What should the Civilised World do about the Zionist Israeli Problem?

**Boon Mee** · 14-06-2007, 01:42 AM

^
Well, if the Palestinians can continue their civil war in Gaza and Israel stays out of it, that might be a solution to the 'population demographics', eh?

For sure, Gaza is a real basket-case now. The Palestinians got their wish. Israel withdrew. Did they proceed to build 'the peaceful democratic state' they have always sung of in their propaganda? Not quite. They are slaughtering each other. If they can't share Palistinian land among themselves, how would they share with Israel in a two-state solution?

**barbaro** · 14-06-2007, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

....For sure, Gaza is a real basket-case now. The Palestinians got their wish. Israel withdrew. Did they proceed to build 'the peaceful democratic state' they have always sung of in their propaganda? Not quite. They are slaughtering each other. If they can't share Palistinian land among themselves, how would they share with Israel in a two-state solution?

The area of Gaza is very small, and the population large, and the economy intentionally suppressed for a long time.

Palestinian political progress is a long road.

Hamas was the elections fair and square. The U.S. which advocated "democracy" doesn't recognize the results of this monitored democratic election.

I don't see the conflict diminishing in the coming decades.

I don't follow it much anymore.

On a separate but related issue, I think Hezbollah is preparing, as is the Israelis for another round in the future.

**sabang** · 14-06-2007, 04:28 PM

It seems about the only real friends the Palestinians have are Hezbollah and the Iranians these days.
The US, at least by it's actions if not words, supports the occupation, and it seems anything else to destabilise the Middle East. At great financial cost to itself, and a cost of great human suffering. The rest of the western world pays face value to the issue, but refuses to do anything about it. Same the rest of the Arab world, at least for now. Turkey is more concerned with joining the EU and the benefits it gains from being a NATO platform. Plus it has it's own Kurdish seperatists to worry about. Egypt has seemingly washed it's hands of the issue, politically speaking, although it's people are a lot more passionate about it. Jordan is ambivalent whether it wants a Palestinian state on it's border or not- it was in fact complicit in a Palestinian state not being set up in the first place, in 1947 or so. Russia and China could be interesting, if they decide to flex their muscles- But China only worries about things outside it's own borders of financial or security benefit to itself.

But the one thing I don't see in this thread is any suggested solutions, except my 'land for peace deal' that almost all of the world calls for, or Kerux' 'wipe out Israel'. So, what are you suggesting naysayers-

An ongoing oppressive occupation, with a continuation of the current violence?
Mass expulsion? How, and where to? No one will take them.
Genocide perhaps?
Or any other ideas?

**stroller** · 14-06-2007, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

You know the expression about a good liberal cannot take either side of an argument due to the conflicting interpretations?

It's more about understanding the pros and cons of both sides and not having a dog in this fight for me.

**Boon Mee** · 15-06-2007, 04:49 AM

Originally Posted by sabang

But the one thing I don't see in this thread is any suggested solutions, except my 'land for peace deal' that almost all of the world calls for, or Kerux' 'wipe out Israel'. So, what are you suggesting naysayers-

Suggesting what has been brought forth as nausem before. That the Pali's get their shit together and stop suicide bombing Israel. Work with the Jews instead of listening to some war-mongering Mullah for a change. Israel isn't going to go away so long as there's breath in every Jew in Israel and the everlasting support they receive from the states.

**sabang** · 15-06-2007, 10:33 AM

^ Agree on work with the Jews booner. But the Jews won't work with them, 'cus they want to stay put.

**barbaro** · 16-06-2007, 11:03 AM

Here is what one group is doing about the Zionist issue.

U.K. union backs calls for boycott of Israel
academe

By Assaf Uni, Haaretz Correspondent

Britain's University and College Union (UCU) voted on Wednesday to promote a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, protesting Israel's policy on the Palestinians. Jewish and Israeli officials in the U.K. and Israel reacted with outrage to the motion which, for the most part, is a rhetorical move.

