As the anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel approaches, it might be interesting to reflect on how far she has sunk from her ideals. This opinion piece is sobering.
Yes, Israel is a vibrant democracy in a sea of primitivism and yes, she was founded as a statement of hope against the backdrop of wanton wickedness unseen before. Yes, she faces an implacable enemy which seeks her erasure from history - even though her allies and her resolve have made this an impossible, as well as a repulsive aspiration.
So, utterly secure with international and internal military and economic force, democratic to a fault and with a unique history of withstanding the most evil discrimination from almost every quarter of the globe, how after sixty years has it come to this? Founded in terrorism and rebellion herself, with a remarkable ability for cold-hearted self-preservation against all odds, how can Israel so demonise the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, however bastardised by extremists (of which Israel has plenty herself) that she perpetrates these endless acts of dehumanising wickedness?
Of all people in the world who should understand the Palestinians, how is it that Israel behaves in this manner and will not talk?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Johann Hari: Israel is suppressing a secret it must face
How did a Jewish state founded 60 years ago end up throwing filth at cowering Palestinians?
When you hit your 60th birthday, most of you will guzzle down your hormone replacement therapy with a glass of champagne and wonder if you have become everything you dreamed of in your youth. In a few weeks, the state of Israel is going to have that hangover.
She will look in the mirror and think – I have a sore back, rickety knees and a gun at my waist, but I'm still standing. Yet somewhere, she will know she is suppressing an old secret she has to face. I would love to be able to crash the birthday party with words of reassurance. Israel has given us great novelists like Amos Oz and A.B. Yehoshua, great film-makers like Joseph Cedar, great scientific research into Alzheimer's, and great dissident journalists like Amira Hass, Tom Segev and Gideon Levy to expose her own crimes.
She has provided the one lonely spot in the Middle East where gay people are not hounded and hanged, and where women can approach equality.
But I can't do it. Whenever I try to mouth these words, a remembered smell fills my nostrils. It is the smell of poo. Across the occupied West Bank, raw untreated sewage is pumped every day out of the Jewish settlements, along large metal pipes, straight onto Palestinian land. From there, it can enter the groundwater and the reservoirs, and become a poison.
Standing near one of these long, stinking brown-and-yellow rivers of waste recently, the local chief medical officer, Dr Bassam Said Nadi, explained to me: "Recently there were very heavy rains, and the poo started to flow into the reservoir that provides water for this whole area. I knew that if we didn't act, people would die. We had to alert everyone not to drink the water for over a week, and distribute bottles. We were lucky it was spotted. Next time..." He shook his head in fear. This is no freak: a 2004 report by Friends of the Earth found that only six per cent of Israeli settlements adequately treat their sewage.
Meanwhile, in order to punish the population of Gaza for voting "the wrong way", the Israeli army are not allowing past the checkpoints any replacements for the pipes and cement needed to keep the sewage system working. The result? Vast stagnant pools of waste are being held within fragile dykes across the strip, and rotting. Last March, one of them burst, drowning a nine-month-old baby and his elderly grandmother in a tsunami of human waste. The Centre on Housing Rights warns that one heavy rainfall could send 1.5m cubic metres of faeces flowing all over Gaza, causing "a humanitarian and environmental disaster of epic proportions".
So how did it come to this? How did a Jewish state founded 60 years ago with a promise to be "a light unto the nations" end up flinging its filth at a cowering Palestinian population?
The beginnings of an answer lie in the secret Israel has known, and suppressed, all these years. Even now, can we describe what happened 60 years ago honestly and unhysterically? The Jews who arrived in Palestine throughout the twentieth century did not come because they were cruel people who wanted to snuffle out Arabs to persecute. No: they came because they were running for their lives from a genocidal European anti-Semitism that was soon to slaughter six million of their sisters and their sons.
They convinced themselves that Palestine was "a land without people for a people without land". I desperately wish this dream had been true. You can see traces of what might have been in Tel Aviv, a city that really was built on empty sand dunes. But most of Palestine was not empty. It was already inhabited by people who loved the land, and saw it as theirs. They were completely innocent of the long, hellish crimes against the Jews.
When it became clear these Palestinians would not welcome becoming a minority in somebody else's country, darker plans were drawn up. Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, wrote in 1937: "The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war."
So, for when the moment arrived, he helped draw up Plan Dalit. It was – as Israeli historian Ilan Pappe puts it – "a detailed description of the methods to be used to forcibly evict the people: large-scale intimidation; and laying siege to and bombarding population centres". In 1948, before the Arab armies invaded, this began to be implemented: some 800,000 people were ethnically cleansed, and Israel was built on the ruins. The people who ask angrily why the Palestinians keep longing for their old land should imagine an English version of this story. How would we react if the 30m stateless, persecuted Kurds in the world sent armies and settlers into this country to seize everything in England below Leeds, and swiftly established a free Kurdistan from which we were expelled? Wouldn't we long forever for our children to return to Cornwall and Devon and London? Would it take us only 40 years to compromise and offer to settle for just 22 per cent of what we had?
If we are not going to be endlessly banging our heads against history, the Middle East needs to excavate 1948, and seek a solution. Any peace deal – even one where Israel dismantled the wall and agreed to return to the 1967 borders – tends to crumple on this issue. The Israelis say: if we let all three million come back, we will be outnumbered by Palestinians even within the 1967 borders, so Israel would be voted out of existence. But the Palestinians reply: if we don't have an acknowledgement of the Naqba (catastrophe), and our right under international law to the land our grandfathers fled, how can we move on?
It seemed like an intractable problem – until, two years ago, the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research conducted the first study of the Palestinian Diaspora's desires. They found that only 10 per cent – around 300,000 people – want to return to Israel proper. Israel can accept that many (and compensate the rest) without even enduring much pain. But there has always been a strain of Israeli society that preferred violently setting its own borders, on its own terms, to talk and compromise. This weekend, the elected Hamas government offered a six-month truce that could have led to talks. The Israeli government responded within hours by blowing up a senior Hamas leader and killing a 14-year-old girl.
Perhaps Hamas' proposals are a con; perhaps all the Arab states are lying too when they offer Israel full recognition in exchange for a roll-back to the 1967 borders; but isn't it a good idea to find out? Israel, as she gazes at her grey hairs and discreetly ignores the smell of her own stale poo pumped across Palestine, needs to ask what kind of country she wants to be in the next 60 years.
NB: The above copy is edited to comply with forum rules on language. Click on the link to read the original article.
04-30-2008, 13:04
Vladimir
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
NB: The above copy is edited to comply with forum rules on language. Click on the link to read the original article.
And that language alone is enough to indicate the veracity of the article. :juggle2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by article
Meanwhile, in order to punish the population of Gaza for voting "the wrong way"
Is he serious? I guess the Germans voted the wrong way too huh?
04-30-2008, 13:07
HoreTore
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
democratic to a fault
Democratic to a fault?
I don't consider the treatment of Vanunu to be in line with democratic ideals.
04-30-2008, 13:09
Vladimir
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Democratic to a fault?
I don't consider the treatment of Vanunu to be in line with democratic ideals.
He's a whistleblower, and I daresay the most important whistleblower in history.
04-30-2008, 13:20
Adrian II
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Founded in terrorism and rebellion herself, with a remarkable ability for cold-hearted self-preservation against all odds, how can Israel so demonise the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, however bastardised by extremists (of which Israel has plenty herself) that she perpetrates these endless acts of dehumanising wickedness?
I think the short answer is: religion.
The somewhat longer answer would be this. Israel was built by Socialists and secular Zionists and it was a successful modern, democratic state as long as their views prevailed. Even after the 1967 occupation of Palestinian territories, these territories were considered bargaining chips by a majority of Israelis, not rightful possessions promised to the Jews by some Prophet or mere buffer zones populated by subhumans.
By the end of the 1970's a religiously inspired, expansionist policy took hold and Israel virtually refused to negotiate except with those nations (such as Egypt and Jordan) that were prepared to live with the fact of the occupation, albeit under protest. The occupied territories came to be regarded as land promised to Israel by the sky-God. David Ben-Gurion foresaw the horrible consequences for Israel itself and pleaded for a return of all the occupied territories apart from Jerusalem. His words were not heeded. The violence required to suppress the territories ate away at Israeli democracy, turned inward and resulted in the murder of Rabin, the last of the heroic generation, by a religious nutjob who had never done anything worthwhile for his country. I remember signing the register of condolance and speaking to an Israeli diplomat whom I knew well, and who was privately foaming at the mouth and cursing the Likud: "Why do they think we built Israel? To turn it into another ******* Pakistan!?"
