Great Article about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and what must be done

Koba1t

Member
Jul 26, 2001
77
0
0
I especially agree with the writer's position on Bush's self serving need to bring peace between Israel/Palestine in order to get support for the war against Iraq and about the 'jewish-establisment political correctness' that makes it hard for people to speak out against the Israeli government. I bet since that it's a rabbi who's writing this, it's ok, but i bet he'd be called an 'anti-semite' or 'white supremacist' if it were anyone else.





<< Violence and Excuses in the Mideast
by Rabbi Michael Lerner and Cornel West

Many are calling for the Bush administration to intervene in the Israeli-Palestinian
struggle. And such intervention could help. Yet the Bush administration is making no
effort to conceal that its heart lies elsewhere: in creating a coalition in the Islamic
world that will support forthcoming U.S. attempts to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Though little evidence links Saddam to Osama bin Ladin or al-Qaeda, the White House
has used the cover of outrage at terror to legitimate a new war in Iraq that will complete
what the last Bush administration left unresolved.

All the more reason to ask the United States to move beyond its narrow concerns with
overthrowing Saddam and instead show the Israeli people that they have no alternative
but to end the occupation. The real pro-Israel forces are those willing to push Israel to
change its policies.

Bush and the Saudis would like to set up negotiations, restoring the image of calm
while the United States pursues its Iraq adventure, meanwhile allowing Bush to weigh
in on the side of peace and rational discourse. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will
appear to be making a major concession to his Labor party allies by sitting in
negotiations. Meanwhile, he will block any concessions that weaken Israel's hold over
a substantial part of the West Bank. And Bush can then have his war.

This strategy faces some severe limitations. Yasir Arafat is not going to be able to
quiet outrage among millions of Palestinians at the latest round of carnage. No matter
what he agrees to, it's unlikely he can stop acts of revenge against Israelis. And many
Palestinians will see the next round of talk as just another smoke screen to prolong
the occupation.

Israel has become increasingly polarized, between a large group (now close to 46
percent) who favor ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (the polite word being used is
transfer) and a growing minority (now close to 25 percent) who sympathize with the
Israeli Defense Force Reservists refusing to serve in the West Bank and Gaza. The
peace forces have been betrayed by a Labor Party that remains part of Sharon's
government, so Israelis who seek to restore the moral coherence and spiritual health of
the Jewish people are increasingly turning to civil disobedience and direct action.

Many Americans have been intimidated into silence by the forces of
Jewish-establishment political correctness. They fear they will be labeled either
anti-Semitic Christians or self-hating Jews should they say aloud what they feel
privately: that Israel is behaving immorally and at times even savagely.

Yet unless Jews and morally principled Christians speak these truths, it will be
anti-Semites and other haters who will eventually challenge Jewish p.c. and in a very
destructive way. Future generations of Jews may unfairly suffer for the silence of this
generation.

We identify with those in the Jewish world who will not allow Israel to become a
modern-day Pharoah to the Palestinian people. Americans of many faiths are
determined to stand with them and with Jewish liberals and progressives who continue
to tell the story of liberation and continue to believe in the possibility of peace and
justice. Tens of thousands of Jews raised these issues at their seders this year -
turning the dinner table into mini teach-ins on Israel's current behavior. Two
fundamental truths underlie our vision: that Palestinian and Israeli lives are equally
precious and that the violence of both sides must stop.
>>

 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,547
20,262
146
Translation:

"We might piss off the Palestinians and therefore cause more terrorist attacks. Let's be like the french and surrender now. Also, I'm really mad that my anti-Israeli nonsense isn't popular. There must be a conspiracy to shut up the majority that just MUST think like me because I can't bring myself to admit that most people know the Israelis ARE the good guys here."

rolleye.gif


I'm really sick and tired of terrorist apologists. If we followed their ideas terrorism would become the most popular and ideal form of action to get your way.

 

Koba1t

Member
Jul 26, 2001
77
0
0
Riiiighhht... so in other words, the Israelis were 'the good guys' when they bulldozed the homes of 300 palestinian civilians and when they opened fire on a peaceful protest on their own israeli-arab population. There is no 'good guy'/'bad guy' here, and nobody is a 'terrorist apologist'.



<< Translation:

"We might piss off the Palestinians and therefore cause more terrorist attacks. Let's be like the french and surrender now. Also, I'm really mad that my anti-Israeli nonsense isn't popular. There must be a conspiracy to shut up the majority that just MUST think like me because I can't bring myself to admit that most people know the Israelis ARE the good guys here."

rolleye.gif


I'm really sick and tired of terrorist apologists. If we followed their ideas terrorism would become the most popular and ideal form of action to get your way.
>>

 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,547
20,262
146
Bullsh!t. When terorists use civilians to hide them, and support them, civilans become guilty of being an accessory to murder. When terorists hide and hatch their plans in civilian houses, they become a legitimate military target.