The vote was preceded by a heated discussion in which Israel was repeatedly referred to as an apartheid state, engaging in crimes against humanity in the occupied territories. The union representatives adopted two separate resolutions promoting an academic boycott against Israel. They said the situation in the territories did not allow spectators to stand idly by.

Link: U.K. union backs calls for boycott of Israel academe - Haaretz - Israel News

**sabang** · 16-06-2007, 12:22 PM

^ This should be happening all over the world.
I have nothing but praise for that minority of brave, intellectually honest Israeli's and Jews such as Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Avi Shlaim and many others who stand up and decry this Zionist hypocricy.
I have little but contempt for the effete West that stands by and does absolutely nothing. Thus we morally implicate ourselves in the ongoing oppression and atrocities.

**HermantheGerman** · 16-06-2007, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by sabang

It seems about the only real friends the Palestinians have are Hezbollah and the Iranians these days.
The US, at least by it's actions if not words, supports the occupation, and it seems anything else to destabilise the Middle East. At great financial cost to itself, and a cost of great human suffering. The rest of the western world pays face value to the issue, but refuses to do anything about it. Same the rest of the Arab world, at least for now. Turkey is more concerned with joining the EU and the benefits it gains from being a NATO platform. Plus it has it's own Kurdish seperatists to worry about. Egypt has seemingly washed it's hands of the issue, politically speaking, although it's people are a lot more passionate about it. Jordan is ambivalent whether it wants a Palestinian state on it's border or not- it was in fact complicit in a Palestinian state not being set up in the first place, in 1947 or so. Russia and China could be interesting, if they decide to flex their muscles- But China only worries about things outside it's own borders of financial or security benefit to itself.

But the one thing I don't see in this thread is any suggested solutions, except my 'land for peace deal' that almost all of the world calls for, or Kerux' 'wipe out Israel'. So, what are you suggesting naysayers-

An ongoing oppressive occupation, with a continuation of the current violence?
Mass expulsion? How, and where to? No one will take them.
Genocide perhaps?
Or any other ideas?

Maybe no ideas but some reasons

Why there is no Palestine

1. Because Israelis can't decide what they want.

Polls have shown that a clear majority of Israelis wants to see an end to the occupation. But history - and the craters of Katyushas and Qassams - indicate that a clear majority of Israelis, and an absolute majority of their leaders, are unwilling to take the potentially catastrophic risks of ending the occupation unilaterally.

Moreover, suspicious of the Palestinians' ultimate intentions and fearful of the social consequences of expelling West Bank settlers, the public shows little inclination to seek a diplomatic solution.

We no longer want to pay the price of occupation, but we have become convinced that the price of ending it is far higher.

2. Because Palestinians cannot decide what they want.

For decades, the Palestinians had no need to decide what they wanted. Israel shunned their representatives, dismissed their aspirations, settled their lands, and imprisoned and otherwise hunted down their leaders.

The occupation was more than simply the address for all complaints, the explanation for all disappointments, the diagnosis for all pain. It was also the excuse for indefinitely delaying debate over the character of a future independent Palestine.

Ironically, the hope of statehood was kept alive through the very darkest periods of occupation. More recently, however, as Gaza drowns in civil war and blood feud, Palestinians have begun to wonder if they will ever have a state at all.

To be able to move toward statehood, Palestinians must decide how they themselves stand on the bedrock issues of the conflict. Fundamentally, they must decide if they wish to make a final peace with Israel, or press for a Palestine to supplant it.

3. Because neither side is willing to abide by peace agreements.

Each side has banks of researchers assembling evidence that the other side consistently violates the explicit terms of signed peace accords. The evidence, on both sides, is conclusive.

4. Because we are, all of us, better at vengeance than we are at forgiveness.

For both sides, it is the first rule of politics: Peace is politically dangerous, if not lethal. War, or at least talk of war, is the safer default setting.

This is similar to, but not the same as:

5. Because we love our extremists too much.

Both sides have a profound sentimental attachment to the militants, extremists and hardliners in their midst. We see them as the keepers of the pure flame, the ideologically untarnished, remnants of a more straightforward era. We also suffer from them, as the minority whose actions intentionally thwart the possibility of peace for the majority.