I am very pessimistic as to Israel's capacity to regenerate in this respect. I think the guy was right, the religious rot has gone deep and Israel is in serious danger of deteriorating into a sort of Jewish Pakistan, a quasi-democracy with semi-autonomous zones dominated by religious fanatics who have a hold over the political center.
I have always pleaded for a wholesale international approach to the Middle East conflict, with negotiations involving all major global powers and all local players, resulting in a framework intended to settle all major differences. It might take ten years to get the first results, but the previous fifty have shown that peacemeal approaches are bound to fail. The reason is that as soon as one enemy is neutralized through successful negociations, religious and ethnic fanaticism always finds another 'threat' to concentrate its fear and hatred on. This goes for all sides, obviously, not just for Israel. Idiots abound on both sides in that unfortunate region.
04-30-2008, 13:21
Vladimir
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Spy...?
He's a whistleblower, and I daresay the most important whistleblower in history.
Yet, sadly, the Norwegian gov rejected his request for asylum.
Yes. And the reason was political, no less. Damn conservatives...
Hopefully, he will try again while we still have this government.
05-01-2008, 11:55
Dîn-Heru
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
And damn socialists for selling the heavy water in the first place..
:shame:
The government has had 4 years to do something about it, and if it had not been for BT dragging the case back into the limelight, they would easily have gone the rest of the term without doing something about it...
(PS: He has apparently refiled his application, so we'll see if your faith in the current government is justified or not..) http://www.imemc.org/article/54132
05-01-2008, 12:16
Adrian II
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Vanunu wasn't a spy, but he was a traitor and the Israeli government had to set an example. Vanunu was at liberty to criticise his government all he wanted, not to divulge some of its most important military secrets.
If Vanunu had wanted to criticise Israel's nuclear program, he could have referred to the wealth of information that was already in the public domain.
05-01-2008, 12:50
Viking
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Vanunu wasn't a spy, but he was a traitor and the Israeli government had to set an example. Vanunu was at liberty to criticise his government all he wanted, not to divulge some of its most important military secrets.
If Vanunu had wanted to criticise Israel's nuclear program, he could have referred to the wealth of information that was already in the public domain.
Oh yes, the term 'traitor' is a worthless as the US dollar is nowadays. That's what the comparison shows. :idea:
The term is well defined and applies to Vanunu. He violated the terms of the Dimona security clearance which he signed and he breached the trust of the nation that he worked for. And he did so for the sum of $100,000, not out of a guilty conscience.
In his prison letters to the outside world he made detailed sketches of Dimona and wrote alongside them 'I'll fill you in on the details when I'm freed'. That's why he was put into solitary confinement. Vanunu is very lucky that he didn't get the death penalty.
05-01-2008, 18:58
HoreTore
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
The term is well defined and applies to Vanunu. He violated the terms of the Dimona security clearance which he signed and he breached the trust of the nation that he worked for. And he did so for the sum of $100,000, not out of a guilty conscience.
A traitor to his country, a hero to the world.
It's not like he released top secret plans against invasion or anything like that. He revealed a bleedin' nuclear program, something that should not even exist in this world at all. He did us all a favour. Who cares if he got a few bucks for it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
In his prison letters to the outside world he made detailed sketches of Dimona and wrote alongside them 'I'll fill you in on the details when I'm freed'. That's why he was put into solitary confinement. Vanunu is very lucky that he didn't get the death penalty.
Bah. He poses no real threat to israel, and they know it. Public embarrassment is the worst he can do, and last I checked, civilized countries don't jail people for embarrassment.
I guess if some iranian scientist releases hard proof of an iranian nuclear bomb-program tomorrow, you would cheer when he is hanged by the government, Adrian...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dîn-Heru
(PS: He has apparently refiled his application, so we'll see if your faith in the current government is justified or not..) http://www.imemc.org/article/54132
The immigration minister stated that if he would get a job here, he will be accepted. But to be honest, that's a lot of bull and utterly irrelevant. The immigration department abides by the laws of the land, not the whims of the politicians, as it should be(well, at least they used to work like that, after the manuela "scandal" I'm not sure anymore). And as such, they will of course accept his application. The real question is whether or not some idiot minister will play the "national security card" and throw him out again. It will be very hard to do that for anyone atm, but I wouldn't be surprised...
(btw, not sure where you conservatives get your maths skills, but it isn't election time yet, the current government has only been in charge for 2,5 years so far ~;) )
05-01-2008, 19:11
Viking
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
The term is well defined and applies to Vanunu. He violated the terms of the Dimona security clearance which he signed and he breached the trust of the nation that he worked for. And he did so for the sum of $100,000, not out of a guilty conscience.
In his prison letters to the outside world he made detailed sketches of Dimona and wrote alongside them 'I'll fill you in on the details when I'm freed'. That's why he was put into solitary confinement. Vanunu is very lucky that he didn't get the death penalty.
That it is well defined there's no doubt about; like many other terms which few nowadays pay heed to (in our belowed Europe, anyhow). Like heretic. He betrayed a country; no big deal in itself. A real traitor is a traitor against humanity; Vanunu is not.
Only the loony left considers him a hero, and the loony left has many worthless heroes. Mordechai Vanunu, in turn, has only loony supporters. Well alright, except Susannah York, the renowned analyst of Middle Eastern affairs. Oh, and dr Mia Farrow, professor of Political Science at Hollywood University.
:coffeenews:
05-01-2008, 19:22
Tribesman
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Pretty much sums it up for me:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Is it art?
That view can be summed up by the word bollox .
05-01-2008, 19:25
HoreTore
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
A hero? To the entire world no less?
Only the loony left considers him a hero, and the loony left has many worthless heroes. Mordechai Vanunu, in turn, has only loony supporters. Well alright, except Susannah York, the renowned analyst of Middle Eastern affairs. Oh, and dr Mia Farrow, professor of Political Science at Hollywood University.
:coffeenews:
Actually, the only ones I've ever heard call him a traitor before are our very own right-wing nutters(and I mean real nutters, they'd make the republicans look like lefties).
Anyway Adrian, you support the notion that countries should have the right to develop nuclear bombs in complete secrecy? You don't consider it your right to know when your government is making weaponry that can wipe out the population of the earth...?
National security can go to hell on that one. If my government is doing something like that, I see it as my bloody right to know so.
Calling Vanunu a threat to national security is about as ridiculous as calling the guy who exposed Abu Ghraib a threat to national security. But no wait, the Abu Ghraib scandal *did* cost the lives of quite a few soldiers due to increased guerilla attacks. What Vanunu did has resulted in what? Was it "ABSOLUTELY NOT A SINGLE THING" you said? Then how on earth can it be a matter of national security if it didn't cause a single attack on israel?
05-01-2008, 19:40
Adrian II
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Actually, the only ones I've ever heard call him a traitor before are our very own right-wing nutters(and I mean real nutters, they'd make the republicans look like lefties).
Anyway Adrian, you support the notion that countries should have the right to develop nuclear bombs in complete secrecy? You don't consider it your right to know when your government is making weaponry that can wipe out the population of the earth...?
National security can go to hell on that one. If my government is doing something like that, I see it as my bloody right to know so.
Calling Vanunu a threat to national security is about as ridiculous as calling the guy who exposed Abu Ghraib a threat to national security.
The Israeli public and the outside world have been aware since the early 1960's that Israel was developing nuclear weapons. Not only has the Israeli public fully incorporated this knowledge, it has also been aware since the early 1970's of Israel's declared policy of 'nuclear opacity' which was deemed to be in its best interest at the time. And yes, Israel has every right to develop such weapons. And yes, they already helped save the country once from annihilation.
Do you know how that came about? And if it was before or after Vanunu's revelations?
05-01-2008, 19:57
HoreTore
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
And yes, Israel has every right to develop such weapons. And yes, they already helped save the country once from annihilation.
Ridiculous. Israel can exist perfectly well with just conventional weaponry.