If you think there is no "good guy" or "bad guy" you are woefully ignorant of history.



<< Riiiighhht... so in other words, the Israelis were 'the good guys' when they bulldozed the homes of 300 palestinian civilians and when they opened fire on a peaceful protest on their own israeli-arab population. There is no 'good guy'/'bad guy' here, and nobody is a 'terrorist apologist'.



<< Translation:

"We might piss off the Palestinians and therefore cause more terrorist attacks. Let's be like the french and surrender now. Also, I'm really mad that my anti-Israeli nonsense isn't popular. There must be a conspiracy to shut up the majority that just MUST think like me because I can't bring myself to admit that most people know the Israelis ARE the good guys here."

rolleye.gif


I'm really sick and tired of terrorist apologists. If we followed their ideas terrorism would become the most popular and ideal form of action to get your way.
>>

>>

 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81


<< All the more reason to ask the United States to move beyond its narrow concerns with
overthrowing Saddam and instead show the Israeli people that they have no alternative
but to end the occupation.
>>


Maybe someone should tell the Rabbi that Israeli was pulling back its occupation and the suicide bombings continued...is this article dated at all?
 

Koba1t

Member
Jul 26, 2001
77
0
0


<< Bullsh!t. When terorists use civilians to hide them, and support them, civilans become guilty of being an accessory to murder. When terorists hide and hatch their plans in civilian houses, they become a legitimate military target. >>



Actually, it turned out there was no proof of any 'terrorists' hiding behind civilian homes. Even some of Sharon's own cabinet denounced that particular operation... in fact, so did the white house, which is considerable considering they're obviously pro-israel.

And you conveniently avoid the fact that israeli police did fire upon a peaceful protest conducted by their own arab-israeli population and killed 13 people and wounded scores of others before the current infahtada (sp?). How typical.



<< If you think there is no "good guy" or "bad guy" you are woefully ignorant of history. >>



Funny how you're ignorant of those two incidents and call me 'ignorant'. I would like to ammend my prior comment and say there are no 'good guys' though.

 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81


<< And you conveniently avoid the fact that israeli police did fire upon a peaceful protest conducted by their own arab-israeli population and killed 13 people and wounded scores of others before the current infahtada (sp?). How typical. >>


And you are forgetting the six suicide bombers within the past six days. How typical ;)

You don't see police shooting up peaceful protests every other day but you do see suicide bombers every other day. Now from that, which one is an isolated incident and which one is the norm?

btw. intifadeh is closer to being phonetically correct...but intifada is what you'll see on the news


<< Many Americans have been intimidated into silence by the forces of
Jewish-establishment political correctness. They fear they will be labeled either
anti-Semitic Christians or self-hating Jews should they say aloud what they feel
privately: that Israel is behaving immorally and at times even savagely.
>>


He must not see the real America then. Here, you're labeled as close-minded and a redneck for supporting Israel's stand against suicide bombers :Q
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,547
20,262
146


<<

<< Bullsh!t. When terorists use civilians to hide them, and support them, civilans become guilty of being an accessory to murder. When terorists hide and hatch their plans in civilian houses, they become a legitimate military target. >>



Actually, it turned out there was no proof of any 'terrorists' hiding behind civilian homes. Even some of Sharon's own cabinet denounced that particular operation... in fact, so did the white house, which is considerable considering they're obviously pro-israel.

And you conveniently avoid the fact that israeli police did fire upon a peaceful protest conducted by their own arab-israeli population and killed 13 people and wounded scores of others before the current infahtada (sp?). How typical.



<< If you think there is no "good guy" or "bad guy" you are woefully ignorant of history. >>



Funny how you're ignorant of those two incidents and call me 'ignorant'. I would like to ammend my prior comment and say there are no 'good guys' though.
>>



Mistakes are made, this does not negate the primary place these two peoples have in the broad spectrum of things. Do not the Palestinians have a long history of supporting and hiding their terrorists among the civilian population?

Tell me, is the US the bad guy because of Waco? Granted, it was a mistake, but did it make us inherently evil? Of course not. Nor does Israel's sometimes over zealous self defense make them anything less than the "good guy" in this conflict.

Tell me, Kobalt, what is, and always has been the Arab's primary goal in this conflict? What is Israel's? Who has been the aggressor in every conflict since the first one in '48?
 

