BF2S Forums Israel and Palestine

ethnic cleansing

Dilbert_X wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

How to stop suicide bombers in short term- Preemptively kill them all. Is that the answer you're looking for?

Stop stealing their land and murdering their children?

Shocking wrote:

ethnic cleansing

pages 31-33

AussieReaper wrote:

Shocking wrote:

ethnic cleansing

pages 31-33

How would you describe the use of chemical weapons on a civilian population, who are apparently a target because terrorists hide among them. The systemic land grabbing of Palestinians land along with bulldozers removing Palestinian homes to be replaced by Israeli settlements. The building of walls which divide Palestinian land and cuts through villages dividing families and removing cultural ties of the civilians to town centers, access to water. Take a look at a map of Palestinian land or what's left of it and tell me they aren't being wiped out.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

How to stop suicide bombers in short term- Preemptively kill them all. Is that the answer you're looking for?

Stop stealing their land and murdering their children?

Short term. Immediate. Key words in cheeky's posts. Reading comprehension is key.

Ninja wrote:

Dilbert we have completely exhausted the "genocide" angle in this thread. We provided a ton of information showing that the arab population is growing faster than the Israeli and any possible measure of genocide comes up negative.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-03-29 01:13:13)

Dilbert_X wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Stop stealing their land and murdering their children?

Short term. Immediate. Key words in cheeky's posts. Reading comprehension is key.
I understood it just fine, thanks. That would still be the best short-term and long term strategy.

Ninja wrote:

Dilbert we have completely exhausted the "genocide" angle in this thread. We provided a ton of information showing that the arab population is growing faster than the Israeli and any possible measure of genocide comes up negative.

So they're breeding slightly faster than they're being killed, while excluded from their homeland, doesn't mean the Israelis aren't attempting to achieve genocide and/or ethnic cleansing.

Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2012-03-29 11:23:25)

Poseidon wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

So I've repeatedly said that Israel was obviously not formed in the rosiest of situations - as if ANY country ever has been - and you continue to act like that matters today in the current government and military. It's almost funny. Almost.

No I didn't visit any settlements but I was all over the country and spoke with people of different backgrounds and cultures. I don't see why you'd need to go into the settlements - people I've already said are radicals - to determine how regular Israelis think about terrorism.

So you've basically been trying to push the point that the settlers are radicals who support terrorism? Congratulations, I've always thought the same.

And wow, Menachem Begin, who brokered one of the biggest peace deals EVER, one that still exists today, is your reasoning for thinking Israelis support terrorism? That is too funny.

I still don't understand your previous post. Could you clarify what the 3 months is alluding to?

My reasoning for thinking that Israelis support terrorism/illegal governmental action is that: virtually every Israeli I've ever asked about the King David hotel bombing has thought it was a good thing (that's about 50, maybe 10 of those from settlements - 2 of those I asked condemned it, in the mildest possible terms); Israelis predominantly vote in hard line governments who support expansion of settlements in the OTs and

I first became interested in this topic after a friend of mine (from London) went back to Israel to do his national service. He came back horrified and is now the staunchest anti-Zionist I know. His stories (many of which he had photos and video footage to go with) really opened my eyes to what is going on there.

If Bin Laden had brokered a peace deal or two, would that have excused him from his previous actions? Would you turn a blind eye to those too? Would you think a country who elected him as Prime Minister was full of terrorist sympathisers or would you think they'd probably just picked the best man for the job?

There is no logic to your posts. Also, you still haven't said what that the 3 months bit in your post relates to - what is it about?

It was a typo. My trip was 3 months ago.

I just think it's funny that you're using one event from over 50 years ago to define how a nation views terrorism. Jesus, right after the even actually happened it was widely condemned, even though the first Prime Minister of Israel called the attack disgusting, that's your indication that an entire people support terrorism. I've never seen so much proof in my life. I mean, it's not like there's a group of people who actually voted in people who commit terrorist attacks weekly out there for you to criticize. Nah. Gotta harp on an event that was widely condemned after it happened in 1946.

any moves to freeze settlement activity are met with a public backlash.

So why is it most Israelis are in favor of dismantling settlements? I guess your sampling of people is a bit off, eh? And even older polls which trend more towards in favor of the settlers state that most would be in favor of dismantling settlements if it meant peace with the Palestinians.

Netanyahu is an asshole, no doubt. I can't stand him. But he's loved because he comes off to Israelis as someone who will not stand for any terrorism nor will he stand for threats from the Iranians. He's a nationalist and that appeals to people. But he's never sent someone with a bomb belt onto a crowded city bus filled with women and children.

