. The Palestinians you blame are not anything like the majority of Palestinians. So in that sense, you are blaming the victim.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
[snip the first paragraph, nothing interesting here]

re: nonsense
[quote]Wow. You convinced me. Of what, I'm not sure. But the conviction, the sincerity, the eloquence of this argument have persuaded me wholely.

sigh: and let's see again what you originally wrote:

Humiliation is indeed part of the problem. But it is a self-inflicted problem. The Isrealis are not to blame for the fact that Palestinians, and many other arabs, place their pride above human decency and even their own lives.

Yes, I think the terse reply earlier is valid. A series of assertions that claims humiliation is a "self-inflicted" problem. Road blocks, occupation, stolen land -- that has nothing to do with it. It's all the fault of the Palestinians. :rolleyes:


You're an idiot, Cain. I'm blaming the Palestinian leadership, who steals money nominally donated for the sake of the people to maintain their own corrupt power and wealthy lifestyle while their people live in squalor. Is Arafat, with his vast bank accounts in Europe, the victim in all this? I blame the religious fanatic leaders, who send others' children to die but don't even have the consistency to send their own. Are they the victims? I blame a woman who decided she wanted to kill innocent Israelis, and thought that God would actually reward her for doing so. She blew herself up, the Israelis didn't do that. So don't even try to claim that *I'm* the one blaming the victims here. Hey, why don't you award yourself the GDFM award this week? Seems you can't tell a victim from a perp.

Again, more of the same nonsense. Of course Arafat is a corrupt despot. But again, all of the blame is placed squarely on the shoulders of the Palestinians. Little Israel has done nothing wrong. It's the Palestinians who place pride above human decency. Nothing about their expulsion, homes bulldozed, pushed off the land. I am not justifying acts of terrorism by suicide bombers. "Collective punishment", Israeli "retaliation" does in fact victimize people that are not responsible.

[Cain]

We always hear what a democracy Israel is so can we ask, what exaclty is the "Arab problem/demographic problem" here?
It sounds a little rascist to me but then, what do I know?
Comments appreciated.

"Left-wing" Zionist Benny Morris gave an appalling interview to _Ha'retz_ a couple weeks ago. Here's' what he said about demographics and "transfer":

The next transfer

You went through an interesting process. You went to research Ben-Gurion and the Zionist establishment critically, but in the end you actually identify with them. You are as tough in your words as they were in their deeds.

"You may be right. Because I investigated the conflict in depth, I was forced to cope with the in-depth questions that those people coped with. I understood the problematic character of the situation they faced and maybe I adopted part of their universe of concepts. But I do not identify with Ben-Gurion. I think he made a serious historical mistake in 1948. Even though he understood the demographic issue and the need to establish a Jewish state without a large Arab minority, he got cold feet during the war. In the end, he faltered."

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that Ben-Gurion erred in expelling too few Arabs?

"If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations."

I find it hard to believe what I am hearing.

"If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will be because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer in 1948. Because he left a large and volatile demographic reserve in the West Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself."

In his place, would you have expelled them all? All the Arabs in the country?

"But I am not a statesman. I do not put myself in his place. But as an historian, I assert that a mistake was made here. Yes. The non-completion of the transfer was a mistake."

And today? Do you advocate a transfer today?

"If you are asking me whether I support the transfer and expulsion of the Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza and perhaps even from Galilee and the Triangle, I say not at this moment. I am not willing to be a partner to that act. In the present circumstances it is neither moral nor realistic. The world would not allow it, the Arab world would not allow it, it would destroy the Jewish society from within. But I am ready to tell you that in other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions. If we find ourselves with atomic weapons around us, or if there is a general Arab attack on us and a situation of warfare on the front with Arabs in the rear shooting at convoys on their way to the front, acts of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential."

Including the expulsion of Israeli Arabs?

"The Israeli Arabs are a time bomb. Their slide into complete Palestinization has made them an emissary of the enemy that is among us. They are a potential fifth column. In both demographic and security terms they are liable to undermine the state. So that if Israel again finds itself in a situation of existential threat, as in 1948, it may be forced to act as it did then. If we are attacked by Egypt (after an Islamist revolution in Cairo) and by Syria, and chemical and biological missiles slam into our cities, and at the same time Israeli Palestinians attack us from behind, I can see an expulsion situation. It could happen. If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified."

Cultural dementia

Besides being tough, you are also very gloomy. You weren't always like that, were you?

"My turning point began after 2000. I wasn't a great optimist even before that. True, I always voted Labor or Meretz or Sheli [a dovish party of the late 1970s], and in 1988 I refused to serve in the territories and was jailed for it, but I always doubted the intentions of the Palestinians. The events of Camp David and what followed in their wake turned the doubt into certainty. When the Palestinians rejected the proposal of [prime minister Ehud] Barak in July 2000 and the Clinton proposal in December 2000, I understood that they are unwilling to accept the two-state solution. They want it all. Lod and Acre and Jaffa."

If that's so, then the whole Oslo process was mistaken and there is a basic flaw in the entire worldview of the Israeli peace movement.

"Oslo had to be tried. But today it has to be clear that from the Palestinian point of view, Oslo was a deception. [Palestinian leader Yasser] Arafat did not change for the worse, Arafat simply defrauded us. He was never sincere in his readiness for compromise and conciliation."

Do you really believe Arafat wants to throw us into the sea?

"He wants to send us back to Europe, to the sea we came from. He truly sees us as a Crusader state and he thinks about the Crusader precedent and wishes us a Crusader end. I'm certain that Israeli intelligence has unequivocal information proving that in internal conversations Arafat talks seriously about the phased plan [which would eliminate Israel in stages]. But the problem is not just Arafat. The entire Palestinian national elite is prone to see us as Crusaders and is driven by the phased plan. That's why the Palestinians are not honestly ready to forgo the right of return. They are preserving it as an instrument with which they will destroy the Jewish state when the time comes. They can't tolerate the existence of a Jewish state - not in 80 percent of the country and not in 30 percent. From their point of view, the Palestinian state must cover the whole Land of Israel."