Koba1t

Member
Jul 26, 2001
77
0
0


<<
And you are forgetting the six suicide bombers within the past six days. How typical ;)
>>



You misunderstand me, i don't support those suicide bombers in any way, i'm just trying to debunk amusedone's idea that the israeli government is some sort of 'angel' in all of this.



<< He must not see the real America then. Here, you're labeled as close-minded and a redneck for supporting Israel's stand against suicide bombers :Q >>



BS, have you ever even seen the news? Anytime a palestinian civilian gets killed, it barely gets a mention, but when a suicide bomber kills israeli civilians, it gets full coverage repeatedly.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,547
20,262
146


<<

<<
And you are forgetting the six suicide bombers within the past six days. How typical ;)
>>



You misunderstand me, i don't support those suicide bombers in any way, i'm just trying to debunk amusedone's idea that the israeli government is some sort of 'angel' in all of this.
>>



I never said they were complete and perfect "angels." However, they ARE, in the broad spectrum of things, "the good guys" in this conflict. All they have EVER wanted is to be left alone.
 

Texmaster

Banned
Jun 5, 2001
5,445
0
0


<< BS, have you ever even seen the news? Anytime a palestinian civilian gets killed, it barely gets a mention, but when a suicide bomber kills israeli civilians, it gets full coverage repeatedly. >>




Because one kind of attack specifically attacks civilians, the other doesn't brainwave.

Btw, I'm still waiting for a reply on that other thread. Try not to live up to all my expectations of you.
 

Koba1t

Member
Jul 26, 2001
77
0
0


<< Mistakes are made, this does not negate the primary place these two peoples have in the broad spectrum of things. Do not the Palestinians have a long history of supporting and hiding their terrorists among the civilian population?

Tell me, is the US the bad guy because of Waco? Granted, it was a mistake, but did it make us inherently evil? Of course not. Nor does Israel's sometimes over zealous self defense make them anything less than the "good guy" in this conflict.
>>



Yeah, 'mistakes' are when the israeli army blows up palestinian hospitals, fires upon palestinian ambulances/don't let ambulances pick up wounded palestinians, shoot palestinian kids for throwing rocks at their tanks, etc. etc.

And i consider the Waco incident an evil act by the US government. The mistake you make is that this is can't be comparable to the struggle between the Israelis and Palestinians; the waco incident involved a very small population and a very small part of the government.



<< Tell me, Kobalt, what is, and always has been the Arab's primary goal in this conflict? What is Israel's? Who has been the aggressor in every conflict since the first one in '48? >>



This is about the Palestinians, not all arabs. And if i remember correctly, Jordan has normalized relations with Israel, and Saudi Arabia wants normalized relations with Israel in return for peace with the Palestinians. Also, did you read the article? 42% of Israelis want 'ethnic cleansing' of palestinians. That is very consistent with the hard liner likuhd party. The only thing restraining them is that they'd probably lose money for military aid from the US and they'd lose even more support in world opinion.
 

swayinOtis

Banned
Sep 19, 2000
1,272
0
0
Cornell West is an insane radical leftist weirdo.

why don't you provide the link so we can see where this came from. probably from some leftist college newspaper. :)

 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81


<< BS, have you ever even seen the news? Anytime a palestinian civilian gets killed, it barely gets a mention, but when a suicide bomber kills israeli civilians, it gets full coverage repeatedly. >>


We must look at different news then. I get my US news from CNN on TV and news.yahoo.com on the internet--a combination of AP, Reuters stories...

NBC is particularly bad about burying Palestinian suicide-bombers and sensationalizing IDF incursions
 

Stealth1024

Platinum Member
Aug 9, 2000
2,266
0
0
Wow, first time I tried the new text editor... awesome

Bush should just go in and take Ara-I'mso-Fat out as the terrorist he is..

But I also like the idea of building a big wall and just build a copy of Jerusalem... problem is you'd uproot a lot of people but such is the nature of war
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,547
20,262
146


<<

<< Mistakes are made, this does not negate the primary place these two peoples have in the broad spectrum of things. Do not the Palestinians have a long history of supporting and hiding their terrorists among the civilian population?

Tell me, is the US the bad guy because of Waco? Granted, it was a mistake, but did it make us inherently evil? Of course not. Nor does Israel's sometimes over zealous self defense make them anything less than the "good guy" in this conflict.
>>



Yeah, 'mistakes' are when the israeli army blows up palestinian hospitals, fires upon palestinian ambulances/don't let ambulances pick up wounded palestinians, shoot palestinian kids for throwing rocks at their tanks, etc. etc.

