Reconciling assholes for nearly a decade.

To all those opposed to the Zionist enterprise

except Denman, because he's insane, a challenge.

Please answer the following question (shout out to WSV for having the reproductive glands to answer): if you are so concerned about the oppression of Arabs (which is admirable), why do you spend so much energy focused on one particular type, that of Jews oppressing Arabs. What about the Arabs oppressing Arabs? Why do they get a break? Why is it OK for Syria to carpet bomb Hama, or oppress Lebanon? The vast bulk of the bloodshed in Iraq is intra-Arab. Where are the protests?

Just like it was not a big deal when a madman "Emperor" ate his victims in the Central African Republic or Idi Amin did his atrocities, but it was a big deal for the white tribes to oppress the black tribes in the southern part of the continent, this inconsistency reeks of fashionable dilettantism.

BTW, The House of Saud gave the genocidal maniac Amin a comfortable exile until he peacefully died of natural causes. Didn't see any boycotts of the Saudis coming from UK universities.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 5th, 2007 12:03pm
I think the Israeli's are most likely to maintain a non-aggressive democracy in the middle-east, so I'm not opposed to them keeping Israel.  So I guess you're not talking to me, but I wanted to register my support.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 5th, 2007 12:06pm
thanks.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 5th, 2007 12:21pm
Anger over oppression of Arabs is separate from anger over Israeli oppression of Arabs. Both exist. The latter is elaborated (very briefly with a lot of missing nuances) below.

Because they really have no qualms in defining people into  groups? Israelis are not Middle-Eastern. They were forced upon the Middle East. For over two thousand or more, the Jews were doing so well in the arts and science and technologies and all the great and the good, but very far far far away. Good for you. Great job. God bless you and your tribe. But no thanks. You are not welcome here as family. You were kicked out by God. Stay out. OK, you may visit. Perhaps as the honoured guest who can take a cue and not overstay your welcome.

The Arabs had a great time squabbling, oppressing, whatever within themselves. Some Euro-fuck screwed another Euro-schmuck and all of a sudden the Lord and History and Rights and all the gets thrown about into the Middle East? No fair.
Permalink Send private email (100+85)/2 
July 5th, 2007 12:42pm
I thought they were taken out by the Babylonians, then came back, then again by the Romans.  Where did God give the Holy Land to the Palestinians?  (If you want to go there, which I don't).
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 5th, 2007 12:54pm
>What about the Arabs oppressing Arabs? Why do they get a break?
We need their oil. So we won't discuss the supression and relegation to second class citizen that KSA does towards their Shiite population. And we do that because they ask us not to shine a light on that.

>Why is it OK for Syria to carpet bomb Hama?
Because we in the US don't care about those darkies at all. When the Syrians turned some other Syrians into "good little Ay-rabs" (in the General Sheridan sense of the word "good"), we didn't care. We like to talk tough in the US, all macho and that shit, and here were some folks who did what our braggado claims only we do: kill a town and bulldoze it, sort of like what the Romans did to Carhage. And likewise, we didn't care that Saddam gassed his own Kurds until it became politically convenient to remember it, while remaining politically convenient to forget that the US had a hand in supplying Saddam's government with the tools and materials used to gas them.

>The vast bulk of the bloodshed in Iraq is intra-Arab. Where are the protests?
I think the phrase "a pox on both their houses" is one that most Americans feel, even if they wouldn't articulate it. The current administration chose to fund, train and support the death squads, so they're not going to let too much become public. After all, they are the ones who have chosen to call all insurgents/guerillas/freedomfighters AlQeda.

Q: How do you know this person was part of AlQeda?
A: They're dead, aren't they.

The point of 911 is that it let our American Racism loose. Prior, one couldn't use the N-word without consequences. Now, instead of "driving while black" being the euphemism for that escaped racism, the euphemism is "flying while arab."
Permalink Peter 
July 5th, 2007 12:59pm
It's the Ottomans' fault.

Anyway if there's a next time maybe the Brits could hand over Palestine to the Saudis and Saudi Arabia to the Jews.
Permalink Send private email strawdog soubriquet 
July 5th, 2007 1:11pm
"Israelis are not Middle-Eastern"

Excuse me, but if you're born in the Middle East, you're Middle Eastern, just like those white guys with Dutch names whose families have been in Africa for 350 years are African.