If so, the two-state solution is not viable; even if a peace treaty is signed, it will soon collapse.

"Ideologically, I support the two-state solution. It's the only alternative to the expulsion of the Jews or the expulsion of the Palestinians or total destruction. But in practice, in this generation, a settlement of that kind will not hold water. At least 30 to 40 percent of the Palestinian public and at least 30 to 40 percent of the heart of every Palestinian will not accept it. After a short break, terrorism will erupt again and the war will resume."

Your prognosis doesn't leave much room for hope, does it?

"It's hard for me, too. There is not going to be peace in the present generation. There will not be a solution. We are doomed to live by the sword. I'm already fairly old, but for my children that is especially bleak. I don't know if they will want to go on living in a place where there is no hope. Even if Israel is not destroyed, we won't see a good, normal life here in the decades ahead."

Aren't your harsh words an over-reaction to three hard years of terrorism?

"The bombing of the buses and restaurants really shook me. They made me understand the depth of the hatred for us. They made me understand that the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim hostility toward Jewish existence here is taking us to the brink of destruction. I don't see the suicide bombings as isolated acts. They express the deep will of the Palestinian people. That is what the majority of the Palestinians want. They want what happened to the bus to happen to all of us."

Yet we, too, bear responsibility for the violence and the hatred: the occupation, the roadblocks, the closures, maybe even the Nakba itself.

"You don't have to tell me that. I have researched Palestinian history. I understand the reasons for the hatred very well. The Palestinians are retaliating now not only for yesterday's closure but for the Nakba as well. But that is not a sufficient explanation. The peoples of Africa were oppressed by the European powers no less than the Palestinians were oppressed by us, but nevertheless I don't see African terrorism in London, Paris or Brussels. The Germans killed far more of us than we killed the Palestinians, but we aren't blowing up buses in Munich and Nuremberg. So there is something else here, something deeper, that has to do with Islam and Arab culture."

Are you trying to argue that Palestinian terrorism derives from some sort of deep cultural problem?

"There is a deep problem in Islam. It's a world whose values are different. A world in which human life doesn't have the same value as it does in the West, in which freedom, democracy, openness and creativity are alien. A world that makes those who are not part of the camp of Islam fair game. Revenge is also important here. Revenge plays a central part in the Arab tribal culture. Therefore, the people we are fighting and the society that sends them have no moral inhibitions. If it obtains chemical or biological or atomic weapons, it will use them. If it is able, it will also commit genocide."

I want to insist on my point: A large part of the responsibility for the hatred of the Palestinians rests with us. After all, you yourself showed us that the Palestinians experienced a historical catastrophe.

"True. But when one has to deal with a serial killer, it's not so important to discover why he became a serial killer. What's important is to imprison the murderer or to execute him."

Explain the image: Who is the serial killer in the analogy?

"The barbarians who want to take our lives. The people the Palestinian society sends to carry out the terrorist attacks, and in some way the Palestinian society itself as well. At the moment, that society is in the state of being a serial killer. It is a very sick society. It should be treated the way we treat individuals who are serial killers."

What does that mean? What should we do tomorrow morning?

"We have to try to heal the Palestinians. Maybe over the years the establishment of a Palestinian state will help in the healing process. But in the meantime, until the medicine is found, they have to be contained so that they will not succeed in murdering us."

To fence them in? To place them under closure?

"Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another."

[demon]

Thanks Cain.
Kudos for Benny Morris. You allways know where you are with fundamentalists.
Oh just thought, like Arabs are ever going to be equal citizens in Israel with Israelis, imported or otherwise. Just think how many of them have the vote in France! How awful!
I`m done here LOL. Love it

[JamesM]

For some reason, I can't get to the original Ha'aretz interview with Morris, that Cain quotes from above. However, Google cached it, so if anyone wants to read the full (profoundly depressing) interview from a more or less primary source:

www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/380986.html+&hl=en&start=1&ie=UTF-8]Part (http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:dhOMVxgWGCIJ:
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/380984.html+&hl=en&start=1&ie=UTF-8]Part (http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:vkyNqSQd-80J:[url) 2

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


I seriously hope that what you're saying is that you're having a hard time formulating a rational argument for what your gut is telling you is wrong, because if your gut ISN'T telling you that these suicide bombings are wrong, you need to do some serious soul searching.
As a skeptic, my "gut feeling" has no more value in critical analysis than toothache or the pain I get in my knee when it rains. So let's leave that one, and the implict ad hom that shadows it, at the door shall we?
There's a number of reasons why it's immoral. Terrorism is sometimes thought of as simply war by unconventional means, and people try to justify it on these grounds, splitting off the question of methods from the question of goals. But I'd like to point out that for the suicide bombers, and for Islamic terrorists in general, the goals they seek are immoral in themselves - in this case, genocidal murder of Jews is the goal, but more broadly, the spread of radical Islam by violence.
There's a compositional fallacy here; I'd suggest we stick to the issue of Palestinian suicide bombers rather than trying to conflate their intentions and aims with Islamic terrorists in general.
Some who sympathise with the Palestinians prefer to overlook this fact, because it is conveniently far from happening right now, but that is a foolish perspective to take. Since the goals themselves are immoral, they can never justify objectionable actions.
But you haven't identified what the goals of Palestinian suicide bombers are; you've substituted them with the goals of Islamic terrorism to support your contention that their actions are immoral.
On to the question of methods: the murder of innocent civilians, with no real military value, is immoral as well.
I agree; would you say that this is a general moral principle? So, for instance, the Israel administration's policy of assassination, which results in civilian death, is equally immoral?
Abandoning your children because of a fantasy ideology is immoral.
Is your moral objection here because of child abandonment or because of following ideology, or both?
And the kicker is that her suicide bombing was harmful to the very community she claimed to act on behalf of, the Palestinians, which is also immoral.
To support your contention that this action is immoral, could you explain in what form this harm take place?
That's the wrong question, because her statement doesn't even further efforts to understand suicide bombing.
I was thinking more of a general principle, but I didn't make that clear enough in my question.
It paints the individual desperation of palestinians as the sole motivator in the suicide bombing.
Interesting extrapolation; I don't get anything so specific.

But this isn't even the case. Palestinian suicide bombing happens only in the context of religious fanaticism and fantasy ideology, fostered by the Palestinian leadership and other arab nations.
Are you suggest that Palestinian suicide bombings are wholly a result of ideology independent of the current situation that Palestinians find themselves in? That, by implication, there would be suicide bombers regardless of their relationship with Israel? If so, how would you explain that suicide bombings only began after the current intifida started in 2000?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Cain
I missed two posts. One of them was Skeptic's. As per Billy's instructions, I will ignore it. He is a known communist and I do not want to get sent to the Gulag.
Your co-operation is noted, comrade.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by JamesM
For some reason, I can't get to the original Ha'aretz interview with Morris, that Cain quotes from above. However, Google cached it, so if anyone wants to read the full (profoundly depressing) interview from a more or less primary source:

www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/380986.html+&hl=en&start=1&ie=UTF-8 (http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:dhOMVxgWGCIJ:Part 1
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/380984.html+&hl=en&start=1&ie=UTF-8 (http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:vkyNqSQd-80J:Part 2
Damn, more stuff to read! I finally caught up with the Claude Berrebi research last night, and it certainly makes for interesting reading. I'm not too sure about his conclusion that this form of terrorism is in response to lack of civil liberties, but his description of the typical suicide bomber being educated, financially comfortable and willing to take on the role of suicide bomber as an expression of the revulsion they feel towards the suffering of their fellow Palestinians certainly requires a more complex understanding than the typical stereotype of fundamentalist terrorist.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by BillyTK
suicide bombings only began after the current intifida started in 2000

From Interdisciplines: Understanding Suicide Terrorism: Genesis and Future of Suicide Terrorism (http://www.interdisciplines.org/terrorism/papers/1):
In Israel-Palestine, suicide terrorism began in 1992, becoming part of a systematic campaign in late 1993 with attacks by Hezbollah trained members of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) aimed at derailing the Oslo Peace Accords. As early as 1988, however, PIJ founder Fathi Shiqaqi established guidelines for “exceptional” martyrdom operations involving human bombs.

I've been unable to find records of suicide bombings in '92 and '93, but the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0i5d0) lists several, starting from 1994.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Damn, more stuff to read! I finally caught up with the Claude Berrebi research last night,
Without wanting to snow you under with yet more stuff, another relatively articulate point of view is that of Daniel Pipes (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/175), who contends that suicide bombing is purely a political invention, and has little to do with Islamic fundamentalism.

I must admit to not having managed to evaluate and pull all this stuff together myself into any form of coherence. I suspect I will change my mind several times about this.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by JamesM


From Interdisciplines: Understanding Suicide Terrorism: Genesis and Future of Suicide Terrorism (http://www.interdisciplines.org/terrorism/papers/1):

I've been unable to find records of suicide bombings in '92 and '93, but the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0i5d0) lists several, starting from 1994.

I stand corrected. Thanks for the link, from scanning it perhaps I should change my question to something along the lines of "significantly increases in frequency"?

[BillyTK]

Anyway, interesting, if one-sided (in that it concentrates on the Palestinain perspective), piece in The Guardian this weekend, Too late for two states? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1128636,00.html), which examines the future for of the two-state solution, and the likely scenario if Sharon proceeds with his policy of "unilateral disengagement", and finishes building the wall.

I found the following background information informative:
During the glacial "peace process" kicked off by the Oslo accord of 1993, Israeli city closures and exclusion of Palestinian workers led to a 40% drop in living standards and sharp increases in unemployment. But since the explosion of the intifada in September 2000, that slump has turned into a full-scale economic and social disaster, as military invasion, siege, blockades, curfews and destruction of homes and infrastructure have driven Palestinian unemployment to two-thirds in some parts of the territories, where incomes have fallen by more than half to $900 a year - compared with an average of nearly $17,000 for their Israeli neighbours. Towns dependent on tourism, like Bethlehem, have been reduced to beggary, while towering over shanty refugee camps are the suburban-style fortresses that are home to nearly 240,000 Jewish settlers. Only in South Africa and on the US-Mexican border do the first and third worlds collide as in the territories ruled by Israel.

The bitter reality is that the Israeli occupation was less oppressive and destructive when it took the form of direct military rule up until the early 1990s than it is today. Despite the humiliation of foreign subjugation and the routine imprisonment of activists, for the first 20 years after the 1967 war, life was easier for the average Palestinian, who could work in Israel, trade and move relatively freely across the country. Even the illegal colonisation of the West Bank and Gaza by Israeli settlers was on a modest scale compared with what would come later.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by BillyTK
There's a compositional fallacy here; I'd suggest we stick to the issue of Palestinian suicide bombers rather than trying to conflate their intentions and aims with Islamic terrorists in general.


You're trying to duck the issue then, and you're blinding yourself to the truth of the matter. The fact that not only the tactics, but the rhetoric and stated goals of the Palestinian suicide bombers and other Islamic fanatical terrorists match is not coincidental. But go ahead, bury your head in the sand.


But you haven't identified what the goals of Palestinian suicide bombers are; you've substituted them with the goals of Islamic terrorism to support your contention that their actions are immoral.


I haven't substituted them at all, they're pretty damn close on a functional level. And that includes, first and foremost from the Palestinian side, the complete destruction of Israel, by any means including genocide. I didn't think I needed to be explicit about this, but perhaps I do. Cruise around http://www.memri.org if you want to find out, in their own words, what Palestinian and Islamic terrorists are calling for.


I agree; would you say that this is a general moral principle? So, for instance, the Israel administration's policy of assassination, which results in civilian death, is equally immoral?


That's a much tougher issue. But you've biased the question already. You're looking for a particular answer, you want me to say that it's "equally" immoral. Using "equally", not simply "also", biases the question.

Is it immoral? Well, the difficulty is that those strikes DO have military value. The primary targets generally are fair targets, the only question is whether the collateral damage is too high. And maybe it is. But actually determining that is not an easy question (it depends largely on what effect the strikes have on the operational capability of the terrorists), and it's not actually something I think most people are qualified to venture an opinion on. And I know I'm not qualified to determine that. So I'm not going to say more than that.


Is your moral objection here because of child abandonment or because of following ideology, or both?


Can you not even figure out the simple stuff? Abandoning your children is a bad thing, that should be obvious. It's only excusable if you're doing it for some even greater good. And that is just manifestly absent here. She's not going to paradise for her actions, Allah isn't going to take special care of her children, she's just deluded herself.


To support your contention that this action is immoral, could you explain in what form this harm take place?


The checkpoint she blew herself up at was for Palestinians entering going to a factory (I believe) where Palestinians had jobs for an Israeli company. She put other Palestinians out of work, at least for a while. And since poverty is one of the great woes that the Palestinians are suffering, she just made that worse. And there's no indication that any of these suicide bombings are actually making Israel more interested in cooperating with the PA. Seems to me like it's pushing Israel to solve the problem on their own, by walling of the Palestinians. Which is not something they should want, since Israel provides much of their employment, and god knows the PA won't be able to run a real economy on its own. But damned if I'm not starting to think that walling them off might be the only thing that will work in the long run.


Are you suggest that Palestinian suicide bombings are wholly a result of ideology independent of the current situation that Palestinians find themselves in?


No. I am saying it doesn't happen without that ideology, that the ideology is counterproductive and is now entrenched, and that the ideology and its terrible consequences for the Palestinians won't go away even if they achieve their goal of wiping out Israel.


That, by implication, there would be suicide bombers regardless of their relationship with Israel?


At this point, yes. Israel does indeed bare some blame about the empowerment of these radicals by their past action. But at this point, going forward, there is nothing Israel could possibly do that would stop Hamas from wanting to send suicide bombers against Israel. Absolutely nothing, no change in behavior, no possible concession, will stop them at this point. And that's by their own words, their own stated goals. It would be foolish indeed to lose sight of that fact. But boy are the apologists trying their best to do so.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


You're trying to duck the issue then, and you're blinding yourself to the truth of the matter. The fact that not only the tactics, but the rhetoric and stated goals of the Palestinian suicide bombers and other Islamic fanatical terrorists match is not coincidental. But go ahead, bury your head in the sand.
The issue is why suicide bombing is immoral. That suicide bombing is immoral because Palestinian terrorists are part of a general group of Islamic terrorists whose aims and objectives are immoral is not even an argument; it's an assertion which you need to support; "because I say so" or "you're trying to duck the issue" or "you're burying your head in the sand" does not count as evidence.

I haven't substituted them at all, they're pretty damn close on a functional level. And that includes, first and foremost from the Palestinian side, the complete destruction of Israel, by any means including genocide. I didn't think I needed to be explicit about this, but perhaps I do.
As a basic principle of skeptical enquiry, yes you do; your claim, you back it up.
Cruise around http://www.memri.org if you want to find out, in their own words, what Palestinian and Islamic terrorists are calling for.
Something more explicit would be useful; I kind of feel like I'm being asked to support your argument for you, and I'm kind of resistant to doing that.
That's a much tougher issue. But you've biased the question already. You're looking for a particular answer, you want me to say that it's "equally" immoral. Using "equally", not simply "also", biases the question.
No, I haven't biased the question; in moral terms, if something is true then it has to be universally true. So as a moral principle, if "the murder of innocent civilians, with no real military value, is immoral", it's equally immoral whether the victims are Palestinians or Israelis, and whether it's a result of Palestinian suicide bombers or Israeli military activities. It can't be somehow less true for one group than any other group.
Is it immoral? Well, the difficulty is that those strikes DO have military value. The primary targets generally are fair targets, the only question is whether the collateral damage is too high. And maybe it is.
Surely it is, if the moral principle outlined previously is true? The only counter-argument would be that by contravening this principle, a greater principle is upheld; I'm not too sure what that could be because on a practical level such activities precipitate further suicide bomb attacks against Israeli civilians, so as an issue of defence it would appear to be counter-productive.
But actually determining that is not an easy question (it depends largely on what effect the strikes have on the operational capability of the terrorists), and it's not actually something I think most people are qualified to venture an opinion on. And I know I'm not qualified to determine that. So I'm not going to say more than that.
Okay.

Can you not even figure out the simple stuff?
Do you not understand the basics of this skeptic thing? Your claim, you back it up, even if it's something as simple as the sky being blue, or rain being wet. Abandoning your children is a bad thing, that should be obvious. It's only excusable if you're doing it for some even greater good.
Such as, I don't know, attacking an occupying power maybe?
And that is just manifestly absent here. She's not going to paradise for her actions, Allah isn't going to take special care of her children, she's just deluded herself.
Allah might not do, but in a culture which venerates this type of "martyr", I'm sure there's benefits accorded to the relatives of a suicide bomber.

The checkpoint she blew herself up at was for Palestinians entering going to a factory (I believe) where Palestinians had jobs for an Israeli company. She put other Palestinians out of work, at least for a while. And since poverty is one of the great woes that the Palestinians are suffering, she just made that worse.
In this specific incident, I'd have to agree with you then. Except that moral points can only be generalised from specific incidences with difficulty.
And there's no indication that any of these suicide bombings are actually making Israel more interested in cooperating with the PA.
Assuming that this is the intention of suicide bombers.
Seems to me like it's pushing Israel to solve the problem on their own, by walling of the Palestinians. Which is not something they should want, since Israel provides much of their employment, and god knows the PA won't be able to run a real economy on its own. But damned if I'm not starting to think that walling them off might be the only thing that will work in the long run.
Of course, the wall actually intrudes into Palestinian territory in a number of places, and separates Palestinian communities from each other, which if past events are anything to go by, will lead to further attacks against Israeli civilians. This "unilateral disengagement" seems an odd way to secure Israel's future.

No. I am saying it doesn't happen without that ideology, that the ideology is counterproductive and is now entrenched, and that the ideology and its terrible consequences for the Palestinians won't go away even if they achieve their goal of wiping out Israel.
So, for instance, if Palestinians hadn't engaged in terrorist activity against Israel as a results of fundamentalist muslim ideology, then Israel would have returned the occupied territories and withdrawn to its 1967 borders?

At this point, yes. Israel does indeed bare some blame about the empowerment of these radicals by their past action.
Which past actions would these be? Would they also include, for instance, recent actions such as the previous nights raid in Gaza?But at this point, going forward, there is nothing Israel could possibly do that would stop Hamas from wanting to send suicide bombers against Israel. Absolutely nothing, no change in behavior, no possible concession, will stop them at this point. And that's by their own words, their own stated goals.
I'd like to see these please.
It would be foolish indeed to lose sight of that fact. But boy are the apologists trying their best to do so.

[Ziggurat]

I've been tied up lately, so this response has been a few days coming.

Originally posted by BillyTK
The issue is why suicide bombing is immoral. That suicide bombing is immoral because Palestinian terrorists are part of a general group of Islamic terrorists whose aims and objectives are immoral is not even an argument; it's an assertion which you need to support; "because I say so" or "you're trying to duck the issue" or "you're burying your head in the sand" does not count as evidence.


Evidence is bountiful, but here's a sampling. First, a section of Raiyshi's statement about why she blew herself up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3397461.stm
"I have always wished, and went too far in wishing, that my body would be shrapnel that tears the sons of Zion, and I have always wished to knock at the door of heaven with the skulls of the sons of Zion."

Note the desire for death: not just of her enemies, but of herself as well. She WANTED to kill herself. And she believed that God wanted her to do this, and would reward her.

A PA-appointed Fatwa council had this to say:
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SR2504

"Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them – and those who stand by them – they are all in one trench, against the Arabs and the Muslims – because they established Israel here, in the beating heart of the Arab world, in Palestine. They created it to be the outpost of their civilization – and the vanguard of their army, and to be the sword of the West and of the Crusaders, hanging over the necks of the monotheists, the Muslims in these lands. They wanted the Jews to be their spearhead… Allah, deal with the Jews, your enemies and the enemies of Islam. Deal with the crusaders, and America, and Europe behind them, O Lord of the worlds…"

And now let's look at what Bin Laden has to say:
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP47603

"The [Islamic] Nation has also been promised victory over the Jews, as the Prophet Mohammad has told us: 'The Day of Judgment will not arrive until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jew hides behind the stones and the trees; and each stone or tree will say: Oh Muslim, Oh servant of God, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him; apart from the gharqad,[18]which is the tree of the Jews.'[19]This hadith also teaches [us] that the conflict with the enemy will be settled by killing and warfare, and not by disabling the potential of the Nation for decades by a variety of means such as the deception of democracy."

No fundamental difference here. Those who insist that Palestinian terrorism is somehow fundamentally different from Al Qu'aeda are hiding their heads in the sand. I've provided you enough evidence on this matter, if you need more convincing I suggest you do your own research. It should now be clear that the goal of palestinian suicide bombers is not simply their independence, but the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the jews. Hence my point: their fundamental goal is evil, not just their methods.


Something more explicit would be useful; I kind of feel like I'm being asked to support your argument for you, and I'm kind of resistant to doing that.


If you're interested in what's going on in the middle east, www.memri.org is pretty much required reading. It's really the best place to get information about what arabs are saying to each other - much of it incredibly racist, paranoid, and delusional, but there are also intelligent, serious and informed calls for major reform within the arab world as well. I'm telling you to check that site out not just because it supports my argument here, but because it's a great source for general information.


No, I haven't biased the question; in moral terms, if something is true then it has to be universally true.


Yes you have. Morality is not binary. There are always degrees, and reasonable people need not even agree completely on the degrees for two different actions/events. You did not establish that the two (Israeli targeted killings and Palestinian suicide bombing) are equivalent, so "universality" isn't a relevant concept in comparing them, and in fact as I explained, they aren't equivalent.


So as a moral principle, if "the murder of innocent civilians, with no real military value, is immoral", it's equally immoral whether the victims are Palestinians or Israelis, and whether it's a result of Palestinian suicide bombers or Israeli military activities. It can't be somehow less true for one group than any other group.


The whole bloody point is that the actions *aren't* equivalent, so nothing here follows. Again: Israeli targeted killings DO have legitimate targets, and their goal of stopping suicide bombings are also justifiable. That cannot be said of Palestinian suicide bombing. If you want to argue that Israeli targeted killings are on balance immoral, you need to weigh the benefits against the costs, and again, I don't claim to be able to do that. But there are no moral benefits to Palestinian suicide bombing. So there is absolutely no reason to believe that universal principles of morality would make these equally immoral actions. Hell, I'm not even going to claim that all Palestinian suicide bombings are equally immoral, and frankly that's beside the point. Your insistence on making that claim betrays your agenda.


Surely it is, if the moral principle outlined previously is true? The only counter-argument would be that by contravening this principle, a greater principle is upheld; I'm not too sure what that could be because on a practical level such activities precipitate further suicide bomb attacks against Israeli civilians, so as an issue of defence it would appear to be counter-productive.


I thought you claimed to be a skeptic? What actually makes you think that targeted killings lead to more suicide bombings? I've never seen any evidence. I've heard claims, always from those with an interest in stopping the targeted killings, but never any evidence. But you've bought that argument, hook line and sinker, because it sounded right to you. The Palestinians already hate the Jews. Their anger has pretty much saturated, they'll try to do suicide bombings no matter what the Jews do. The limiting factor is not Palestinian hatred, but operational capability. Maybe targeted killings do increase suicide bombings more than they hamper operational capability, but without knowing a LOT about the details of these groups on the local level, I can't say. And neither can you, unless you're privy to a lot more information than you have so far indicated.


Do you not understand the basics of this skeptic thing? Your claim, you back it up, even if it's something as simple as the sky being blue, or rain being wet.


What I am not going to do in this argument is agree to be the only one presenting facts and evidence. If all you're going to do is say "I don't believe you, show me more evidence", then frankly I'm not going to bother. I've presented more details, as per your request, but if you want more evidence for my side, you're going to have to start putting up some evidence for your views.


Such as, I don't know, attacking an occupying power maybe?


Wow: you try to jump all over me for not backing up my statements, and you throw out stuff like this? Since when is attacking an occupying power automatically a good thing? Since when should that be a moral principle? It shouldn't. The fact that a foreign power is occyupying your land does not in itself make that power a legitimate target (example: our occupation of Germany and Japan, where we, the occupiers, were the good guys, and their former native leadership had been the ones ultimately responsible for their greatest suffering).

And her attack isn't even useful in that regard. Does it damage Isreal militarily? Nope. Does it actually help improve the Palestinian side? Nope. Does it make the Israelis want to concede anything? Nope. What it does, and what she even SAID she was trying to do, is kill Jews. That's what she said she wanted to do, and there is simply no moral justification for that. If Tonge didn't know this about Raiyshi's motivations, she's an idiot for blabbing about something she doesn't understand. But worse is if she DID know this, and decided to express sympathy anyways. I'm willing to assume the former, but idiocy is still sufficient reason for repremand to be justified.


Assuming that this is the intention of suicide bombers.


This is actually a good point, but I'm not sure if you grasp the significance of what you're saying. On the individual level, these bombers just want to kill Jews. I used to think that this was the main driving force at the command level, but I'm actually changing my mind about that. Although that's certainly a factor, I think perhaps an even more important reason is jockeying for prestige by various groups within the palestinians. That explains why they announce the names of suicide bombers (to claim credit) even though that brings reprisals against the families, and why they don't engage in activities that would be militarily MUCH more useful but would have little or no prestige they could attribute to themselves, like sniper campaigns.


Of course, the wall actually intrudes into Palestinian territory in a number of places, and separates Palestinian communities from each other, which if past events are anything to go by, will lead to further attacks against Israeli civilians. This "unilateral disengagement" seems an odd way to secure Israel's future.


I'm actually now convinced this is the only way. Palestinians have long believed that time was on their side, that things would slowly change to their favor, so why bother making peace? This changes things: time is no longer on their side, if they actually want not only peace but concessions from the Israelis, they damned well better put something forward on their side, and fast, or they're going to lose. Arguments about where exactly the wall should run are quite frankly secondary.

This conflict is only going to end when one side is thoroughly defeated. That is the sad fact of the situation, and nobody can change it, though many outside the conflict cling to the illusion that compromise is possible (despite all evidence to the contrary). The Palestinians never deliver on promises to stop the violence (why is irrelevant), and any time Israel makes a concession, the Palestinians take this as a sign of weakness and merely step up their own efforts, rather than make concessions of their own. So the conflict will not end until one side is defeated.

The question is what will defeat look like, and how can one side be defeated? If the Israelis are defeated militarily, that means mass killing (and possibly the use of nuclear weapons). That is unacceptable, but also fortunately unlikely. Israel would also be defeated if there were total integration: a Palestinian majority in a democracy would likely end up treating the Jews like Mugabe treats white farmers in Zimbabwe, with the ensuing chaos and economic devastation as well. The Jews will never risk their own destruction this way, so it's also not going to happen.

So now we get to the question of how the Palestinians can be defeated. Conventional military oppression certainly won't work. What may work, though, is unilateral disengagement. Build a wall, physically isolate the Palestinians from Israel. Withdraw troops, and let the Palestinians do whatever the hell they want on their own plots of land. This would defeat them, because it would basically spell doom for their true objective, the destruction of Israel. This is the real reason they're so frantic about the wall being built: it spells their defeat, and they know it. But the only people in a position to actually stop Israel is the US, and we're not in a sympathetic mood. And quite frankly, we shouldn't be. In the long run, defeat will be good for the Palestinians. It's the ONLY possible way that they can overcome the fundamental flaws in their own culture that produce such systematic misery, violence, and corruption. It would be nice indeed if a negotiated settlement were possible, but there really is no reason to believe that any more. "Winners never quit, and quitters never win, but if you never quit AND you never win, you're just stupid."


So, for instance, if Palestinians hadn't engaged in terrorist activity against Israel as a results of fundamentalist muslim ideology, then Israel would have returned the occupied territories and withdrawn to its 1967 borders?


Not if they merely sat on their asses, no. I never claimed that. But unlike the Palestinians, it's actually possible to appeal to the conscience of the Israelis. What they should have done is what Ghandi did in India. That would have worked to get them their own land - maybe not the 1967 borders, but an imperfect solution that works is better than no solution or a "perfect" one that fails completely. The Palestinians would do well to abandon their all or nothing strategy and start settling for what they can actually get. But they didn't do that for a number of reasons, one of which is their real goal is the destruction of Israel, not simply getting their independence, and that simply isn't possible without violence.

Cain claims that Barak's offer was not acceptable to the Palestinians. Perhaps, but it was more than they were offered before, and instead of seeing that as a good start to continued negotiations and improved relations, they viewed it as a sign of weakness, that if Israel made that concession after some violence they'll make even more concessions after increased violence.


I'd like to see these please.


Hamas isn't in the habit of phrasing it like I do, but again and again they call for the destruction of Israel, generally rejecting calls for truce. Hamas and other Palestinians often say they want to kick Isrealis off "their" land - sympathizers in Europe like to read this as meaning the west bank and gaza, but that is not what they mean: they mean ALL of Israel.

Check out Hamas' charter document:
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html

A choice quote:
"[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion..."

[Skeptic]

To add to Ziggurat's excellent post, the PLO was established in 1963, long before "the occuptation". The "Palestine" it wishes to "liberate" (from jews) is all of israel, as it says explcitly in its charter.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
To add to Ziggurat's excellent post, the PLO was established in 1963, long before "the occuptation". The "Palestine" it wishes to "liberate" (from jews) is all of israel, as it says explcitly in its charter.

Well, "der". Of course it was formed, it wanted to get back the land that Palestinians lived in and were "ethnically cleansed" from.

[Skeptic]

Why, yes, I keep forgetting there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to destroy israel. It's SUCH an honorable struggle. But at least you admit, that the destruction of israel is the real goal of the PLO. You merely support it, you don't deny it any more. That's a step up in your honesty: in the past, your view was that "Arafat did everything he could for peace", which is about as truthful as saying that "Ted Bundy did everything he could for womens' rights."

Of course, the 1948 "ethnic clensing" MIGHT have had something to do with the fact that the Arab nations, 150,000,000 strong, declared war on the 600,000 jews in israel--with the enthusiastic support of the "poor opressed Palestinians" who were "ethnically cleanesed", of course--with the intent of killing them to the last baby. This has been their goal ever since. Like the 1967 "occupation", the 1948 "ethnic clensing" was the RESULT of the bloodthirsty Arab attempt to throw the jews into the sea, not its cause. Since then, it was used as an EXCUSE for this war, but it's just an excuse. The very existence of israel is the real cause.

But don't let the facts destroy your belief in the great cause of the wonderful Palestinian people, AUP. All they want for Christmas (or the equivalent) is another holocaust to avenge their "ethnic cleansing". Really, is that too much to ask?

P.S.

By the way, when are you leaving back to England? You wouldn't want to keep enjoying land that was gained to white people through ethnic cleansing of the natives, now would you? After all, you hate "racist colonialism", so...

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Skeptic

By the way, when are you leaving back to England? You wouldn't want to keep enjoying land that was gained to white people through ethnic cleansing of the natives, now would you? After all, you hate "racist colonialism", so...

And I’m sure if the aboriginals started blowing themselves up to get rid of white settlers such as AUP, he would display similar sympathy for their cause and say their leaders were doing everything they could for peace.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Mycroft


And I’m sure if the aboriginals started blowing themselves up to get rid of white settlers such as AUP, he would display similar sympathy for their cause and say their leaders were doing everything they could for peace.
An interesting point... I think you may be absolutely correct. I can't speak for A_U_P but I think his approach may be closer to what you describe that to "skeptics" approach of simply declaring them subhumans and slandering anyone who speaks against thier erradication from the god given lands.

Mycroft, I noticed you have stepped in to try and stop "skeptic" from imploding again....why do you bother?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
Mycroft, I noticed you have stepped in to try and stop "skeptic" from imploding again....why do you bother?

Whenever Skeptic starts a thread, through the efforts of you and a few others, the topic is always shifted to Skeptic and not the issue he raises. I don't understand why you can't separate the message from the messenger.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Whenever Skeptic starts a thread, through the efforts of you and a few others, the topic is always shifted to Skeptic and not the issue he raises. I don't understand why you can't separate the message from the messenger.
Not true...I cannot separate the racism from the racist...simple as that. If I want to discuss spousal abuse should I rant about smacking around dumb bitches and then cry when people won't discuss it with me rationally?
Personally, I could not care less about poor "skeptics" topics, they get the response they deserve and, I believe, the response he is trolling for. He just enjoys racist rants.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by The Fool

Not true...I cannot separate the racism from the racist...simple as that.

Fool,

I noticed neither you nor AUP are actually responding at all to the contents of my post (or to my post at all). Do you really have nothing else to contribute to this debate than attacking Skeptic?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Fool,

I noticed neither you nor AUP are actually responding at all to the contents of my post (or to my post at all). Do you really have nothing else to contribute to this debate than attacking Skeptic?
feeling left out??
Sorry, the majority of my posts have been directed to people other than "skeptic" If you are not satisfied with my contribution I'm not sure I care....All your posts were directed to BillyTK and you think I have a fixation? I'll be sure to pass your disappointment on to A_U_P as well....
Until then you should continue to think up reasons why Palestinians deserve to be ethnically cleansed from Palestine to make way for European colonists. Like the concept of military rule by a foreign minority? Would you accept it?

" I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." David Ben-Gurion

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Whenever Skeptic starts a thread, through the efforts of you and a few others, the topic is always shifted to Skeptic and not the issue he raises. I don't understand why you can't separate the message from the messenger.

Perhaps in these cases the medium is the message.

[Skeptic]

"The Fool" wrote, in reply to Mycorft:

An interesting point... I think you may be absolutely correct. (That AUP would support aboriginies suicide bomber and claim their leaders are "doing everything they could for peace"--Sk.).

Oh, I see, "Fool". Your point is, "don't be so hard on AUP, Skeptic, he really IS insane."

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by SkepticWhen Arabs (or they sympathisers, like demon) complain about "anti-Arab" feelings in Britian, they, too, complain that many Britons would not let Arabs do what the Britons were always allowed to do... like butchering hundreds of thousands of their enemies.
Any chance of you backing up your claim? Perhaps you could post one place where this complaint is made?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by MycroftI don't understand why you can't separate the message from the messenger.

You really don't?

Wow.

[zenith-nadir]

It boils down to this.

It's been a decade of negotiations between Israel and Arafat...the only leader of the Palestinians since 1969.

____________________________________________

Since 1994 Arafat and the Palestinians have 'agreed' to;

Israel-PLO Recognition (Sept 93)

Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area (May 94)

Agreement on the Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities (Aug 94)

Interim Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians (Sept 95)

The Wye River Memorandum (Oct 98)

The Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum (Sept 99)

Protocol Concerning Safe Passage between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oct 99)

Israeli-Palestinian Joint Statement-Taba (Jan 01)

The Tenet cease-fire (Jun 01)

The Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Apr 03)
____________________________________________


Under the terms of these agreements/treaties Arafat and the Palestinian Authority are OBLIGATED to arrest TERRORISTS and DISMANTLE their terrorist organizations, not provide them with SAFE HAVEN.

____________________________________________

ALSO under the terms of these agreements/treaties Arafat and his Palestinian Authority are OBLIGATED to;

1)undertake an unconditional cessation of violence

2)undertake comprehensive political reform

3)undertake drafting a Palestinian constitution

4)undertake free, fair and open elections

5)undertake an unequivocal statement reiterating Israel’s right to exist in peace

6)undertake official Palestinian institutions to end their incitement against Israel

7)undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere
____________________________________________


NONE of those OBLIGATIONS have ever been met by Arafat and the Palestinian Authority.

And then AFTER TEN YEARS of broken promises to Israel, the E.U. and the U.S. now we have some ill-informed British M.P. "sympathize" with suicide bombers.

Her "sympathy" is beyond ignorance and morally reprehensible.

I'd fire her just for being STUPID.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
"The Fool" wrote, in reply to Mycorft:

An interesting point... I think you may be absolutely correct. (That AUP would support aboriginies suicide bomber and claim their leaders are "doing everything they could for peace"--Sk.).

Oh, I see, "Fool". Your point is, "don't be so hard on AUP, Skeptic, he really IS insane."
Oh , I see,"skeptic" Your point is "I can make straw men by the dozen".

Is lying and misrepresentation a skill you developed yourself or is it a family tradition? At least you are nice enough to use brackets to identify which parts of your post is either a lie or a racist slur...very convenient.

So in conclusion....bit me you pathetic whiny loser.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
It boils down to this.

It's been a decade of negotiations between Israel and Arafat...the only leader of the Palestinians since 1969.


why is it not boiling down to the failure of both sides to honor thier obligations...Has Israel ever paused for one second in the expansion of settlements and the ethnic cleansing of Arab inhabitants?

Neither the Palestinian Authority, Terrorist organisations, Sharon, Likud or Zionist extremists want to see an end to the fighting.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by The Fool
why is it not boiling down to the failure of both sides to honor thier obligations...Has Israel ever paused for one second in the expansion of settlements and the ethnic cleansing of Arab inhabitants?Neither the Palestinian Authority, Terrorist organisations, Sharon, Likud or Zionist extremists want to see an end to the fighting.



You certainly chose the proper message board name and look up big adult words like "ethnic cleansing" before you embarass yourself even more.

It is not "the failure of both sides to honor thier obligations"...

Let's tackle your bizzare amorality inch by inch "The Fool".


Settlers DON'T BLOW UP on Palestinian buses.
Settlers DON'T BLOW UP in Palestinian Shopping Malls.
Settlers DON'T BLOW UP in Palestinian cafes.
Settlers DON'T BLOW UP in Palestinian restaurants.
Settlers DON'T BLOW UP during Palestinian "seders".
Settlers DON'T BLOW UP American Fulbright convoys travelling in the Gaza strip.


In 1003 B.C. King David established Jerusalem as Capital of
United Kingdom of Israel. The United Kingdom of Israel was in JUDEA & Samaria.

The "West Bank" was named JUDEA & Samaria for 3000 years until Jordan RENAMED it in 1948.

So The Fool is saying to me that 19 years of Jordanian occupation in JUDEA & Samaria, (1948-67), NEGATES 3000 years of jewish history there....uhm...ok....

And because "zionists" want to "expand" their settlements and have families grow more produce to feed themselves is a REASON to blow up Israeli civilians in buses/cafes/restaurants/seders/bus stops/shopping malls?

Ok "The Fool" I'll take YOUR logic one step further;

You and the Palestinians steadfastly tell the world homicide bombing Israeli civilians is justifiable because;

A) all Israelis potentially serve in the military
B) all settlers occupy 'disputed land'
C) IDF operations to stop Palestinian terrorists.

Fine. Lets test this your hypothesis against the definitions above.

In the beginning it was the Palestinian Arab adult males who were terrorist bombers. Therefore, using the 'The Fool's' settler analogy, -- all Palestinian Arab males now become legitimate Israeli military targets.

Then it was Palestinian Arab adult females who became suicide bombers. Therefore, all Palestinian Arab adult women now become legitimate Israeli military targets.

Along came the Arab male teen-agers to homicide bomb the Israelis. Therefore, now all Palestinian Arab male teen-agers become valid targets.

Next came the Arab Muslim female teen-agers, and so on …

Taken to its ridiculous extreme – using "The Fool's" & the Palestinian's own wicked, immoral logic – Israel would have every right to kill all of the Palestinians and take the territories.

[zenith-nadir]

Next someone is gonna quote U.N. Resolution 242.

U.N. Resolution 242 (S/RES/242) was adopted by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967.

U.N. Resolution 242 calls on Israel to withdraw from the disputed territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, Sinai and the Golan Heights in EXCHANGE for NORMALIZATION and achieving PEACE AGREEMENTS with its neighbors.

That's why it is called the "LAND FOR PEACE" deal.

Egypt and Jordan agreed to 242 and made peace with Israel. And Israel gave the Sinai back to the Egyptians while Israel settled long-standing disputes over land and water rights, and pledged cooperation in areas including trade and tourism with Jordan.

MEANWHILE:

Lebanon, Syria, Saudia Arabia, the Palestinian Authority, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Oman, Sudan, Lybia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar HAVE NOT AGREED to make PEACE with Israel.

THEREFORE:

Israel DOES NOT HAVE TO withdraw from the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights UNTIL Lebanon, Syria, Saudia Arabia, AND the Palestinian Authority achieve PEACE agreements.

That is 242, "LAND FOR PEACE".....NOT "Land for Terror".....Live it. Learn it. Deal with it.

[zenith-nadir]

delete pls

[zenith-nadir]

delete pls.