A nuclear bomb has but one single purpose: the complete destruction of civilian life. It has no other use whatsoever. Who's going to use a nuclear bomb to take out an enemy position, like a bunker? That's like shooting birds with a cannon. The only use Israel has of a nuclear bomb, is to obliterate cities like Kairo and Damascus in the event of an attack. And no, I do not consider it Israel's(or any other countries) right to blow up a million civilians.
But what was the consequences of Vanunu's "horrible crime"...? I can't see a single thing that has happened, except embarrassment, half of which comes from the israeli governments totalitarian and despotic way of dealing with him(secret courts are a blast in a civilized court system!:smash: ).
05-01-2008, 20:03
Dîn-Heru
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
(btw, not sure where you conservatives get your maths skills, but it isn't election time yet, the current government has only been in charge for 2,5 years so far ~;) )
Hehe, I realised that a bit later, but the decsion was made in 2004, and that was where I counted from. The only critique I found in the big papers from 2004 was a sentance from Haga, who was then in Utenrikskomiteen and Willoch.
It was not a descision made in secret, if the current government felt so strongly about it the decision could have been overturned on day one 2,5 years ago..
(Ps I personally could not care less about whether they let him in or not, but you should not be so quick to lambast the former government, when yours have not done anything besides maybe a few chummy words with about their concern with the Israeli ambassador..)
05-01-2008, 20:21
HoreTore
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dîn-Heru
Hehe, I realised that a bit later, but the decsion was made in 2004, and that was where I counted from. The only critique I found in the big papers from 2004 was a sentance from Haga, who was then in Utenrikskomiteen and Willoch.
Your searching skills are inferior then. SV was hysterical at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dîn-Heru
It was not a descision made in secret, if the current government felt so strongly about it the decision could have been overturned on day one 2,5 years ago..
It *was* a decision made in secret, which was exposed by BT this year. Or rather, the real decision was secret. It's a good thing Erna only lied and deceived about the life of a human and not a couple of blowjobs(the thought of which make me shudder), or else she might have faced impeachment...
And you know our political system just as well as I do; thinking that any of them will do anything unless they're given a good push(in vanunu's case, sending an asylum application) ~;). And since nobody has pushed the current government yet, nothing has happened... it might though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dîn-Heru
(Ps I personally could not care less about whether they let him in or not, but you should not be so quick to lambast the former government, when yours have not done anything besides maybe a few chummy words with about their concern with the Israeli ambassador..)
Bah, I reserve the right to lambast, ridicule and hate the former incompetent idiots without any reason or justification whatsoever :beam:
05-01-2008, 20:59
Dîn-Heru
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
SV is always hysterical, I thought that was a given ~;), but I did not see any articles when I searched the sites of VG, Dagbladet and Aftenposten. (But you are right, I found an interview with Halvorsen when I searched again with reference to SV.)
Yes, she used here right as a minister to set aside a recommendation from UDI. Was it a wise decision? Who knows? Perhaps not the most humanitarian there ever was, but the conceerns of one individual does not always come first in international politics..
And you know our political system just as well as I do; thinking that any of them will do anything unless they're given a good push(in vanunu's case, sending an asylum application) . And since nobody has pushed the current government yet, nothing has happened... it might though.
True, except that the push is not him sending a new application, but that the media has decided to put this matter on the current agenda..
Just out of curiosity. If he is granted asylum, do you think he would be allowed to leave Israel? What should we do if they refuse to let him leave?
05-01-2008, 21:01
Adrian II
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Ridiculous. Israel can exist perfectly well with just conventional weaponry.
You keep changing the topic. I have demonstrated that the Israeli public was long aware of the nuclear weapons program, so now you switch to another topic: why do they need them?
And you don't know the answer to my question, do you? It answers your own question as well because it shows that they do need them.
It was during the Yom Kippur war, a full thirteen years before Vanunu spoke to The Sunday Times. On day 2 of that war (8 October, 1973) when the combined Egyptian-Syrian force was advancing rapidly, Israel put eight nuclear-armed F-4's and a series of nuclear missile launchers on alert and notified both the Russians and the Americans of this. The purpose was dual: to persuade the Russians into restraining their two Arab allies on the ground, and to persuade the Americans into sending large-scale military supplies to Israel. The threat was effective. Without it, Israel would have been in major military trouble to say the least.
And it invalidates your statement that a nuclear bomb has only one purpose: that of annihilation. Its main use (as has been demonstrated once again above) is its threat of annihilation, not annihulation itself.
You ask what Vanunu's crime was. His crime was that of violating his security clearance and the trust of his nation. Even if he told the world little that was new, the Israeli government was perfectly right that the decision to divulge it was not Vanunu's. And if they let this one go unpunished, the next possible traitor would divulge even more, and so on. Vanunu had to be made an example of.
The trouble with loony lefties is that when they call for 'negotiations' in the Middle East, they have no idea where to start because they have no clue what the issues are that must negotiated. They have no notion of the true nature of conflict, no notion of the nature and history of this particular conflict, and they don't care if they do. They think good intentions alone are sufficient. That's all very well if you live in a beautiful, peaceful Norwegian fjord. But it leaves you totally unaware of (and unprepared for) the harsh measures that are sometimes necessary in a country like Israel in order to confront even harsher realities, resulting from a state of semi-war that has now lasted for almost precisely sixty years.
The Vanunu thingy is only a minute detail in this bigger frame, but the many naive notions about it are so revealing about peoples' lack of insight or imagination. Let me just mention two aspects that Vanunu's tiny band of supporters never address simply because they don't occur to them.
1. You say Vanunu was telling the world nothing new, nothing truly revealing. The fact of the matter is that he didn't know what he was doing. Vanunu was interviewed extensively in 1986 by Frank Barnaby, an well-known internatioanal expert on nuclear armament, who then wrote a declaration about that interview. One of his conclusions was that Vanunu, having been a mere technician in Dimona, did not understand some of the things he had revealed and had 'no idea of their importance'. Well, surprise surprise if that isn't a main reason why security clearances are necessary and why their breach is so serious. People with clearance see all sorts of things they don't understand and that is why they are expected to shut the **** up in the first place.
2. One of the things Vanunu divulged was the routes taken by his former colleagues to travel to and from Dimona. And not only was he endangering them, he was also exposing himself to undue scrutiny. Before the Mossad got hold of him, Vanunu might have been kidnapped by one of the better Arab intelligence services (probably the Syrians) who could have pumped him for everything else he knew before they sent him swimming in the Mediterranean with concrete flippers on.
05-01-2008, 22:37
HoreTore
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Of course I know that, Adrian. You do, however, conveniently "forget" to mention the Samson option.
However, let's say history took another turn: the threat was ignored. Nixon stayed his hand, and the russkies laughed all the way to their own red button.
What then? Israel had planes with armed nuclear bombs flying about. Is it really unrealistic that one or more of those would've ended up in a population centre?
Are we really willing to allow another Hiroshima? There have been a lot of very close encounters involving nuclear bombs. We've been lucky a long time now, I see absolutely no need to push our luck. Cairo has some 7 million inhabitants. Is that the price you're willing to pay?
Israel may want them. They may even need them. But in the interest of humanity, they can't have them. Israel can and have defended themselves more than adequately using conventional weaponry. Would they have lost the Yom Kippur war without the bomb? Of course not, why would they? They won a complete victory at sea on the second day of the war and they were mostly winning on the ground. Would the US have supported them still? Probably. Anyway, the war was turned before they received a significant amount of supplies. The supplies started arriving on 14th october., the syrians were beaten back on the 11th, the egyptians on the 16th. A make or brake? Certainly not. Russia then? There are claims that, after seeing the Israeli bombs, they sent a ship carrying soviet bombs to egypt as a guarantee to alexandria, although it remained there without unloading through the war. That would have been a terrific outcome, wouldn't it? All it would take for a complete armageddon was one israeli pilot disregarding orders and dropping a bomb, and BOOM, the egyptians would fire back, and so on. At least that would be an end to the war, the drawback is that there wouldn't be many people left to see the peace, of course. But that's acceptable to you, isn't it? And remember, the soviets sent(or at least, there are claims that they did) their bombs after they discovered Israels bombs. Without Israels bomb, there wouldn't have been any soviet bombs around.
As to Vanunu's crime; Meh. Sure, punish him. But 18 years in prison, of which 11 of those in isolation, and punishment even after he was released? Not even close to a fair punishment. And how can you say that he had to be made an example of? He is to be punished not because of his violation, but because other people may violate them too? He is to be a martyr for the sins of others? Sorry, this isn't what I call a civilized legal system.