On the Palestinian side they may be gunmen or suicide bombers or their dispatchers; on our own, hilltop youth or those suffering from Temple Mount delusions.

We tolerate them, we subsidize them, we admire them, we arm them, we forgive them their trespasses, we allow them to live outside our own laws - and, in return, they ruin our lives.

6. Because the policies of both sides play directly into the hands of extremists on the other.

Hamas is Hamas because of Israel. And no group in the Holy Land has done more to bolster the Israeli far right than Hamas.

7. Because the Muslim world wants its Palestinians to suffer.

The Muslim world grants the Palestinians fortunes in lip service, and little else of value. The Palestinians are much more valuable to them as valiant, pathetic symbols of victimhood. The Palestinians are to the Muslim world as the wretched refugees of Gaza once were to the Palestinian leadership. Their image can act as lightning rods for unrest, turning domestic political discord into anger against Israel.

8. Because the West now sees them as terrorists.

All terrorism, like all news, is local. The moment Muslim terrorists strike a Western city, the Twin Towers, the Underground, the Madrid depot, Palestinian resistance turns overnight to terrorism, in the local journalistic vernacular. Thanks largely to Al-Qaida, the West has changed its definition of Palestinian resistance, from defense of the innocent to targeting of the innocent.

9. Because Arafat lied to them.

While Yasser Arafat was signing agreements with Israel, he was letting his people know in hints and winks and exhortations that they would in the end have everything they wanted. Refugees would return to their homes in Israel proper. Jerusalem's Old City would return to Muslim sovereignty. The armed struggle would tip the balance.

There is also the lie inherent in the rule of corruption which Arafat fostered, sapping critical resources, undermining public confidence and crippling efforts at responsive governance.

10. Because they cannot stop themselves.

There is no one to put an end to civil war. There is no spiritual authority, there is no governmental authority, there is no military authority.

11. Because some of the best people in Palestine are leaving.

And because some of the people who cannot leave are unable to think about anything else.

12. Because each side takes it for granted that its side is clearly, morally, objectively in the right, and that the other side is nothing but wrong.

A fool's paradise turns out to be better than no paradise at all.

13. And because the Holy Land is the world capital of wishful thinking.

Deep down, both sides secretly believe that they will get what they wanted all along, whether it's Greater Israel or Greater Palestine, complete sovereignty over Jerusalem or the right of return.

After a century of struggle, the Palestinians deserve better. The Palestinians deserve a nation. But after a century of struggle, they now face their worst test since 1948.

Their ship of state needs a painful refitting, and a radical and perhaps terrifying change of course. As a people, the Palestinians are now facing their matriculation. If they can address their long list of problems head on, they can return to the path of independence. But skip the problems, or get them wrong, and Palestinian nationhood may be just one more dream dying in the dust in Gaza.

Why there is no Palestine - Haaretz - Israel News

**Boon Mee** · 04-09-2007, 05:24 AM

How about a little back-to-school Jihad, fellas?
Those lovely Pali's are now shelling day care centers in Israel.
No wonder the Joooos built a wall that runs thru the so-called 'occupied territories'. If they were back to their pre-1967 boundries, Amajanawhackjob would have achieved his goal by now, eh?

Link

"The Iran-backed terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)'s military wing, Saraya al-Quds claimed responsibility for Qassam rockets launched at the southern Israeli town of Sderot Monday morning. The attack sent 12 kindergarten children to Ashkelon's Barzilai Hospital to be treated for shock after a rocket struck close to their day care center"

**keda** · 04-09-2007, 09:13 AM

That should delight our more, um, backward members.

**AntRobertson** · 04-09-2007, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by keda

That should delight our more, um, backward members

Not if they can actually read something correctly:

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Those lovely Pali's are now shelling day care centers in Israel.

... The attack sent 12 kindergarten children to Ashkelon's Barzilai Hospital to be treated for shock after a rocket struck close to their day care center...

**keda** · 04-09-2007, 09:19 AM

Green headed your way Herman...excellent, but missed out *13 - to date they've demonstrated little more than an incapacity to join the civilised world.