Over and above that, most Jewish Israeli's have family origins in Middle Eastern countries, not Eastern Europe like me. They were expelled from those countries just like the future Palestinians were expelled from now Israel.

Palestine was the Roman's invention, designed to piss off Jews even more, as it was named for the Plishtim (Philistines).
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 5th, 2007 1:17pm
>if you are so concerned about the oppression of Arabs
>(which is admirable), why do you spend so much energy
>focused on one particular type, that of Jews oppressing
>Arabs. What about the Arabs oppressing Arabs? Why do they
>get a break? Why is it OK for Syria to carpet bomb Hama,
>or oppress Lebanon? The vast bulk of the bloodshed in Iraq
>is intra-Arab. Where are the protests?

I feel like I'm back in high school again, and you just hit the Arab kid, Tarquin, and are getting punished, but you're going "It's not fair! it's not fair! Hussein hit Tarqin first!"
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 5th, 2007 1:33pm
>Didn't see any boycotts of the Saudis coming from UK universities.

Not many Saudi universities, but for the record - yes, I'm not too happy with them either.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 5th, 2007 1:36pm
The double standards are those of LWP. There simply are not that many countries that have so long held on to the territory of others, that so blatantly announce they will ignore international law and colonize those territories, that legally tortured (from 1971-1999), and note I say legally, for whilst other regimes may do it and more they don't have the chutzpah to put it in the criminal code.

There was or is less discussion about the horrors of Serbia, Congo, Bokhassa, Cambodia, the elder Asaad or Saddam, because with the first exception there are not tens of thousands of people prepared to go around defending those regimes as friendly, democratic regimes prosecuted  by stealth racists.

I consider the Afghan and Iraqi invasions to be disasters and  the cause of continuing war crimes by the British and American regimes. You would be laughed out of court if you tried to defend that by saying I was a self-hating Brit or stealth racist, yet you and your ilk seem to think you can get away with this ridiculous charade by waving around the memory of the Holocaust, and of course totally cheapening it in the process.
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
July 5th, 2007 1:42pm
>I feel like I'm back in high school again, and you just hit the Arab kid, Tarquin, and are getting punished, but you're going "It's not fair! it's not fair! Hussein hit Tarqin first!"

So then, is it fair to infer that you hold Jews to a higher standard? A lot more Arabs are oppressed by other Arabs than Arabs by Jews. Considering that you have a finite amount of time, energy and resources, why concentrate your attention on a relatively small subset of the problem.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 5th, 2007 1:43pm
+1 Stephen Jones

Damn, there are a lot of people voicing exactly my thoughts today. It's refreshing.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 5th, 2007 1:43pm
>The double standards are those of LWP. There simply are not that many countries that have so long held on to the territory of others, that so blatantly announce they will ignore international law and colonize those territories, that legally tortured (from 1971-1999), and note I say legally, for whilst other regimes may do it and more they don't have the chutzpah to put it in the criminal code.

So where are the Celts these days?

I'm not a fan of torture, for the record. I don't condone it.

There's no such thing as international law, in that there is no enforcement of anything, it's a chimera. I don't know what's so holy about the 1949 cease fire lines.

>There was or is less discussion about the horrors of Serbia, Congo, Bokhassa, Cambodia, the elder Asaad or Saddam, because with the first exception there are not tens of thousands of people prepared to go around defending those regimes as friendly, democratic regimes prosecuted  by stealth racists.

So what? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

>I consider the Afghan and Iraqi invasions to be disasters and  the cause of continuing war crimes by the British and American regimes. You would be laughed out of court if you tried to defend that by saying I was a self-hating Brit or stealth racist, yet you and your ilk seem to think you can get away with this ridiculous charade by waving around the memory of the Holocaust, and of course totally cheapening it in the process.

First of all, I had family who were murdered by the Nazis, so I never intentionally cheapen it. Second, I didn't bring it up, why are you?