But anyway Adrian, using your arguments, I am sure that you support an Iranian bomb? Iran is under threat of an invasion, surely they should be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb to prevent that from happening?
It's not art, it's a joke. Israel kills lots of children. They've also targeted children for beatings and torture. There are videos of Israeli soldiers holding down Palestinian children and smashing them with rocks in order to break their bones. The soldiers were following government directives. Nice.
I'm inclined to say that Israel has probably killed (far) more children than any of it's "uncivilized" neighbours. If someone would care to correct me, I will be glad to listen.
05-01-2008, 23:05
FactionHeir
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
I wish the main stream media showed a more balanced view of the conflict then. All you tend to see is Palestinians being portrayed as the bad guys and Israelis as the ones on the defensive, with exception of their daily airstrikes or "arrests" (you could call them kidnappings) of Palestinians on Palestinian land. And even those are portrayed as if they had been legitimate.
05-01-2008, 23:12
drone
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
But anyway Adrian, using your arguments, I am sure that you support an Iranian bomb? Iran is under threat of an invasion, surely they should be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb to prevent that from happening?
Iran is a signatory of the NPT, Israel is not. If Iran decides to leave the treaty in the proper manner, they can do what they want (after the diplomatic firestorm).
05-01-2008, 23:23
Adrian II
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Are we really willing to allow another Hiroshima?
Of course we are. Nuclear deterrence will not work if we are not prepared to use the buggers. Welcome to reality.
Quote:
Anyway, the war was turned before they received a significant amount of supplies.
That's right, it turned because the Soviets and the Americans got the message. The Soviets warned the Egyptians (who then warned the Syrians) that they'd better not push their luck. And the fact that massive American supplies were on their way was enough to allow the IDF to use what they had left and go on the offensive.
Quote:
Israel may want them. They may even need them. But in the interest of humanity, they can't have them.
Do you realise what you are stating there? They may need them, yet they can't have them. In the interest of humanity no less. After all that happened to Jews in the last century, do you honestly think Israelis will dismantle their nuclear capability, sit with their arms crossed and wait for humanity to come through for them?
Quote:
As to Vanunu's crime; Meh. Sure, punish him.
He has been punished. And Israelis who consider a similar proposition will think twice before they act.
Quote:
Sorry, this isn't what I call a civilized legal system.
Yes, Israel is so uncivilized.
Quote:
But anyway Adrian, using your arguments, I am sure that you support an Iranian bomb?
I have defended the Iranian bomb in this forum time and again. I think nuclear proliferation in the region will increase security for all, even for Israel. It will take some time, but if proliferation persists parties will sooner or later recognize the need for real negotiations. After all, everyone wants to be a David, no one wants to be a Samson.
05-01-2008, 23:31
HoreTore
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
I think nuclear proliferation in the region will increase security for all, even for Israel. It will take some time, but if proliferation persists parties will sooner or later recognize the need for real negotiations.
In that we will have to agree to disagree.
However, I'm a little dazed at how you can describe my view of not wanting any nuclear weapons at all as a fairy dream by rabid loonies as opposed to your own realistic plan of truth and justice...
I do believe that the more likely result of your approach will be some idiot/rabid madman/religious nutjob/incomptent fool/evil bastard screwing up and dropping a bomb where it shouldn't be and starting a nuclear armageddon. But still, I don't call you a "loony rightie" ~;)
05-01-2008, 23:51
Adrian II
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I do believe that the more likely result of your approach will be some idiot/rabid madman/religious nutjob/incomptent fool/evil bastard screwing up and dropping a bomb where it shouldn't be and starting a nuclear armageddon.
There is always that possibility. I guess you could call it a 'calculated risk'. The calculation runs thus: as long as there are madman in charge of nations, we had better be prepared and make sure they can never harm us without harming themselves, i.e. without an assured punishment in kind. It's the language of death, I know. People are that way. Madmen certainly are.
I think madmen thrive on conflicts of the kind that rage in the Middle East. We can (help) remove the madmen only if we solve the conflicts, and we can solve the conflicts only if all of the main parties feel safe and secure in the knowledge that they are all Samsons.
Quote:
But still, I don't call you a "loony rightie" ~;)
And I respect that. I considered calling you a 'loony leftie', but stopped short. Some of your notions are certainly loony left and I called you on them. Consider it tit-for-tat for your use of 'ridiculous'. :wink2:
Anyway, good to have these debates, mate. :bow:
05-02-2008, 03:32
Seamus Fermanagh
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Collectively, we have all been rather lucky that Hiroshima was so well photographed before, during and after. I have long suspected that only the amazing degree of "oh ****" response generated by that has served to really deter the use of nuclear weapons since.
Adrian has been correct on a number of points HT.
Vanunu was a traitor. The term traitor, in this context, presumes that one owes ones loyalty to one's country -- which is still the most common definition in use. He revealed national secrets -- for compensation -- that he had sworn not to reveal. You may think this traitorous behavior was worthwhile on some larger level, but it doesn't change the nature of what was done.
Deterrence works. Deterrence is a product of capability and will. To truly deter someone, they must know you possess the capability and they must believe you would -- at least given certain circumstances -- use that capability. In 1973, Israel did just that.
In the long run, however, I think it is a certainty that we will see nuclear weapons used over the course of the next 50 years. Too many nation states with too many varied abilities at maintaining secure control of such devices are acquiring them. Human history says that no weapon is too terrible to use. Moreover, the prevalence of non-government "actors" in international affairs -- who have no allegiance to a piece of ground that must be protected -- speaks poorly for deterrence to stay effective. Such actors may well doubt both the will of the extent nuclear powers to fight tough AND their capability to hit an emphemeral target.
Actually, I've been wondering if half the point of the Iraq conflict is to make the other side aware we're willing to bleed and die for our side of it and thereby earn enough "points" for deterrence to work. Sad thought that.
05-02-2008, 06:29
Redleg
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Ridiculous. Israel can exist perfectly well with just conventional weaponry.
A nuclear bomb has but one single purpose: the complete destruction of civilian life. It has no other use whatsoever. Who's going to use a nuclear bomb to take out an enemy position, like a bunker? That's like shooting birds with a cannon. The only use Israel has of a nuclear bomb, is to obliterate cities like Kairo and Damascus in the event of an attack. And no, I do not consider it Israel's(or any other countries) right to blow up a million civilians.
How much do you know about nuclear weapons? For instance there are/were nuclear weapons designed to take out an enemy bunker. Most of the weapons themselves would not obliterate a city. It would actually take several to obliterate a city like Cairo and even Damascus. Now the radiation would take care of most of the civilians - but a significant portion of them would remain alive for awhile.
Now I could tell you a whole lot about them - but not today. But I will give you a hint - do a little research on battlefield nuclear weapons - especially field artillery ones.
05-02-2008, 06:37
Redleg
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Collectively, we have all been rather lucky that Hiroshima was so well photographed before, during and after. I have long suspected that only the amazing degree of "oh ****" response generated by that has served to really deter the use of nuclear weapons since.
Actually I believe it was a good thing the bombs were used in cities built primarily of wood. It allowed for the fireball and blast to create so much more damage then what would of happened in a concrete, brick city of Europe. You ever see the picture of the brick building that was at ground zero?
Quote:
Vanunu was a traitor. The term traitor, in this context, presumes that one owes ones loyalty to one's country -- which is still the most common definition in use. He revealed national secrets -- for compensation -- that he had sworn not to reveal. You may think this traitorous behavior was worthwhile on some larger level, but it doesn't change the nature of what was done.
Yes indeed - one might think he did a great service for the world, but it does not mean he did not betray his nation.
Quote:
Deterrence works. Deterrence is a product of capability and will. To truly deter someone, they must know you possess the capability and they must believe you would -- at least given certain circumstances -- use that capability. In 1973, Israel did just that.
I agree
Quote:
In the long run, however, I think it is a certainty that we will see nuclear weapons used over the course of the next 50 years. Too many nation states with too many varied abilities at maintaining secure control of such devices are acquiring them. Human history says that no weapon is too terrible to use. Moreover, the prevalence of non-government "actors" in international affairs -- who have no allegiance to a piece of ground that must be protected -- speaks poorly for deterrence to stay effective. Such actors may well doubt both the will of the extent nuclear powers to fight tough AND their capability to hit an emphemeral target.
What's even scarier is the ability to create a dirty bomb that while not as destructive can create some pretty bad radaition posioned zones.
Quote:
Actually, I've been wondering if half the point of the Iraq conflict is to make the other side aware we're willing to bleed and die for our side of it and thereby earn enough "points" for deterrence to work. Sad thought that.
I dont think this is to far off the point given a review of the build-up to the conflict and the logical failures in execution of the war in Iraq. But then that might be giving to much credit to the ability to plan - versus the more likely the real situation of just incompentence at the beginning. But the President often totes no attack on the United States itself since 9/11.
05-02-2008, 10:29
Viking
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
2. Before the Mossad got hold of him, Vanunu might have been kidnapped by one of the better Arab intelligence services (probably the Syrians) who could have pumped him for everything else he knew before they sent him swimming in the Mediterranean with concrete flippers on.
But? -->
Quote:
I have defended the Iranian bomb in this forum time and again. I think nuclear proliferation in the region will increase security for all, even for Israel. It will take some time, but if proliferation persists parties will sooner or later recognize the need for real negotiations. After all, everyone wants to be a David, no one wants to be a Samson.
Quote:
They have no notion of the true nature of conflict, no notion of the nature and history of this particular conflict, and they don't care if they do. They think good intentions alone are sufficient. That's all very well if you live in a beautiful, peaceful Norwegian fjord. But it leaves you totally unaware of (and unprepared for) the harsh measures that are sometimes necessary in a country like Israel in order to confront even harsher realities, resulting from a state of semi-war that has now lasted for almost precisely sixty years.
How good is it not to see that Israelis know what to do; if HT was in charge the Israel-Palestine conflict would probably still be going strong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Vanunu was a traitor. The term traitor, in this context, presumes that one owes ones loyalty to one's country -- which is still the most common definition in use. He revealed national secrets -- for compensation -- that he had sworn not to reveal. You may think this traitorous behavior was worthwhile on some larger level, but it doesn't change the nature of what was done.
Yes, he was a traitor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
How much do you know about nuclear weapons? For instance there are/were nuclear weapons designed to take out an enemy bunker. Most of the weapons themselves would not obliterate a city. It would actually take several to obliterate a city like Cairo and even Damascus. Now the radiation would take care of most of the civilians - but a significant portion of them would remain alive for awhile.
If it were the bunker designed nuclear warheads that were the most frightening.
05-02-2008, 12:10
Adrian II
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
But? -->
I guess I could play the 'Huh? Me no understand'- card here. But I think I understand exactly what you mean. I think you mean to say that I can't sing the praises of nuclear proliferation in the region and at the same time blame Vanunu for doing just that: proliferate nuclear secrets. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyway, regardless of whether this is what you mean, here is how I see it.
Vanunu was giving away strategic data on Israeli nuclear arms. The leaking of this kind of specific knowledge could result in a conventional first strike capability for the Syrian or Egyptian side, and by implication (because of the Syrian-Iranian relationship) for the Iranian side. This in turn would heighten the chances of an Israeli nuclear first strike, particularly on Iran. That's why strategic knowledge of this kind must not be allowed to spread. It makes the nuclear dogs restless and upsets the strategic equation.
The spread of technical WMD knowledge on the other hand must be considered inevitable. It is accelerated in cases like Iran, which is hemmed in by four nuclear powers, five if you count Israel. Any Iranian government will want nuclear arms and will get them one way or another. The main function of these is strategic defense.
Syria, in turn, has already reached strategic parity with Israel through the deployment of large numbers of chemical warheads. Sooner or later these will be replaced by nuclear warheads. As long as the strategic balance in the region is not upset by first strike illusions, I think wars by (terrorist) proxy are the only way left for Arab nations and/or Iran to attack Israel. Israel's traditional strategy of massive, offensive response will gradually become obsolete. Its recent, largely failed war against Hezbollah in which only the Air Force performed well gives an inkling of the type of conflict we are likely to see for years to come.
05-02-2008, 12:46
HoreTore
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
How much do you know about nuclear weapons? For instance there are/were nuclear weapons designed to take out an enemy bunker. Most of the weapons themselves would not obliterate a city. It would actually take several to obliterate a city like Cairo and even Damascus. Now the radiation would take care of most of the civilians - but a significant portion of them would remain alive for awhile.
Yes I do know of those. But that's got nothing to do with it, since the nuclear weapons possessed by Israel at the times we are talking about were not bunker-busters, they were Hiroshima and up. According to one report, they were each of 19 kilotons in 1970. Hiroshima was 13-16.
Also, such weapons would not serve the purpose Adrian wants a nuclear weapon to serve(which is the threat of blowing up a city).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
And I respect that. I considered calling you a 'loony leftie', but stopped short. Some of your notions are certainly loony left and I called you on them. Consider it tit-for-tat for your use of 'ridiculous'. :wink2:
Well I should've been accustomed to "grumpy gramps" Adrian by now...:whip:
Anyway Adrian - not wanting to risk a samson option - loony leftie? Hmmm...
05-02-2008, 13:01
Adrian II
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Well I should've been accustomed to "grumpy gramps" Adrian by now...:whip:
I know, I know, I'm terrible sometimes. I guess it comes with the advance of age, the numerous deceptions that make one weary and jaded. Believe me, it hurts me more than it hurts you.
Yes I do know of those. But that's got nothing to do with it, since the nuclear weapons possessed by Israel at the times we are talking about were not bunker-busters, they were Hiroshima and up. According to one report, they were each of 19 kilotons in 1970. Hiroshima was 13-16.
THen you should know that you were committing Hyperbole about them being city destroyers. A 19 KT weapon has a destruction range of about 1 KM, a blast of 5KM, and radiation begins to significantly drop off after the blast radius. Unless of course one decides to use a ground burst and then the radiation can be significantly more spread out - downwind of the blast.
Ie a 19KT weapon is a very small one, artillery nuclear weapons by that time were above that yeild.
The Israeli's used them primarily as a threat against the arabs as Adrian alrealdy stated.
A city destroyer is 1MT and up.
05-02-2008, 13:16
HoreTore
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
THen you should know that you were committing Hyperbole about them being city destroyers. A 19 KT weapon has a destruction range of about 1 KM, a blast of 5KM, and radiation begins to significantly drop off after the blast radius. Unless of course one decides to use a ground burst and then the radiation can be significantly more spread out - downwind of the blast.
Bull. 1 km blast radius? More than enough to kill hundreds of thousands if not into the million if blown in the centre of a 7-million city like Cairo. And then add in those killed because of radiation...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
The Israeli's used them primarily as a threat against the arabs as Adrian alrealdy stated.
Sigh. Read my earlier replies to Adrian.
When you have nuclear weapons available, even if the state only ever intends to use them to threaten(which by the way is not the point of Israels samson option), all it takes is one lunatic/idiot in the wrong place to create ragnarok.
05-02-2008, 17:16
Redleg
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Bull. 1 km blast radius? More than enough to kill hundreds of thousands if not into the million if blown in the centre of a 7-million city like Cairo. And then add in those killed because of radiation...
Over-reaction scare that is the hallmark of nuclear weapons. How big is Cairo - willing to bet its bigger then 1 KM in radius? Again if your going to talk about the blast effects of a nuclear device have more then just a scare position.
Here read and educate yourself on blast effects of the weapons, not the scare tactics of the uninformed.
Would it have been a very ugly event - yep, but I dont buy into scare tactics and hyperbole when it comes to the weapons. They are bad enough without resorting to extreme extragation (SP).
Quote:
Sigh. Read my earlier replies to Adrian.
Did and found them full of the normal hyperbole that you often use.
Quote:
When you have nuclear weapons available, even if the state only ever intends to use them to threaten(which by the way is not the point of Israels samson option), all it takes is one lunatic/idiot in the wrong place to create ragnarok.
So you would agree that Iran should be bombed to the stone age if they think about building a nuclear device? We alreadly have nuclear weapons in the hands of the North Koreans - and they are lunatics.
05-02-2008, 17:26
HoreTore
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Over-reaction scare that is the hallmark of nuclear weapons. How big is Cairo - willing to bet its bigger then 1 KM in radius? Again if your going to talk about the blast effects of a nuclear device have more then just a scare position.
Here read and educate yourself on blast effects of the weapons, not the scare tactics of the uninformed.
Would it have been a very ugly event - yep, but I dont buy into scare tactics and hyperbole when it comes to the weapons. They are bad enough without resorting to extreme extragation (SP).
Uhm. If you wipe out 1km radius of a city's centre, I'd call that destroyed. Saying it isn't is like saying that OBL didn't destroy the world trade centers because the foundations of the buildings remained :dizzy2:
I know that the city won't disappear completely by blowing a nuclear bomb. But fortunately, that's not what I mean when I say that it will be destroyed.
Another example would be destroying a car. A car can still be functional enough for you to drive it, but still count as destroyed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Did and found them full of the normal hyperbole that you often use.
Here's a clue, redleg: it's how people usually talk to each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
So you would agree that Iran should be bombed to the stone age if they think about building a nuclear device? We alreadly have nuclear weapons in the hands of the North Koreans - and they are lunatics.
"Bombed to the stone age"? That wouldn't be hyperbole, would it?
Anyway, I'm more of a "assassinations with revolution" when it comes to overthrowing despots. And in Iran I think that will be sufficient. North Korea on the other hand, is an invasion I'd gladly support.
05-02-2008, 19:36
Redleg
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Uhm. If you wipe out 1km radius of a city's centre, I'd call that destroyed. Saying it isn't is like saying that OBL didn't destroy the world trade centers because the foundations of the buildings remained :dizzy2:
Then you would be incorrect- if the city is 7KM in radius - 1 km is not a city destroyed.
Quote:
I know that the city won't disappear completely by blowing a nuclear bomb. But fortunately, that's not what I mean when I say that it will be destroyed.
Hyperbole then is the way you wish to discuss things.
Quote:
Another example would be destroying a car. A car can still be functional enough for you to drive it, but still count as destroyed.
Incorrected - if a car is destroyed it is not driveable.
Quote:
Here's a clue, redleg: it's how people usually talk to each other.
Again incorrect - only far left loonies and far right loonies use hyberbole in discussions all the time. Have fun with that one.
Quote:
"Bombed to the stone age"? That wouldn't be hyperbole, would it?
Yep since that is the language you understand and use its fitting.
Quote:
Anyway, I'm more of a "assassinations with revolution" when it comes to overthrowing despots. And in Iran I think that will be sufficient. North Korea on the other hand, is an invasion I'd gladly support.
assassinations do not remove the problem. Assassinations are a failure to committ to the right course of action. Its the action of a coward of the far left and the far right.
Tell you what go to South Korea and look across the DMZ - you don't have a clue about what you are saying. There is a reason why neither side has tried to resume the hot war in Korea.
05-03-2008, 23:38
The Wizard
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Ah, The Independent. This is the type of people that read this fine product of journalism, apparently (from the comments section):
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Without the Holocaust there would have been no Israel.
Red Cross figures released (at long last) prove there was NO Holocaust. Don't believe it? Then have the courage of your Zionist convictions and argue with the Red Cross.
Population data (some from Jewish sources) spanning the two World Wars render claims of six million victims mathematically impossible. (We'll overlook the conveniently forgotten claim of six million victims in WW1)
If police can find, as they frequently do, the remains of one or two murder victims, even six million could hardly disappear without trace. So where are they? Ground penetrationg radar can probe to thirty - forty feet!!
Only lies need to be protected by gagging defence lawyers from even presenting evidence on behalf of Holocaust deniers.
After all surely thousands of "Holocaust Survivors" can't all have such poor memories that not one can point search teams with their radars to just one mass grave?
PS I have a side bet with a friend that the Holocaust Preservation Society will have this post censored out within twenty four hours. So keep checking folks :-)
Don't I just love Robert Fisk and his compadres.
05-04-2008, 01:40
Tribesman
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Ah, The Independent. This is the type of people that read this fine product of journalism, apparently (from the comments section):
Ah the comments section , hey you can read the same crap in the ynet comment section , does that mean it is the type of people who read that fine product of journalism ?
Now I am sure you must have a point in that post ....but I fail to see what it is .
05-04-2008, 08:54
PanzerJaeger
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
how can Israel so demonise the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians
They are not legitimate, and haven't been since 1947.
The palestinians only have their arab "brothers" to thank for that.
Israel does what any democracy under constant thread of attack would do. It's amazing how so many free thinking Westerners have been manipulated by such a rudimentary propaganda machine.
Of course now its taken on the left/right dimension, which means your stance on Israel has more to do with your stance on taxes than anything...
05-04-2008, 11:25
Tribesman
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
They are not legitimate, and haven't been since 1947.
Errr...sorry there Panzer but why do you choose a date when their aspirations became legitimate to claim they are not legitimate , isit some sort of reverse psycology or something or are you just being errrrr.....whats the word?
Quote:
Of course now its taken on the left/right dimension, which means your stance on Israel has more to do with your stance on taxes than anything...
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
now that is funny , it has to be one of your best yet :2thumbsup: you were making a joke weren't you orwere you just being ...whats that word again ?
05-04-2008, 11:54
LittleGrizzly
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Israel does what any democracy under constant thread of attack would do. It's amazing how so many free thinking Westerners have been manipulated by such a rudimentary propaganda machine.
The palestinian population does what any population under occupation and constant attack would do, terrorist or freedom fighter thier cause is just.
05-04-2008, 16:09
Beirut
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
They are not legitimate, and haven't been since 1947.
No man is obliged to accept his being declared illegitimate at the hand's of another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
The Palestinians only have their arab "brothers" to thank for that.
Their Arab "brothers" didn't invade; the Zionists did and the UN sealed the deal. Read your history, it was clear prior to Day 1 that the Zionists had zero intention of living in a divided Palestine. They were going to take the whole thing for themselves by force as soon as they were able.
05-04-2008, 16:55
Samurai Waki
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
It could be said that Nuclear Proliferation has been the "Great Peacemaker" of the last 63 years. While, I dislike the prospect of a nuclear war, I have a difficult time believing a protracted non-nuclear scenario can possibly be any better. If I was the Average Yusuf walking through the streets of Baghdad at this very moment, I would probably sometimes almost prefer being vaporized rather live with the looming prospect of getting randomly shot at, being hit by an IED, a Suicide Bomber. A Stray Rocket from an American Helicopter, beatings and torture because you're a Sunni, not a Shi'ite. Ugh. I would be praying to Allah for a nuclear holocaust.
05-04-2008, 18:59
Fragony
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Israel does what any democracy under constant thread of attack would do. It's amazing how so many free thinking Westerners have been manipulated by such a rudimentary propaganda machine.
The palestinian population does what any population under occupation and constant attack would do, terrorist or freedom fighter thier cause is just.
What, killing all jews wherever you can find them is a good cause nowadays? These ' people' are conditioned to be killing machines from day one just because they don't have the upper hand doesn't make them any less disgusting. If it was me they would all be gone by now one way or another, the palestinians aren't victims, not of Israel at least.
05-04-2008, 20:25
Beirut
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
...the palestinians aren't victims, not of Israel at least.
It's Israel that stole their land, kills them, tortures them, keeps them locked up and held down. Of course the Palestinians are victimes of Israel.
05-04-2008, 20:41
Fragony
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
It's Israel that stole their land, kills them, tortures them, keeps them locked up and held down. Of course the Palestinians are victimes of Israel.
Sounds terrible for just playing with fireworks. Israel ain't no angel but it isn't Israel that prefers Palestine to continue to be what it is right now.
05-04-2008, 21:00
Adrian II
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Sounds terrible for just playing with fireworks. Israel ain't no angel but it isn't Israel that prefers Palestine to continue to be what it is right now.
Does any of you gentlemen have a suggestion how to break the stalemate over there? I mean short of the odd genocide?
:coffeenews:
05-04-2008, 21:09
Fragony
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Arab countries opening their borders for the palestines. There are too much of them.
edit, that sounded bad, but what I mean is that it's unsustainable anyway. Too many people. Israel isn't the only border trapping them. Palestine can't be because it just can't survive as it is.
05-04-2008, 21:54
The Wizard
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
This article, put shortly, is filth. It's full of misinformation, propaganda, and lies. But that's not very surprising coming from what appears to be an Israeli who has made yerida to the UK (not sure about that, however) and supports Ilan Pappe (another one who has made yerida). It's only too bad that most people in this thread follow the same line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
The palestinian population does what any population under occupation and constant attack would do, terrorist or freedom fighter thier cause is just.
You're right, you know...
... if the armed Palestinian factions hadn't been systematically targeting civilians for the better part of a century, instead of fighting the fair fight and limiting themselves to the Israeli military.
Palestinian militants are not freedom fighters. You slander the name of many, many resistance movements throughout history by calling them that. Had they been worthy of the name, there probably would already have been a Palestinian state by now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
It's Israel that stole their land, kills them, tortures them, keeps them locked up and held down. Of course the Palestinians are victimes of Israel.
It's Arab states that put them in that situation, Palestinian armed movements that keep them there, Arabs and Palestinians alike killing them, torturing them, keeping them locked up and held down. Yet apparently they are only the victims of the evil Zionist war machine.
05-04-2008, 22:26
Adrian II
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
This article, put shortly, is filth. It's full of misinformation, propaganda, and lies. But that's not very surprising coming from what appears to be an Israeli who has made yerida to the UK (not sure about that, however) and supports Ilan Pappe (another one who has made yerida). It's only too bad that most people in this thread follow the same line.
The Independent is quite decent, as rags go. No one in their right mind would identify that paper with a single readers' letter and people who are interested in an article's substance couldn't care less if the author is an Inuit who made Yerida to Ouagadougou.
Could you tell us what your own view of Israel's future is? That would be much more informative.
I can't remember if I posted this, and I can't look back right now.
05-04-2008, 22:39
The Wizard
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
The Independent is quite decent, as rags go. No one in their right mind would identify that paper with a single readers' letter and people who are interested in an article's substance couldn't care less if the author is an Inuit who made Yerida to Ouagadougou.
You would ignore where the author is coming from? Most interesting. 'Cause, you know, in an editorial, knowing that is kinda, you know, important. If you didn't know yet, that is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Could you tell us what your own view of Israel's future is? That would be much more informative.
My view is that the much-vaunted "road map to peace" and the so-called "peace process" will fail -- even if an agreement is reached. The simple fact of the matter is that with the entire political landscape of Palestine dominated by heavily-armed, murderous and eternally in-fighting militant groups, there will be no peace. The moment you make peace with one group, the next one starts firing missiles and trying to blow people up. Whatever Israel is doing chasing down terrorists with fighter aircraft, at least when Jerusalem says "stop," stop it will.
What the Palestinians need is not a road map to peace, nor do they need a breather for the next round of violence after Hamas has stocked up on some much-needed ammo and heavier toys; what they need is a Martin Luther King Junior, a Gandhi. Only once Israeli guns point only at massive Palestinian protest marches will there be no course left but to establish a peaceful, democratic and free Palestinian state.
05-04-2008, 23:07
Adrian II
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
My view is that the much-vaunted "road map to peace" and the so-called "peace process" will fail -- even if an agreement is reached. The simple fact of the matter is that with the entire political landscape of Palestine dominated by heavily-armed, murderous and eternally in-fighting militant groups, there will be no peace. The moment you make peace with one group, the next one starts firing missiles and trying to blow people up. Whatever Israel is doing chasing down terrorists with fighter aircraft, at least when Jerusalem says "stop," stop it will.
What the Palestinians need is not a road map to peace, nor do they need a breather for the next round of violence after Hamas has stocked up on some much-needed ammo and heavier toys; what they need is a Martin Luther King Junior, a Gandhi. Only once Israeli guns point only at massive Palestinian protest marches will there be no course left but to establish a peaceful, democratic and free Palestinian state.
Thanks for that, Baba-Ga'on. And where do you think Israel is heading, amidst all this? What is its future?
Oh, and what do you think of the article linked by our Mad Martian?
05-04-2008, 23:39
Samurai Waki
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Israel belongs to whomever can take and then hold it.
05-04-2008, 23:59
Beirut
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Israel ain't no angel but it isn't Israel that prefers Palestine to continue to be what it is right now.
Palestine is exactly what everyone wants it to be. I'm not saying the Palestinians aren't responsible for their own behaviour, every man and country is, but you have to admire how the world (Arab countries, Israel, US) has manipulated the situation to keep the Palestinians in a state that is convenient to their own goals and ambitions and not to the benefit of the Palestinians themselves.
The Palestinians have no friends, no one they can truly trust, they are treated as disposable people. That's one reason I feel such empathy for them. No person or people should be discarded from the human race like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
It's Arab states that put them in that situation, Palestinian armed movements that keep them there, Arabs and Palestinians alike killing them, torturing them, keeping them locked up and held down. Yet apparently they are only the victims of the evil Zionist war machine.
It was the long term goals of the Zionists, the creation of Israel itself, and the conduct of successive Israeli governments that are primarily responsible for the plight of the Palestinians. None of this would have happened if people from all over the world didn't get on planes and boats and cross oceans and continents to set up shop in someone else's front yard.
The Palestinians are the victims of everyone. Including themselves.
05-05-2008, 02:04
Tribesman
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
You would ignore where the author is coming from? Most interesting. 'Cause, you know, in an editorial, knowing that is kinda, you know, important. If you didn't know yet, that is.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Oh dear Baba if you want to know where the author is coming from then why not look at the Israeli media and resident Israeli commentators over this 60th anniversary period , the papers have been full of similar pieces making the same observations and asking the same questions and they come from all sides of the Israeli political spectrum (apart from the crazy settlers movements) .
Israel is at a sticking point and it cannot continue on the path it has taken , it simply cannot afford to . The outlay is just too big for too little return .
05-05-2008, 08:19
Banquo's Ghost
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
The Palestinians have no friends, no one they can truly trust, they are treated as disposable people. That's one reason I feel such empathy for them. No person or people should be discarded from the human race like that.
I distinctly recall that somewhere in the history books there was another people similarly afflicted. Honestly, it's on the tip of my tongue...
:book2:
05-05-2008, 08:50
Fragony
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Palestine is exactly what everyone wants it to be.
Western world would love this to end, what good is it to us? We side with Israel, so? Democracy's back democracy's. The muslim world however needs it to remain like this it has become a reality of it's own, palestine is a powerful propaganda-tool. Palestine is the only place where muslim are oppressed instead of being the oppressors they can't afford to lose that. If they wanted this to end it would end, all Israel does is deal with it's excesses and I don't blame them.
05-05-2008, 10:15
PanzerJaeger
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Errr...sorry there Panzer but why do you choose a date when their aspirations became legitimate to claim they are not legitimate , isit some sort of reverse psycology or something or are you just being errrrr.....whats the word?
Nope. The UN Mandate was declined by the arabs and then they began a war, which they lost, horribly. There are consequences to losing wars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
No man is obliged to accept his being declared illegitimate at the hand's of another.
Thats the irony of it all. The palestinians had no legal claim on that land. It was never theirs, as they were never a nation. Since 1917, it was a British mandate with the goal of establishing a homeland for the Jewish people. However, in a moment of clarity, the UN in 1947 decided to bestow on the palestinians a nation of their own. Upon hearing this, they immediately began a vicious war and promptly got their tails kicked.
The brutal truth, Beirut, is that simply living on a piece of land does not give one the right to organize and form a new nation. Here, the South tried it. Where you are, the French have been trying it. On the rare occasion a nation is able to break away by force, its usually through a successful war. Unfortunately, the arabs have proven themselves to be atrocious soldiers.
In essence, the palestinians have no right to the land. In 1947, they were briefly offered a right to some of it, and being the people that they are (:egypt: ), they started a war instead. They screwed themselves to a whole new level.
05-05-2008, 11:10
Tribesman
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Nope. The UN Mandate was declined by the arabs and then they began a war, which they lost, horribly. There are consequences to losing wars.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
That has to be the funniest ever:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Panzer he war isn't over without a peace treaty between the people involved , this elusive deal that is still going through the talks process is that peace treaty , that is the legitimacy , a legitimacy you ludicrously say they don't have .
If possibly you get the chance to notice that those treaties that do end the war between Israel and other states by doing such things as confriming the limit of their own territory both contain clauses that stipulate that the limit of their own terroitory do not mean that the other territory is Israeli , they both say that must be settled by the other parties with a future treaty to end the war .