And i consider the Waco incident an evil act by the US government. The mistake you make is that this is can't be comparable to the struggle between the Israelis and Palestinians; the waco incident involved a very small population and a very small part of the government.



<< Tell me, Kobalt, what is, and always has been the Arab's primary goal in this conflict? What is Israel's? Who has been the aggressor in every conflict since the first one in '48? >>



This is about the Palestinians, not all arabs. And if i remember correctly, Jordan has normalized relations with Israel, and Saudi Arabia wants normalized relations with Israel in return for peace with the Palestinians. Also, did you read the article? 42% of Israelis want 'ethnic cleansing' of palestinians. That is very consistent with the hard liner likuhd party. The only thing restraining them is that they'd probably lose money for military aid from the US and they'd lose even more support in world opinion.
>>



The Arabs have, on and off over the last 50 years feigned support for various peace treaties. I'll believe that when they actually carry through with it. And if you think you can separate the Arab nations from the Palestinians you are even more ignorant of history than I thought. Where do you think the Palestinians have been getting people and weapons from? The weapon fairy?

Meanwhile, the reality of the situation is that while the Saudi and Jordanian royals might be paying lip service, their countries are still supporting terrorism and supplying terrorists to both Palestine and other places like Afghanistan. It was the surounding Arab countries that created the "Palestinian" problem in the first place, and have used them as lackies to wage a terrorist war of attrition against Israel ever since they repeatedly attacked Isreal and had their asses handed to them over and over again.

If you actually studied the alarming number of full scale acts of Arab aggression towards Israel, and the use of the Palestinians to fight their pathetic terrorist war by proxy, you just MIGHT understand how Israel could, on occation be VERY understandably heavy handed and zealous when it comes to defending their very lives.

As I said, you're not looking at the whole picture. That Israel may be heavy handed does not negate the fact that thay have been the victims of 50+ years of aggression by forces that outnumber them 4 to 1. If the Arabs or Palestinians lose, a few die and they all go home. If the Israelis lose, they cease to exist.
 

Koba1t

Member
Jul 26, 2001
77
0
0


<< The Arabs have, on and off over the last 50 years feigned support for various peace treaties. I'll believe that when they actually carry through with it. And if you think you can separate the Arab nations from the Palestinians you are even more ignorant of history than I thought. Where do you think the Palestinians have been getting people and weapons from? The weapon fairy?

Meanwhile, the reality of the situation is that while the Saudi and Jordanian royals might be paying lip service, their countries are still supporting terrorism and supplying terrorists to both Palestine and other places like Afghanistan. It was the surounding Arab countries that created the "Palestinian" problem in the first place, and have used them as lackies to wage a terrorist war of attrition against Israel ever since they repeatedly attacked Isreal and had their asses handed to them over and over again.
>>



Are you saying that Jordan and Saudi Arabia are providing arms to the Palestinians in these recent years? I see absolutely no proof of that..



<< If you actually studied the alarming number of full scale acts of Arab aggression towards Israel, and the use of the Palestinians to fight their pathetic terrorist war by proxy, you just MIGHT understand how Israel could, on occation be VERY understandably heavy handed and zealous when it comes to defending their very lives.

As I said, you're not looking at the whole picture. That Israel may be heavy handed does not negate the fact that thay have been the victims of 50+ years of aggression by forces that outnumber them 4 to 1. If the Arabs or Palestinians lose, a few die and they all go home. If the Israelis lose, they cease to exist.
>>



So in other words, when israel "accidentally" kills palestinian civillians and occupies more territory, it's 'protecting themselves'? I think it's generally accepted that those two methods don't work as all it does is rile the real terrorists and makes them even more belligerent. Even more Israelis are questioning what use it is to have more military stationed in occupied terrotories where 'terrorists' kill them (and btw, while i disagree with the use of suicide bombers, i think the palestinians are completely justified in attacking military targets that are occupying their territory). I can understand destroying some infrastructure, but come on, what is Israel's real strategy here? I can only see one of two ways this is going to be resolved: Israel wipes out all Palestinians (i'm not certain but you seem to be leaning this way) or they have some sort of peace treaty with them.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,547
20,262
146


<<

<< The Arabs have, on and off over the last 50 years feigned support for various peace treaties. I'll believe that when they actually carry through with it. And if you think you can separate the Arab nations from the Palestinians you are even more ignorant of history than I thought. Where do you think the Palestinians have been getting people and weapons from? The weapon fairy?