You danced around, but you didn't answer my question.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 5th, 2007 1:50pm
------"So where are the Celts these days?"-----

Well I'm in Sri Lanka at the moment but the majority of British Celts are where they always have been, in England. It is now generally accepted, as the result of the work by Colin Renfrew, and also with the backing of genetical analysis, that the disappearance of Celtic languages in England was just that, a disappearance of the language and its replacement by the socially superior variety, and not a side effect of massive conquest and displacement of the speakers.

-----"There's no such thing as international law, in that there is no enforcement of anything, it's a chimera."-----

There is but its selective, and with US foreign policy being apparently more concerned with the welfare of Israel than its own, you have big brother on your side. Kissinger is never going to be prosecuted for war crimes regarding Cambodia, or for his actions in Chile but lesser mortals like Milosevic have worse luck.

-----"You danced around, but you didn't answer my question."----

What question have you asked, though I won't say genuinely asked because I doubt if you're genuine about anything.

----" I don't know what's so holy about the 1949 cease fire lines."----

And when Ahmedinjad says the same thing you come all whiny and wave around the spectre of the Holocaust and the memory of your predecessors murdered by the Nazis. You may have forgotten but Israel's right to exist as an international institution is dependent on those borders and you're in the UN because of them. If you want to be really generous you could go back to the 1947 resolution borders,which instead of giving you 78% of Palestine give you about half.
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
July 5th, 2007 3:24pm
>Well I'm in Sri Lanka at the moment but the majority of British Celts are where they always have been, in England. It is now generally accepted, as the result of the work by Colin Renfrew, and also with the backing of genetical analysis, that the disappearance of Celtic languages in England was just that, a disappearance of the language and its replacement by the socially superior variety, and not a side effect of massive conquest and displacement of the speakers.

I'm dubious about that, but whatever. You get my point. Conquest and displacement is how nation-states are born. Just like the birth process, it's not pretty.

-----"There's no such thing as international law, in that there is no enforcement of anything, it's a chimera."-----

>There is but its selective, and with US foreign policy being apparently more concerned with the welfare of Israel than its own, you have big brother on your side. Kissinger is never going to be prosecuted for war crimes regarding Cambodia, or for his actions in Chile but lesser mortals like Milosevic have worse luck.

I agree, except with the point about Israel. Israel is not the only one who receives massive amounts of American aid. Whenever "international law" is invoked, it's always a pretext, no matter what side uses it.

-----"You danced around, but you didn't answer my question."----

>What question have you asked, though I won't say genuinely asked because I doubt if you're genuine about anything.

The question is at the top of the thread.

Why don't you think I'm genuine? Because I don't agree with you?

----" I don't know what's so holy about the 1949 cease fire lines."----

>And when Ahmedinjad says the same thing you come all whiny and wave around the spectre of the Holocaust and the memory of your predecessors murdered by the Nazis.

First of all, I have never waved around the specter of the Holocaust, and don't think that it is justification for the State of Israel. Second, Ahmedinajad wants to eliminate the State of Israel, which would inevitably lead to the murder of millions of Israelis.

>You may have forgotten but Israel's right to exist as an international institution is dependent on those borders and you're in the UN because of them. If you want to be really generous you could go back to the 1947 resolution borders,which instead of giving you 78% of Palestine give you about half.

No nation has a "right to exist". You exist because you take the right to exist, just like the UK and the USSR did during WWII. If they had surrendered, they wouldn't have existed after the war.

If the Arabs had welcomed the Jews, if they had said "Welcome home Brother Isaac", there wouldn't have been any wars at all. Before 1948, Jews bought their land between the Jordan and the Sea. It was obvious from the previous 50 years that the Arabs would not stand for a peaceful Jewish presence in Eretz Yisroel.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 5th, 2007 3:58pm
>If the Arabs had welcomed the Jews, if they had said "Welcome home Brother Isaac", there wouldn't have been any wars at all.

Well, a major part of the problem is that the original displaced people were forced from their homes at gunpoint by the Israeli Army and they just wanted to go home. Presuming that those Arab countries were capable of granting citizenship to them, it would be a sign of failure for them to have admitted they could never "go home again." Many folks in the refugee camps still have the keys to the homes they were forced from back then, as well as the titles to the homes they *used* to live in.