Since Isreal signed this they agree to the legitimacy don't they , so how on earth can you claim there is no legitimacy :dizzy2:
Quote:
Thats the irony of it all. The palestinians had no legal claim on that land. It was never theirs, as they were never a nation.
OMG you really havn't got a clue about the terms of the mandate
Quote:
Since 1917, it was a British mandate with the goal of establishing a homeland for the Jewish people.
And not only do you clearly demonstrate a completelack of knowledge on the mandate you throw in a lack of knowledge about the declaration too .:dizzy2:
Panzer might I suggest you stick to discussing the London congestion charge since your lack of knowledge on that subject is far far less than on this subject .
Quote:
In essence, the palestinians have no right to the land. In 1947, they were briefly offered a right to some of it, and being the people that they are ( ), they started a war instead.
Now that would be funny , if it wasn't that you actually believe that crap .
Quote:
I distinctly recall that somewhere in the history books there was another people similarly afflicted. Honestly, it's on the tip of my tongue...
Now now Banguo stop that at once or it might have to be applied to Fragonys nonsense .....
Quote:
Palestine is the only place where muslim are oppressed instead of being the oppressors they can't afford to lose that.
:idea2:
05-05-2008, 11:19
Fragony
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
:idea2:
Ya uh-huh
05-05-2008, 11:55
Beirut
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
I distinctly recall that somewhere in the history books there was another people similarly afflicted. Honestly, it's on the tip of my tongue...
:book2:
Damn straight there was. It was unacceptable then and it's unacceptable now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
In essence, the palestinians have no right to the land. In 1947, they were briefly offered a right to some of it, and being the people that they are ( ), they started a war instead. They screwed themselves to a whole new level.
They were born there, they lived there, the land was theirs. As Moshe Dayan said, "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."
And being the people they are ( )... And what, pray tell, kind of people would that be, my dear sir?
The Palestinians did not start the war, the Zionists started the war. The Zionists packed up their bags and families, sold their houses, gave up their birth nationalities, and crossed oceans and continents and time zones to start the war. The Palestinians didn't have to move ten feet because they were already there. The only possible way you could say the Palestinians started the war would be to blame them for getting in the way of the people stealing their land.
05-05-2008, 12:17
Tribesman
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
And being the people they are ( )... And what, pray tell, kind of people would that be, my dear sir?
Well thats obvious isn't it Beirut , they is muslims innit..well apart from the christians and druze but they is sorta muslim anyway together with those communist godless heathens and various other flavours of non-believers but they is still them people you know even if they follow the noodly appendage they is still them because ...well because its them people right :dizzy2:
But look on the bright side , if it was in his grandaddys times then talking about them people would have been about the Jews so it is progress as todays "them people" are now a bigger group so it is less dicriminatory than it used to be , so thats better isn't it :2thumbsup: Then again"them people" could have also included slavs back in the day and they make quite a big group so perhaps it isn't really progress at all .:thumbsdown:
05-05-2008, 13:04
Fragony
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
What difference does it make who started what who keeps it going?
05-05-2008, 13:13
LittleGrizzly
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Palestinian militants are not freedom fighters. You slander the name of many, many resistance movements throughout history by calling them that. Had they been worthy of the name, there probably would already have been a Palestinian state by now.
The mot accurate way to describe them probably would be freedom fighting terrorists, seen as they fight for freedom so they are freedom fighters, they use terrorist methods so they are terrorist freedom fighters.
... if the armed Palestinian factions hadn't been systematically targeting civilians for the better part of a century, instead of fighting the fair fight and limiting themselves to the Israeli military.
choice of target does not make someone a freedom fighter or not, a freedom fighter by my definition is someone who fights the people who occupy thier land, whether a foriegn power or a homegrown govermet power.
Thats the irony of it all. The palestinians had no legal claim on that land. It was never theirs, as they were never a nation
Whether Palestine the nation existed or not there where people there before the land got given away, whether thier palestinians or unknown occupants of land A, they still lived there and have every right to be annoyed when people come along and kick them off thier land.
05-05-2008, 13:25
The Wizard
Re: Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Thanks for that, Baba-Ga'on. And where do you think Israel is heading, amidst all this? What is its future?
Israel? What do you think? It will remain. Both the demographic worries of many Zionists today, namely the growth of the Israeli Arab population and the growth of the Haredi population will not lead to any major shifts in anything, just like the growth of the Catholic population of the Netherlands only lead to an increase of a couple percent points on the total Dutch population, even though it was predicted that Catholic babies would swamp the land. Neither removing the settlements nor bringing the settlers back to Israel will endanger its independence.
Besides that I don't really know how to answer your question. You'll have to be a little more specific if the above isn't what you meant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
It was the long term goals of the Zionists, the creation of Israel itself, and the conduct of successive Israeli governments that are primarily responsible for the plight of the Palestinians. None of this would have happened if people from all over the world didn't get on planes and boats and cross oceans and continents to set up shop in someone else's front yard.
That's interesting. I didn't know just living where you want to live automatically leads to conflict! I mean, of course, it was the Yishuv that began pogroming the locals in the 1920s, and the Zionists who came in guns blazing taking land like some kind of 20th century conquistadores. Arabs and Jews had also never lived in peace in the land before.
Seriously: [removed irrelevant, unsupported observation] - K
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
The Palestinians have no friends, no one they can truly trust, they are treated as disposable people. That's one reason I feel such empathy for them. No person or people should be discarded from the human race like that.
Oh? I see plenty of friends in this thread, in The Independent, in academic life, across the Internets and throughout the press.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Oh dear Baba if you want to know where the author is coming from then why not look at the Israeli media and resident Israeli commentators over this 60th anniversary period , the papers have been full of similar pieces making the same observations and asking the same questions and they come from all sides of the Israeli political spectrum (apart from the crazy settlers movements) .
Oh? I didn't know that the majority of Israel hates its own country. Can you then explain why the majority of Israel hasn't made yerida yet? 'Cause, you know, not everybody is like Ilan Pappé or this fine gentleman. Most are like Benny Morris or Martin van Creveld, somewhat less like Ariel Sharon, desiring peace but not willing to have it if it's not lasting. There's a reason Shalom Achshav and other movements like it have been steadily losing support since the failure of the Camp David-Taba accords, and the reason isn't Adrian II's "religious fundamentalism". Their support of a peace process that won't bring peace, only ceasefire and a breather, has cost them dearly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
They were born there, they lived there, the land was theirs. As Moshe Dayan said, "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."
Do some research. The Arab population in what European imperialists named after a Roman province that had been dead for fifteen hundred years was extremely mobile, and it is not sure at all if many of the people living there in 1948 had been living there for generations, or even for ten years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
The Palestinians did not start the war, the Zionists started the war. The Zionists packed up their bags and families, sold their houses, gave up their birth nationalities, and crossed oceans and continents and time zones to start the war. The Palestinians didn't have to move ten feet because they were already there. The only possible way you could say the Palestinians started the war would be to blame them for getting in the way of the people stealing their land.
Ahahaha, hahaha, haha, oh wow.
You, sir, [...] Have you perchance heard of a Mohammed Amin al-Husayni, an Ayan (Ottoman provincial noble) of the al-Husayni clan? You probably haven't, seeing your previous posts. He was a close confidante of Hitler and recruited Muslims into the Waffen-SS (the infamous Handschar division). It was he and the rest of the al-Husayni clan who instigated and lead pogroms and murders of Yishuv members from the 1920s onwards, starting a long conflict that endures to the present day. It was he and other members of his clan who started the Mandatory Civil War after the UN, which was kinda like Iraq is now, only then in the 1940s.
The Yishuv started no conflict. The very fact that you assume that they did is beyond me, considering most of these people were fleeing persecution themselves and only wanted to live in peace on land to call their own.
But you're right. The Palestinians did not start "the war". Arabs in what they considered to be part of Syria did. The Palestinian identity was not widespread until the 1970s or even later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
The mot accurate way to describe them probably would be freedom fighting terrorists, seen as they fight for freedom so they are freedom fighters, they use terrorist methods so they are terrorist freedom fighters.
No, not really. You see, if they used terrorist methods (bombs, sabotage, raids, the works) only against military targets, like, say, the French Resistance during WW2 did, you'd be right. But Palestinian militants only attack civilians (and each other). A freedom fighter and a murderer of innocents is incomparable.