This entire argument is basically you saying "oh well they started off comprised of..." while I talk about the current situation. It must be nice living in the past and using that as your argument for how things are today.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2012-03-29 12:53:35)

Poseidon wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Interesting stats, showing a marginal majority approve of dismantling the settlements at the time that survey was published - and I note that the article is about that figure rising to a high point of 60%, so it's hardly like everyone is in favour at all, which is very much the impression you seem to be pushing.

So your "50 or so people" are better than a professional poll? Got it.

Poseidon wrote:

Nor are those stats directly relevant to the points I was making about approval amongst Israelis today for the actions taken whilst Israel was being formed. You say I've only mentioned one event from 50 years ago - you've only mentioned one in your responses, but I've used two of the biggest examples consistently - there aren't examples of Israeli terrorism after Israel was formed because there was no need. They had achieved their goals and the terrorists now had an army they could use to wage war instead of being terrorists. An army that has been used to protect bulldozers smashing down Palestinian villages so they can have Israeli settlements built on them - a practice that continues to this day.

Can you bitch about the atrocities the American rebels committed while you're at it too, please? I'd love to hear it.

Poseidon wrote:

The point is, they've fucked over the Palestinians repeatedly from a very shady start point and have been constantly and persistently breaking all sorts of international laws, just annexing whatever territory they feel like taking, denying the right of return etc., for decades. That sort of behaviour is abhorrent and I can entirely understand (without condoning) the Palestinians trying to establish their own state by turning to the terror tactics that seem to have worked so well for the Israelis in the formation of Israel.

Name me ONE COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD that started out in the unrealistic, naive world view you seem to employ where new countries need to be formed under sunshine and rainbows or they support terrorism.

Poseidon wrote:

You understand the turning to tactics of blowing up innocent women and children in order to achieve their goals? If they were attacking military outposts, that'd be one thing. They don't, and haven't. I guess I see now why you barely even post on the forums anymore and only popped up randomly to post about Israel.

Poseidon wrote:

The Palestinians got fucked over by the Israelis acting in a really despicable manner. They're still getting fucked over by them acting in somewhat less despicable manner. They have seen terror tactics work perfectly as an important element in the establishment of Israel. Is it in any way surprising that impoverished people, living in a permanently occupied state, being constantly bullied by a government that has been led by key figures who orchestrated all sorts of atrocities against their parents and grandparents, end up turning to terrorism to try and achieve their goals? I certainly don't find it remotely surprising.

I don't find it surprising either, but I'm also not going to let it off scot-free because I don't find it surprising, nor will I practically condone it like you do. You said you don't condone it but everything you say following it is the complete opposite of that. Andrew Jackson pretty much gained Florida through terrorist-esque actions. Does that give other governments the right to do it too?

Poseidon wrote:

Israel are in a position to end this. They could give back lots easily. Peace would be easy to achieve long term with reasonable concessions being made by Israel. This won't happen and it's purely down to the Israeli government.

Yeah, they are. They'll offer the '67 borders (minus the Golan Heights). Oh, what's that? They have? Several times? Even the asshole Netanyahu as recently as 2011 has too? But the Palestinians won't accept it because they won't recognize a Jewish state? Oh, well there goes your whole argument. Netanyahu is an asshole because he still refuses to give up on the settlements, but even before then the '67 borders were offered. To no avail.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2012-03-29 13:45:14)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

We can agree to disagree on the wall being an effective solution. Has it made an impact to the amount of suicide bombings? I think it exacerbates the problem and leads to more strife long term.

Bertster7 wrote:

There's a big difference between atrocities committed in living memory and those committed centuries ago.

You may also note that the last sentence in the section you have quoted above is "a practice that continues to this day". If the American rebels were continuing with various atrocities to this day, I'd be very concerned.

Czechoslovakia. The velvet revolution.

Yes I do. I don't condone it, as I said, but it's very easy to understand. Really, really, easy.

You don't seem to care much about the terrorist actions taken by Israel. They simply get glossed over as being a long time ago. They weren't that long ago. I know several people who were there while it was ongoing - my grandad, stationed in Egypt with the RAF throughout the 40s for example.

I have no idea what Andrew Jackson did to gain Florida (nor do I really care) - so the reference is lost on me. But if those he terrorised ended up doing the same thing back, then I would certainly understand where they got the idea that it is an effective means of achieving your ends.

Volume of territory is not the key point here. No concessions will be made in various key areas (sharing of Jerusalem as outlined in the UN partition plan being a big one) and there are always strings attached about forfeiting a number of rights that are enshrined in numerous bodies of international law.

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

We can agree to disagree on the wall being an effective solution. Has it made an impact to the amount of suicide bombings? I think it exacerbates the problem and leads to more strife long term.

Long term I agree, but in the short / immediate I cant think of a better alternative that doesn't involve an invasion.

Poseidon wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

There's a big difference between atrocities committed in living memory and those committed centuries ago.

You may also note that the last sentence in the section you have quoted above is "a practice that continues to this day". If the American rebels were continuing with various atrocities to this day, I'd be very concerned.

Yeah, so where are you clamoring on about the genocides in Africa? Israel's that important to you? This is exactly why people get suspicious about anti-semitism among the staunchly "pro-Palestinian" people like you. You don't give a flying fuck about other people dying in the world but you hop on a forum where I don't think I've seen you post much at all in the past 6 months to hop on and slam Israel. I'm not saying you're an anti-semite, the only one I think who is here is Dilbert, I'm just saying I find it pretty odd you claim to care so much about the "innocent people" yet you pick and choose where it is. AussieReaper is the same exact way. He seems to care so much about the poor Palestinians yet I don't see him post much about Africa. You know, where people actually get slaughtered daily. Seems to me some people here have their priorities mixed up.

Poseidon wrote:

Czechoslovakia. The velvet revolution.

Okay, you named one. Wow. I am absolutely blown away. Americans committed terrorism in the early stages of the nation, are you going to go all Rammunition on us now?

Yes I do. I don't condone it, as I said, but it's very easy to understand. Really, really, easy.

Any "oppressed" group that kills women and children purposely to achieve their goals gets very little sympathy from me, sorry. If they were consistently attacking the IDF, that's one thing. I'd consider that a fair act of war. But they don't. They attack women and children. When I was in Israel I met the wife of a Rabbi who was in a coffee shop when it was blown to bits by a suicide bomber. Sorry. Very little sympathy.

You don't seem to care much about the terrorist actions taken by Israel. They simply get glossed over as being a long time ago. They weren't that long ago. I know several people who were there while it was ongoing - my grandad, stationed in Egypt with the RAF throughout the 40s for example.

I have no idea what Andrew Jackson did to gain Florida (nor do I really care) - so the reference is lost on me. But if those he terrorised ended up doing the same thing back, then I would certainly understand where they got the idea that it is an effective means of achieving your ends.

Not that I don't care. I condemn them and any form of terrorism entirely (inb4butisraelcommitsterrorism). But it's all you seem to use as your justification, or your "understanding" for their actions. Events that happened in the 40's. The "hey, they did it once or twice...so it's okay for the Palestinians to do it forever until they achieve their goals!" logic. It's quite fascinating.

Poseidon wrote:

Volume of territory is not the key point here. No concessions will be made in various key areas (sharing of Jerusalem as outlined in the UN partition plan being a big one) and there are always strings attached about forfeiting a number of rights that are enshrined in numerous bodies of international law.

And as I said, that is why I hate Netanyahu. I was heavily in favor of Tzipi Livni in the last elections. But the point remains that the '67 borders have been offered several times throughout history and rejected outright due to Hamas' stated goal of the destruction of/failure to recognize Israel as a nation.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2012-04-01 07:06:44)

telegraph wrote:

The Israeli prime minister accused Grass of "shameful moral equivalence" after the Nobel laureate, who is 84, alleged that Israel, with its significant but undeclared nuclear arsenal, posed a greater threat to world peace than Iran.

While expressing his solidarity with Israel, he suggested that it could annihilate the Iranian people and criticised Germany for providing Mr Netanyahu's government with submarines capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

The poem, published in the Suddeutsche Zeitung newspaper, called on both Iran and Israel to open up their nuclear programmes to nuclear inspection.

Mr Netanyahu, reflecting widespread outrage in Israel, launched a withering broadside against the author's character, claiming that his views stemmed from the year he spent in the Waffen-SS during the Second World War.

"For six decades Mr Grass hid the fact that he had been a member of the Waffen SS," Mr Netanyahu said. "So for him to cast the one and only Jewish state as the greatest threat to world peace and to oppose giving Israel the means to defend itself is perhaps not surprising.

"But decent people everywhere should strongly condemn these ignorant and reprehensible statements."

The Israeli embassy in Berlin went one step further, accusing the poem of perpetrating a blood libel, a reference to the medieval slur that Jews dipped unleavened bread in the blood of a murdered Christian child at Passover.

"What must be said is that it belongs to European tradition to accuse Jews of ritual murder before the Passover celebration," the embassy said. The Jewish Passover week begins on Friday evening.

Grass was long seen as one of Germany's leading moral voices, frequently urging the country to face up to its Nazi past and even countenancing against reunification, fearing it could pose a threat to the rest of Europe.

But his reputation was tarnished by his belated admission in 2006 that, as a 17 year old in 1944, he had been drafted into the Waffen-SS, the armed wing of the Nazi party's SS paramilitary unit, after being rejected by the submarine service.

In his poem, entitled "What Must Be Said", Grass suggested that he had agonised about speaking out against Israel, saying he was aware that – particularly as a German with a Nazi-linked past – he would be accused of anti-semitism.

But he insisted that it was time for Germany, Israel's closest ally in Europe, to speak out before it was too late.

"Why only now, grown old,/And with what ink remains, do I say:/Israel's atomic power endangers/an already fragile world peace?" he writes, before answering his own question: "Because what must be said/may be too late tomorrow."

Warum schweige ich, verschweige zu lange,
    was offensichtlich ist und in Planspielen
    geübt wurde, an deren Ende als Überlebende
    wir allenfalls Fußnoten sind.

    Es ist das behauptete Recht auf den Erstschlag,
    der das von einem Maulhelden unterjochte
    und zum organisierten Jubel gelenkte
    iranische Volk auslöschen könnte,
    weil in dessen Machtbereich der Bau
    einer Atombombe vermutet wird.

    Doch warum untersage ich mir,
    jenes andere Land beim Namen zu nennen,
    in dem seit Jahren – wenn auch geheimgehalten -
    ein wachsend nukleares Potential verfügbar
    aber außer Kontrolle, weil keiner Prüfung
    zugänglich ist?

    Das allgemeine Verschweigen dieses Tatbestandes,
    dem sich mein Schweigen untergeordnet hat,
    empfinde ich als belastende Lüge
    und Zwang, der Strafe in Aussicht stellt,
    sobald er mißachtet wird;
    das Verdikt “Antisemitismus” ist geläufig.

    Jetzt aber, weil aus meinem Land,
    das von ureigenen Verbrechen,
    die ohne Vergleich sind,
    Mal um Mal eingeholt und zur Rede gestellt wird,
    wiederum und rein geschäftsmäßig, wenn auch
    mit flinker Lippe als Wiedergutmachung deklariert,
    ein weiteres U-Boot nach Israel
    geliefert werden soll, dessen Spezialität
    darin besteht, allesvernichtende Sprengköpfe
    dorthin lenken zu können, wo die Existenz
    einer einzigen Atombombe unbewiesen ist,
    doch als Befürchtung von Beweiskraft sein will,
    sage ich, was gesagt werden muß.

    Warum aber schwieg ich bislang?
    Weil ich meinte, meine Herkunft,
    die von nie zu tilgendem Makel behaftet ist,
    verbiete, diese Tatsache als ausgesprochene Wahrheit
    dem Land Israel, dem ich verbunden bin
    und bleiben will, zuzumuten.

    Warum sage ich jetzt erst,
    gealtert und mit letzter Tinte:
    Die Atommacht Israel gefährdet
    den ohnehin brüchigen Weltfrieden?
    Weil gesagt werden muß,
    was schon morgen zu spät sein könnte;
    auch weil wir – als Deutsche belastet genug -
    Zulieferer eines Verbrechens werden könnten,
    das voraussehbar ist, weshalb unsere Mitschuld
    durch keine der üblichen Ausreden
    zu tilgen wäre.

    Und zugegeben: ich schweige nicht mehr,
    weil ich der Heuchelei des Westens
    überdrüssig bin; zudem ist zu hoffen,
    es mögen sich viele vom Schweigen befreien,
    den Verursacher der erkennbaren Gefahr
    zum Verzicht auf Gewalt auffordern und
    gleichfalls darauf bestehen,
    daß eine unbehinderte und permanente Kontrolle
    des israelischen atomaren Potentials
    und der iranischen Atomanlagen
    durch eine internationale Instanz
    von den Regierungen beider Länder zugelassen wird.

    Nur so ist allen, den Israelis und Palästinensern,
    mehr noch, allen Menschen, die in dieser
    vom Wahn okkupierten Region
    dicht bei dicht verfeindet leben
    und letztlich auch uns zu helfen.