Those refugees aren't members of the *correct* tribe. In a world where you don't hire the best man (nor best woman) for the job, you hire a relative; nepotism and tribalism is the rule rather than the exception.

>After the exclusion of women from productive endeavors, the next-worst wastage of human potential occurs in societies where the extended family, clan, or tribe is the basic social unit. While family networks provide a safety net in troubled times, offering practical support and psychological protection, and may even build a house for you, they do not build the rule of law, or democracy, or legitimate corporations, or free markets. Where the family or clan prevails, you do not hire the best man (to say nothing of the best woman) for the job, you hire Cousin Luis. You do not vote for the best man, you vote for Uncle Ali. And you do not consider cease-fire deals or shareholder interests to be matters of serious obligation.

>Such cultures tend to be peasant-based or of peasant origin, with the attendant peasant's suspicion of the outsider and of authority. Oligarchies of landed families freeze the pattern in time. There is a preference for a dollar grabbed today over a thousand dollars accrued in the course of an extended business relationship. Blood-based societies operate under two sets of rules: one, generally honest, for the relative; and another, ruthless and amoral, for deals involving the outsider. The receipt of money now is more important than building a long-term relationship. Such societies fight well as tribes, but terribly as nations.

>At its most successful, this is the system of the Chinese diaspora, but that is a unique case. The Darwinian selection that led to the establishment and perpetuation of the great Chinese merchant families (and village networks), coupled with the steely power of southern China's culture, has made this example an exception to many rules. More typical examples of the Vetternwirtschaft system are Iranian businesses, Nigerian criminal organizations, Mexican political and drug cartels, and some American trade unions.

>Where blood ties rule, you cannot trust the contract, let alone the handshake. Nor will you see the delegation of authority so necessary to compete in the modern military or economic spheres. Information and wealth are assessed from a zero-sum worldview. Corruption flourishes. Blood ties produce notable family successes, but they do not produce competitive societies.
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/98spring/peters.htm
Permalink Peter 
July 5th, 2007 4:48pm
>Well, a major part of the problem is that the original displaced people were forced from their homes at gunpoint by the Israeli Army and they just wanted to go home. Presuming that those Arab countries were capable of granting citizenship to them, it would be a sign of failure for them to have admitted they could never "go home again." Many folks in the refugee camps still have the keys to the homes they were forced from back then, as well as the titles to the homes they *used* to live in.

It's a very very tragic state of affairs. No doubt about it.

Someone once asked me what I would want for the Palestinians. My response was, that they should get good homes somewhere else.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 5th, 2007 4:58pm
-----"Second, Ahmedinajad wants to eliminate the State of Israel, which would inevitably lead to the murder of millions of Israelis."------

This is totally illogical. It's like saying Mandela wanted to eliminate apartheid and that would inevitably lead to the murder of millions of Afrikaaners.

----"If the Arabs had welcomed the Jews, if they had said "Welcome home Brother Isaac", there wouldn't have been any wars at all."----

Let's see if I've got this right. The Palestinian is in the olive grove his family have tended as tenant farmers for hunrdreds of years and the Turkish, or later British police, turn up and evict him because they've got a piece of paper from the absentee landlord in Istanbul. And he's supposed to say "welcome to my home"?

Then in 1936-1939 the Jewish pistol gangs joined up with the lunatic British General Wingate to crush the independence rising. (They then used the fact they had been allowed to organize by the British to turn against the British in various terrrorist activities).

The Nakbah of 1947-48 was the result of a deliberate policy decision to terrorize the Palestinian Arabs to get them to leave land for the Israelis. The Palestinian Arabs had already been crushed by the unholy alliance of the British and the Jews in 1936-1939, and left to themselves had little chance of organized resistance, which was why eventually a ragtag collection of other Arabs came to their help.
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
July 5th, 2007 5:21pm
-----"Someone once asked me what I would want for the Palestinians. My response was, that they should get good homes somewhere else."------

Which is no doubt what extreme Palestinians wish for the Jews.