Meanwhile, the reality of the situation is that while the Saudi and Jordanian royals might be paying lip service, their countries are still supporting terrorism and supplying terrorists to both Palestine and other places like Afghanistan. It was the surounding Arab countries that created the "Palestinian" problem in the first place, and have used them as lackies to wage a terrorist war of attrition against Israel ever since they repeatedly attacked Isreal and had their asses handed to them over and over again.
>>



Are you saying that Jordan and Saudi Arabia are providing arms to the Palestinians in these recent years? I see absolutely no proof of that..



<< If you actually studied the alarming number of full scale acts of Arab aggression towards Israel, and the use of the Palestinians to fight their pathetic terrorist war by proxy, you just MIGHT understand how Israel could, on occation be VERY understandably heavy handed and zealous when it comes to defending their very lives.

As I said, you're not looking at the whole picture. That Israel may be heavy handed does not negate the fact that thay have been the victims of 50+ years of aggression by forces that outnumber them 4 to 1. If the Arabs or Palestinians lose, a few die and they all go home. If the Israelis lose, they cease to exist.
>>



So in other words, when israel "accidentally" kills palestinian civillians and occupies more territory, it's 'protecting themselves'? I think it's generally accepted that those two methods don't work as all it does is rile the real terrorists and makes them even more belligerent. Even more Israelis are questioning what use it is to have more military stationed in occupied terrotories where 'terrorists' kill them (and btw, while i disagree with the use of suicide bombers, i think the palestinians are completely justified in attacking military targets that are occupying their territory). I can understand destroying some infrastructure, but come on, what is Israel's real strategy here? I can only see one of two ways this is going to be resolved: Israel wipes out all Palestinians (i'm not certain but you seem to be leaning this way) or they have some sort of peace treaty with them.
>>



1. The terrorists are getting their weapons somewhere. It's a good bet most if not all the Arab countries are secretly supplying them. No one else has a vested, verifiable interest in this conflict.

2. If Israel does nothing, they are attacked. If Israel retaliates, they are attacked. This long boring bullsh!t that Israel's retaliations just cause more terrorism is just that, BS. By not acting to defend herself, Isreal VALIDATES terrorism. They cannot, in any way shape or form EVER give into terrorists. To do so only shows that terrorism is a valid form of protest.

It's obvious you don't have children, but this relates to raising children. If you EVER give in to a crying or pouting fit and give your children something you told them they couldn't have, your children will become insufferable whiners because they've been taught that whining get's them what they want.

Well, it's the same with terrorists. You give into one terrorist demand, and BOOM! You're surrounded by every BS cause in the world using terrorism to get their way.

3. When you wage war in civilian areas, then use civilian cars, houses, hospitals and ambulances and ships to carry out your deeds, you no longer have a right to complain when innocent civilians become legitimate military targets.

4. Isreal need not destroy all Palestinians. Just deport those who refuse Israeli citizenship or are active in terrorist activities.

5. Peace treaty? The Palestinians have refused or broken every valid peace treaty in front of them. They don't WANT peace. They want Israel destroyed. No if, ands or buts about it. That's the way it's always been, and continues to be. There was no other valid reason Arafat would turn down the last offer put before him during Clinton's administration (It basically gave the Palestinians EVERYTHING including the kitchen sick). If that alone doesn't convince you, I believe your grasp on reality is seriously lacking.
 

alrocky

Golden Member
Jan 22, 2001
1,771
0
0
Koba1t is mistaken. This is not a "great article" but a ridiculous opinion piece that's short on facts and long on half baked truths. Koba1t's thread title states "what must be done" but he does not offer a solution but a goal. Well, duh "the violence... must stop" but neither Koba1t nor the article say how. It seems to pass Koba1t's grasp that Palestinian suicide bombing and their other terrorist actitivy is their form of warfare; if they stop, Isreal would have little cause to retaliate. Koba1t and the 'article' assume too much in the motivations and ability of the US. Perhaps Koba1t can tell us how to dissuade individuals from becoming suicide bombers? (The US has little leverage with a people who burn our flag and blow themselfs up etc.) Send troops, Koba1t? Nope. "<U>What must be done</U>," Koba1t?

Contrary to what that article contends, there is nothing wrong with an exodus of Palestinian people. The Jews had one and the US was created by peoples leaving other countries. Perhaps Koba1t can tell us why Palestinians can't find a home in other Arab countries? Weren't they kicked out? Arafat and the PLO had outlived their welcomes? Arafat blew the PLO's best chance for peace and land at Camp David under Clinton. Why do you think Arafat would now prefer to die than leave? Because he feels he has more to give for his people when dead than he can ever hope to achieve if alive?

You gonna give that link?