deva wrote:The U.N. has expressed condemnation of Israel more times than it has all the rest of the countries of the world combined. Of course in the pathologically self fulfilling mindset of the US/Israel, this can only mean that something is wrong with the rest of the world, not them.
You need to look at that statement from another way. Where are the majorities and the minorities? How many muslim coutries are there? How many arab nations? How many of those are oil producing? How many of those are in solidarity and alignment with the oil producing and/or muslim countries? Your talking about the UN like it's not a political organization and not subject to bias. That's the not the reality.
smutek wrote:What is the difference between terrorism and legitimate resistance? The answer is there is no such thing as legitimate resistance if it is resistance directed at the United States or Isreal.
Let's all take another step back and look at this statement from a different perspective. Would you consider the incident at Waco a legitimate resistance or a terrorism? Or, state sponsored terrorism?
I consider it state sponsored terrorism, against the Branch Dividians, but the fact of the matter remains that they never attacked anyone. My opinion that it was state sponsored terrorism is also disputable, and is still being discussed today, as to whether the government was just in doing what they did. The fact remains though, that a state, any (rational) state is not going to willingly allow a large group of militia the power to counteract it's forces.
Having said that, no matter of occupation is inherently right or wrong, and occupying entity will do what's necessary to stem the threat to it's "citizens" from any militia under it's control. That has always been and will always be a factual assessment of any state throughout history. Whether it's right or wrong is also subjective. When the Greek empire conquered a majority of the world, they were subject to similar scrutiny and opposing forces stated their side. You had places where there were rebelions, and you had places where the population was content with there occupiers that there was no need to rebel.
deva wrote:(A scientific fact that the Israeli lobby went to lengths to suppress).
Are you just speculating that, or do you have proof? Yes the Jewish lobby has the right to use anti-semetic in the context of anyone who is against jews. Why? Because jews are semites. Of course, they're going to use that word. But to say they suppress the fact that arabs are semites is stretching it really. I haven't known an israeli yet who wouldn't agree that arabs are semites and are from Abraham. Anyone who is educated in any way and/or who reads/knows the bible will tell you that Arabs are semites, just as jews. I think that statement is really pushing the factual envelope, and is not something that can be justified as correct, or factual. If ignorant people use the term anti-semetic only in regards to jews, and not arabs, then that's just ignorance, and ignorant people will always be ignorant.
deva wrote:Regarding the idea of Israel's 'right to exist'. One could also ask whether South African Apartheid has a right to exist.
I find it ignorant how people can relate what's going on in Israel to apartheid. Why. Simply because there are Arabs living among the Jewish population. There are Arabs represented in the Knesset. There are arabs in the Israeli army. There are Arabs in the Israeli Universities. These types of respresentations of the "oppressed" were not present in South African Apartheid.
I'm not condoning the wall, or the refugee camps (which i'll go into in a second) by saying this. Any portion of a country without a physical border is subject to infiltration by any unwanted elements. By unwanted, i'm referring to any suicide bombers, or possible elements meant to destabilize the society. Any country has a right to defend those borders in any matter. That's why there are borders, and until that time where borders don't exist (i highly doubt will be any time in our life times), then those borders can and should be defended. That's the reality of the world in which we live. If the nation next to yours has agreements in place and peace treaties, than something like the EU or the US/Canada is possible. But, otherwise, if these things aren't in place, than there is no valid arguement against border control. The Israeli government realized there is not enough manpower to cover an area that size. Whether they're usurping palestinian land is another matter, and is seperate from this particular discussion about border control (and can't be verified because there aren't agreements in place with the palestinians.)
deva wrote:Only ideology separates the two. One group is in power and is systematically wiping out the other group and taking their land.
That again, is also a fallacy. Yes, people are dying, and a dispraportionate amount are Palestian, but there is nothing systematic about it. There are no death camps. The refugee camps are not death camps. They're not being forced into slave labor. There aren't mass graves like in Bosnia. There are no gas chambers. Saying that Israel is systematically killing the palestinians is just as dispraportionate as denying that more palestinias are dying than Israel. A little proportion is in order.
Yes, more palestinians are dying than Israelis, but a large portion of that is because Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc are all amongst the population and use them as a shield. The fighting is mostly done in palestinian controlled areas because that's where Hamas, Islamic Jihad are. This is done purposefully by those organizations for 2 reasons. It serves as protection for them because the Israel army will try not to kill civilians and they know it. Second, the civilians that are killed can be used to say "Look at how brutal these Israeli are"
That is the reality of the situation. Now, about the refugee camps. That's not Israel's choice to have them. There are also refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan. Jordan is the only arab country which has given palestinians citizenship. Kuwait expelled their palestinian population when it alligned itself with Iraq during the first gulf war. The PLO also tried to overthrow the government in Jordan. The refugee camps in Lebanon are just as shitty as the ones in Palestine. Refugee Camps are shitty, in general. But the fact remains that a large portion of Palestinians have chosen not to integrate properly with their host countries, and have, to the contrary, become destabilizing elements within that host country. The refugee camps are not a product of the Israeli government but a product of the palestinian peoples (not all) unwillingness to exist peacefully with their hosts. It's not just Israel's problem. This is done purposefully, to prolong the situation, and to foment hatred for Israel and sympathy for the palestinians.
Look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugee
deva wrote:Israel's right to exist has become another way to say, we have the right to do whatever we want. We all have individual freedoms, but we forfeit those rights if we think we can do whatever we want and, for example, murder someone. Those rights are lost and we would go to jail.
This is also blantantly ignorant. Israel debates and puts into law elements designed to protect the population under it's control. There are trials for Israeli's that shoot palestinians deemed to be against the code of conduct. These elements are in place. Whether they are strong enough, is debatable. Whether these trials are show trials. That's debatable. However, people are corruptable in every aspect of every society. But, the entire army does not have their bullseye in hand with palestinian children as the target. That's just hate-filled propaganda to even think that.
deva wrote:
Now talk about the right of all the peoples of the region to live, raise families, prosper, etc and my answer is an unequivocal yes. But no government or segment of a population has a right to systematically retain power by the domination of others.
That is the only statement that you made that is actually factual and correct! We are in agreement there. But, until the parties themselves are in agreement as to how they will treat "each other", then the situation will continue.
Again, for the record, i don't agree with alot of the handling of these issues by the Israeli government, but the palestinian people aren't saints and martyrs eithers. This situation is as much their own fault as it is Israel's.