**Boon Mee** · 04-09-2007, 09:24 AM

^
That just means their aim was off.
You betcha they'll be back at it again soon...

**AntRobertson** · 04-09-2007, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

That just means their aim was off.

Or that your inference is off.

**Boon Mee** · 04-09-2007, 09:43 AM

^
Doubt it - if the rocket strikes 'close' to their day care center, the logical 'inference' is they were aiming at it?

...sweet chocolate mohammoud...

**AntRobertson** · 04-09-2007, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Doubt it - if the rocket strikes 'close' to their day care center, the logical 'inference' is they were aiming at it?

Is it? Why? When have day-care centres been previously targeted?

Using your logic it would then be safe to assume that the so-called 'misguided' smart bombs dropped on Iraq wedding parties and the like were actually targeted at them.

**Boon Mee** · 04-09-2007, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Doubt it - if the rocket strikes 'close' to their day care center, the logical 'inference' is they were aiming at it?

Is it? Why? When have day-care centres been previously targeted?

It's the new war paradigm the pali's are subscribing to these days.
Little children are no longer off limits (if they ever were).

**AntRobertson** · 04-09-2007, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

It's the new war paradigm the pali's are subscribing to these days. Little children are no longer off limits (if they ever were).

Ok, so you keep saying. So when have they previously targeted children?

Aside from some rocket fire that has landed near a day-care centre which you have inferred to simply be bad targeting, what evidence of this "new war paradigm" is there?

**Boon Mee** · 04-09-2007, 10:14 AM

Check it out

"The Islamic Jihad said they had fired nine Kuds-3 rockets, saying on their internet site that the attack was “a present for the start of the new school year.”

The Corner on National Review Online

**AntRobertson** · 04-09-2007, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Check it out

"The Islamic Jihad said they had fired nine Kuds-3 rockets, saying on their internet site that the attack was “a present for the start of the new school year.”

That link is to an article on the same rocket attack that you previously quoted, with one rocket falling near a day-care.

Nowhere in any of that does it say that schools and the like are being intentionally targeted.

Where is that quote from? I couldn't see it anywhere in the article you linked to.

**Boon Mee** · 04-09-2007, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Check it out

"The Islamic Jihad said they had fired nine Kuds-3 rockets, saying on their internet site that the attack was “a present for the start of the new school year.”

That link is to an article on the same rocket attack that you previously quoted, with one rocket falling near a day-care.

Nowhere in any of that does it say that schools and the like are being intentionally targeted.

Where is that quote from? I couldn't see it anywhere in the article you linked to.

Here

**AntRobertson** · 04-09-2007, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Check it out

"The Islamic Jihad said they had fired nine Kuds-3 rockets, saying on their internet site that the attack was “a present for the start of the new school year.”

That link is to an article on the same rocket attack that you previously quoted, with one rocket falling near a day-care.

Nowhere in any of that does it say that schools and the like are being intentionally targeted.

Where is that quote from? I couldn't see it anywhere in the article you linked to.

Here

Booners, I trust you realise that your post above inferred that the statement was from The Jersusalem Post? Entirely unintentional I presume?

And frankly a link to LGF's doesn't support what you are saying either. Again it's referring to the same incident.

**Boon Mee** · 04-09-2007, 10:32 AM

^
OK, there is the possibility that the rocket was not aimed directly at the day-care center but when the incident was followed up with a message from Hammas or some of that ilk that the attack was a 'present for the start of the school year' ...go figure...

**AntRobertson** · 04-09-2007, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

OK, there is the possibility that the rocket was not aimed directly at the day-care center but when the incident was followed up with a message from Hammas or some of that ilk that the attack was a 'present for the start of the school year' ...go figure...

Yet the only 'source' covering the incident that proclaims anything of the sort is a reknowned right-wing blog site. Conveniently they don't provide a link to this website that makes the alleged claims either... go figure...

Why, for example, was this not even mentioned in the article from The Jersusalem Post that specifically covered the topic? A strange omission don't you think?

Thread: What should the Civilised World do about the Zionist Israeli Problem?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions