"they sign peace treaties, spin off their militant "wings", and then shrug apologetically when the attacks continue." You're viewing the Palestinians as one homogeneous mass of incurable "terrorists". In nearly every conflict of this sort, one group cuts a deal and another group damns them as "sell-outs". Like Yigal Amir.
Thanks for your contributions but I don't really want this to turn into a discussion of my beliefs because, as I say in the blog, it's pointless. I'd prefer it if people could make more general comments about how the term "anti-Semite" is used.
"Uri Avnery hates those he opposes within Israel with as much or more venom as the terrorists. He spends most of his time spewing ANTI-Israel propaganda to further his leftist, anti-orthodox agenda. Again, you take the most radical perspective on a situation because it suits your agenda" Well, you can call him what you want, but I notice that you don't dispute his statement about eleven months. "As for Abu Nidal, they are a
"There were rocket attacks on Israel in 1981" Key words there are the final two. Uri Avnery seems to think that: "For eleven months before the war, not a single Katyusha rocket (nor a single shot) had been fired over the border." But what would he know, he was there at the time. Abu Nidal split from the PLO in 1974. Wrong on both points. Well done.
I'm not blaming anyone for everything. Inconveniently for you.
Your memory fails you, Mason. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was "in response" to the attempted murder of the Israeli ambassador in London by the Abu Nidal faction which was not part of the PLO.
MythicalMino, "But, what about the rockets that were fired into Israel MONTHLY by the peaceful Hezbullah? Do those numbers count? Or do they not fit into your "peaceful" world-view?" What about all the Lebanese who died as a result of the Israeli invasion of 1982? Do they count too? How far back would you like to go? In Ireland we have what is known as the politics of whatabout-ery, which you have just demonstrated b
When I was ten my teacher banned our class from using the word "nice". Never again we were told, were we to reach for an adjective and end up grasping the "n" word. This teacher was idiosyncratic to say the least - she used to interrupt lessons to play us Handel’s Messiah on the old piano in the corner of the room - so I took her "no nice" edict as another sign of her
Mason, No need to use terms like "nasty Jews". You'll have the anti-Semitism police on your back
Oh no, I'm sorry, I lost that argument crushingly. Around the time of your Irish history lesson, which I for one found fascinating.
BakerStreet, "Your problem, OG San, is that you differentiate in quality between "angry and flinging results" and the snide, effete sarcasm and rhetorical laments for "reason"." Yes, how rude of me to try to introduce reason into the discussion. Perhaps it would be better if I acted like you and left reason untouched, going instead for insults, out-of-date statistics and false attribution of quotes. And yes, I am bei
Maxis20, "this disgusting anti-semite comments between the lines "by most moral army in the world" its just scary that there are people that so hateful and foolish like who wrote this article..." So it's anti-Semitic, hateful and foolish of me to quote Israeli propaganda? I'm confused. Perhaps I'm a self-hating anti-Semite. "When this war overs, "hezbollah", the people who spread the terror around the world with ot
BakerStreet, "I'm so bored with self-important left wingers who think that there is such a difference between insulting arrogance and effete, nasal sarcasm. I would rather deal with someone who uses insults over people who ask "meaningful" leading questions over and over with no intention of ever really addressing the answers" I asked a question over and over because none of the pro-Israeli contributors on this thread, yourself
Well I thought it was productive. Certain ludicrous statements were challenged. Looking back over these comments, as I have just done, it's interesting to note which bloggers enjoy name-calling and which can be civil.
"But you don't offer why." Because Israel, armed and funded by the most powerful country in the world, is battering a much weaker country in a way which would be unacceptable in other parts of the world. I think if the ratio was ten-to-one the other way, you might consider these numbers (whether they are facts or not) to be relevant. "No thanks. This is a propaganda war, and swallowing propaganda doesn't give you
Re: Dresden I was using this as an example. There are many others. The point is not whether or not you think the bombing of Dresden was immoral, it's the principle. Do either of you accept that a moral war can contain immoral actions? BakerStreet, "Because the final judgment is not based upon numbers, but care, intent and the necessity of the action, which is what you can't seem to understand." But the number
You may see it that way, I do not. It is possible for a moral war to contain immoral actions. For example, some would argue that, while the war against Hitler was certainly morally justified, a part of this war - the fire-bombing of Dresden - was not. By your logic, any action in war, no matter how monstrous, is OK as long as the war itself is morally justified. Consider the implications of such a mentality.
"The "number" of civilian deaths has nothing to do with the moral standing of a "military" endeavor. The reason behind it is what forms the moral answer or lack thereof." I beg to differ. The morality of a military action depends both on the reason behind it and its effect.
UBoB, I very much doubt that there are any dead Israeli civilians who are yet to be counted. Israel has received considerably less aerial attack than Lebanon and has the infrastructure to recover bodies after bombings. There is an organisation called ZAKA in Israel which collects body parts after car crashes/suicide bombs/missile attacks so they can be buried in accordance with Jewish custom.
"How many civilians killed has nothing more to tell about the moral standing of a military effort than where the sun comes up." Do you actually truly believe this? That the number of civilian deaths has no bearing on the morality of the action? Why then does Israel (and the US for that matter) insist that they do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties? As I said way back in comment 19: "I am using facts to back up my
"Statistics don't make any sort of a point, moral or otherwise" So, by your resoning, a statistic/number does not make any moral point but a fact does? So the "fact" that the sun rises in the east makes a moral point?
There is more to Lebanon than Hezbollah. I read a story this week about Shia refugees in a Druze area who put up a Hezbollah flag. It was quickly ripped down by the locals in order to protect the (rather foolish) refugees from the Druze militia. Lebanon is a very complex country with 17 sects. It's not all Shia and it's certainly not all Hezbollah. The IRA stopped for many reasons, principally becasue they were persuaded by people in their ow
"Blair and his ignorant Foreign Secretary have played along with Israel's savagery with blind trust in our own loss of memory. It is perfectly acceptable, it seems, after the Hizbollah staged its July 12 assault, to destroy the infrastructure of Lebanon and the lives of more than 400 of its innocents. But hold on a moment. When the IRA used to cross the Irish border to kill British soldiers--which it did--did Blair and his cronies blame the Irish Repub
"the only good Arab is a dead Arab" Israeli Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan, 1983. How are the Palestinians (or the Lebanese) supposed to deal with people with that mindset? Peace will only come in the Middle East when both sides, Israelis and Palestinians, accept the permanence of the other. There are many among both peoples who have already come to this conclusion - that the Jews will not be driven into the se
"So I guess the only way to deal with Hezbollah is to surrender? Give in to their demands? You realize that once you admit they can't be disarmed, and that they can't really be dealt with by negotiation, there's nothing left but to kill until there is none left." I never said that they can't be negotiated with. In fact if you want guerilla armies to give up their guns, negotiation is the only way, as in Ireland. Speaking of wh
JoeUser Forums