That somebody can come onto this forum, propose ethnic cleansing of this nature, and then claim we are showing double standards by criticizing it suggests there is something very wrong with his mental facilities.
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
July 5th, 2007 5:25pm
-----"Second, Ahmedinajad wants to eliminate the State of Israel, which would inevitably lead to the murder of millions of Israelis."------

This is totally illogical. It's like saying Mandela wanted to eliminate apartheid and that would inevitably lead to the murder of millions of Afrikaaners.

That was a very real fear. It's to Mandela's eternal credit that it didn't happen. There's no Arab Mandela around. Should the State of Israel disappear, the national slogan would be "Itbach alYahud!".

----"If the Arabs had welcomed the Jews, if they had said "Welcome home Brother Isaac", there wouldn't have been any wars at all."----

Let's see if I've got this right. The Palestinian is in the olive grove his family have tended as tenant farmers for hundreds of years and the Turkish, or later British police, turn up and evict him because they've got a piece of paper from the absentee landlord in Istanbul. And he's supposed to say "welcome to my home"?

It wasn't the Jews fault that Palestine had a fucked up legal system. Why did the Arabs blame the Jews then? They should have dealt with the Turks and the British.

>Then in 1936-1939 the Jewish pistol gangs joined up with the lunatic British General Wingate to crush the independence rising. (They then used the fact they had been allowed to organize by the British to turn against the British in various terrorist activities).

Of course they did, because Arab mobs were crossing the country conducting pogroms. If they wanted independence from the British, why did they attack the Jews? Barbarians.

>The Nakbah of 1947-48 was the result of a deliberate policy decision to terrorize the Palestinian Arabs to get them to leave land for the Israelis. The Palestinian Arabs had already been crushed by the unholy alliance of the British and the Jews in 1936-1939, and left to themselves had little chance of organized resistance, which was why eventually a ragtag collection of other Arabs came to their help.

It was self-defense. The Jews knew who they were dealing with by that time. They knew that if they didn't strike first, the Arabs would.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 5th, 2007 7:50pm
"That somebody can come onto this forum, propose ethnic cleansing of this nature, and then claim we are showing double standards by criticizing it suggests there is something very wrong with his mental facilities."

That's not what I meant. I would want them to happily and willing find other nice places to live.

You still haven't answered my question directly. I guess you're another in the grand tradition of English dandies who think that hanging out with Arabs will make them manly.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 5th, 2007 7:52pm
-----">Didn't see any boycotts of the Saudis coming from UK universities.

Not many Saudi universities, but for the record - yes, I'm not too happy with them either."------

So why would you want to boycott me Colm.


----"You still haven't answered my question directly."------

What question do you want answered?
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
July 5th, 2007 8:17pm
The one at the top of the thread.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 5th, 2007 8:20pm
I've answered your question about three times.

Effort is put into attacking the Israeli position because no other Middle Eastern state is forcibly occupying another country's territory, because the formation of Israel involved a deliberate policy of racist expulsions to create a Jewish lebensraum, because the Israeli government is deliberately continuing with the policy, and because unlike other unsavoury Middle Eastern leaders the Israeli government is strongly and almost unconditionally supported by the government of the US, gains most of its economic support through trade with the EU, and pretends to be a beacon of democracy in a sea of despotism.
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
July 5th, 2007 8:34pm
LWP, you are going to accept the fact that you are full of shit and either your "friends and families" get the fuck out of the land they don't own or they WILL BE FORCED.
Permalink Dan Denman 
July 5th, 2007 8:59pm
You still didn't answer it. Why the Zionist enterprise, as opposed to say, the Saudis oppressing their Shia minority, or the Jordanians keeping a very tight leash on their Palestinian problem?

Arabs kill many more Arabs than Jews kill Arabs. I guess that this is the soft racism that Bush pretended to care about. Who cares that Assad had Hariri murdered? About 800 Arabs were massacred during the War of Independence. Over 10 times that number were murdered at Hama, but hey, it's just Arab on Arab violence, what are you going to do?

You get the masses riled about about people that when they have the chance to help them, put them in fetid camps to rot.

And why do Israeli Arabs overwhelmingly prefer their second class citizenship in a Jewish State to becoming first class citizens in a Palestinian state.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 5th, 2007 9:41pm
My misgivings stem from the way the West props up the current apartheid. It makes no difference whether the situation is the end result of decisions intending dispossession or of reactions to clear threats - the presence of such an unlovely state of affairs with the support of the supposed "good guys" is a constant reminder that we westerners aren't actually the good guys and that the struggle exmplified by Leon Uris' "Exodus" in my youth has turned sour under the direction of immigrant eastern European politicians with a religious and racist agenda.

Want my support? Reunify a secular, democratic Palestine and make it flourish - call it Israel if you like.
Permalink trollop 
July 5th, 2007 9:41pm
"Want my support? Reunify a secular, democratic Palestine and make it flourish - call it Israel if you like."

Sounds great. How do you do that? Seriously.

These are people who widely cheer a murderer displaying his bloody hands.

When I ask Arabs what they would do, were they in the Jews position, they never give me an answer.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 5th, 2007 9:46pm
South Africa did it. It's no paradise but the racists who lost power still eat pretty high off the hog. Swap a lamb for the hog and you could learn from that. Rekindle that lovely relationship BOSS had with Mossad back in the day.
Permalink trollop 
July 5th, 2007 10:18pm
It's a miracle that SA did it, for sure.

Where is the Arab Mandela?
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 5th, 2007 10:29pm
"When I ask Arabs what they would do, were they in the Jews position, they never give me an answer."

Hey moron: here is your answer: get the fuck out of the land you occupied by brutally murdering Palestinians.

Fuck the zionists and fuck them hard in the ass so that they can bleed heavily from rectum and fucking die.
Permalink Dan Denman 
July 5th, 2007 10:29pm
----"Why the Zionist enterprise, as opposed to say, the Saudis oppressing their Shia minority,"------

Because they're of a different order of magnitude. I live in the Shiite area of Saudi Arabia; the Shias have most of the jobs in the manufacturing industries, particularly the oil industry, and many have Macmansions and second farms in the oasis. They form about 40% of the students at my university, which is the best in the country, and a near equal proportion in the technical college which provides the middle level supervisors for most of the big industries. Thousands have been offered scholarships at American universities, at the the governmment or State controlled companies' expense, and this is still happening.

Where you see discrimination is probably in the army and in the higher reaches of government. After you have explained to me how much better Israeli Arabs and Palestinians are with positions in the top command of the IDF, and how there have been loads of cases where Arab MPS can form part of a government in which they, and not minority Jewish religious parties have the deciding vote, then perhaps you might be on to something.

----"the Jordanians keeping a very tight leash on their Palestinian problem?"------

The problem is of course the direct result of Israeli ethnic cleansing in 47-49, and the later 67 attack (I had a colleague who was expelled from his house twice by the Israelis, the first time in Jaffa, and the second time in 67). Once again in the last thirty years we have seen nothing comparable to what Israel has been doing in the occupied territories. I have loads of Palestinian friends and colleagues with first/second homes and businesses in Jordan, and whatever they complain about it's not the Jordanian government.
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
July 6th, 2007 3:11am
> Where is the Arab Mandela?

Buried in rubble of Jaffa in 1948?
Permalink s 
July 6th, 2007 4:42am
The Arab states have had 60+ years to deal with their Palestinian problem. Too many are still living in shithole refugee camps. Jordan was part of Palestine at one time, it's lame to blame the Jews for the Hashemi family's problem dealing with its subjects.

Israel is definitely not a perfect society. I never claimed that. However, it's telling that Israeli Palestinians would rather be second class Israelis than first class Palestinians. It's telling that non-Israeli Palestinians living between the Jordan and the Sea prefer Israeli occupation to the current mess.

It's telling that Mizrachi Jews, whose families come from Arab lands, are noticeably more hard core anti-Arab than the Ashkenazim.

I also noticed you cherry picked the easy examples. For all of Bush and Cheney's responsibility in creating the Iraqi nightmare and making it worse, it is essentially an intra-Arab idiocy. The only contribution that other Arabs have made is to make it worse.

Finally, I can't believe you defend Saudi Arabia. A nasty place where boy-fucking is the national sport run by a corrupt plutocracy, they fund and train missionaries for their evil Wahhabi religion. It was no accident that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 6th, 2007 6:25am
>The Arab states have had 60+ years to deal with their
>Palestinian problem. Too many are still living in shithole
>refugee camps.

It's interesting to see how you consider it the refugee problem the problem of other states other than the one which originally caused the refugee problem.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 6th, 2007 7:03am
>Israel is definitely not a perfect society. I never claimed
>that. However, it's telling that Israeli Palestinians would
>rather be second class Israelis than first class
>Palestinians.

So would I. What that tells us is that life is really shitty in the occupied territories.

The word 'occupied' may have something to do with that. Just a thought.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 6th, 2007 7:06am
>Where is the Arab Mandela?

Probably dead - caused by a "targeted killing". There have been members of Hamas advocating a non-violent response to Israel who have been subsequently assassinated.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 6th, 2007 7:07am
Do try to stay on topic or we'll be here all night. WRT to the OP, Like apartheid South Africa not so long ago, Israel is a pariah because sections of the population are repressed by dint of race or religion. The chattering classes of the western powers believe they may be able to change such policies by jawboning the Ashkenazi. It worked in NZ, sort of worked in Australia and Canada and the US ... so why not Israel?

There's no point jawboning people who do not share western culture - you either ignore them, starve them, exploit them or invade them. The list is long, from the Sudan through Dubai, India, Malaysia, Indonesia and China where all you'll get in response to comment is a raised eyebrow and a suggestion that you do not understand Asia.

But Israel wants to be accepted as a glowing example of pluralist democracy as an example to their neighbors. Good luck with that.
Permalink trollop 
July 6th, 2007 7:27am
"The word 'occupied' may have something to do with that. Just a thought."

Sorry, should have been more specific. They'd rather be Israeli rather than Palestinian citizens of an independent Palestinian state.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 6th, 2007 9:17am
"Probably dead - caused by a 'targeted killing'. There have been members of Hamas advocating a non-violent response to Israel who have been subsequently assassinated."

By Israel or by their own? Any Arab leader who threatens real peace with the Jews faces a tremendous risk of assassination by his own people.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 6th, 2007 9:20am
"But Israel wants to be accepted as a glowing example of pluralist democracy as an example to their neighbors. Good luck with that."

You're right, that's a waste of time.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 6th, 2007 9:21am
"But Israel wants to be accepted as a glowing example of pluralist democracy as an example to their neighbors. Good luck with that."

No, Israel wants their neighbors to recognize their right to exist.  Hasn't happened yet.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 6th, 2007 9:27am
I apologise for digressing from the topic which is why Israel is dumped on by critics who apparently don't criticise other flawed societies.
Permalink trollop 
July 6th, 2007 9:47am
It's a broad topic, don't worry about it, but you got my intent a bit wrong. It's about the disproportionate attention Israel's actions get. I mean, check out the proportion of UN Resolutions condemning Israel, vs. other nations. Whatever you may think of the Zionist Enterprise, is it really worse than the Soviet Union, or Pol Pot, or the current situation in Africa's Great Lakes region?

I'm allergic to hypocrisy, and that's what I see in these fellow travelers.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 6th, 2007 10:04am
I'll grant it's no worse than Iraq where the walls are growing higher.

You were asking us. I doubt the UN reads this board.

And I can't help your allergy. You need auto-immunity for that.
Permalink trollop 
July 6th, 2007 10:43am
"And I can't help your allergy. You need auto-immunity for that."

True 'dat. But calling bullshit scratches the itch.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 6th, 2007 10:52am
"Any Arab leader who threatens real peace with the Jews faces a tremendous risk of assassination by his own people."

You mean like Yitzhak Rabin?

If it makes you feel any better I'm happy to admit that Israel is no worse than it's neighbours. I'm afraid that is not a ringing endorsement.
Permalink Send private email a cynic writes... 
July 6th, 2007 12:02pm
"You mean like Yitzhak Rabin?"

Such a tragedy. You're right.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 6th, 2007 12:25pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2007 Other topics: July, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics