UK Jewish MP: Israel acting like Nazis in Gaza

dub · January 28, 2009

The fact that this MP is a Jew is absolutely and utterly irrelevant just as his religon would be irrelevant if he was an atheist, Christian, Muslim, Bahaii, Hindu, Buddist. The fact that some of you make it an issue shows you buy into this type casting and this stereotype that if a Jew criticizes Israeli policies, it must be credible because he is a Jew criticizing Israel is as assinine as saying the same about a Muslim who criticizes Hamas or a Christian who criticizes Hamas or Israel.
This playing up of this MP's religious to suggest it gives his words added meaning and importance is a classic example of anti-semitism and stereotyping people's opinions based strictly on their religion or perceived ethnicity.

It is absolutely irrelevant.

this MP has lived in israel and is familiar with everything there is to know about the zionist movement since he's been part of and is part of zionist organizations. he also had a family member who was killed by the nazis during the holocaust. he has studied the situation and has written about the situation.

i would think he's more qualified to speak about the situation than many of us, including you.

If anything for a Jew to accuse other Jews of being Nazis shows he is an an ignorant insensitive ass but that is all.

so in some ways it doesn't matter that he's a jew but it does in the instance above? you need to stay consistent with your beliefs.

there is nothing wrong with criticizing injustice. just because he is a jew, it doesn't mean that he should blind himself with nationalism.

DogOnPorch · January 28, 2009

what's your point about this? why do you make irrelevant comments?

The point is that Arafat wasn't in a position to do anything else but accept Mr Kissenger's old terms:

...will not recognize or negotiate with the PLO as long as the PLO does not recognize Israel's right to exist and does not accept Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

You might recall they were run outta town on a rail circa 1982. They were sitting in Tunisia...quite irellevant, themselves.

This old report from congress pretty much sums it up after that. Nobody seemed to trust Arafat for some reason.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1989_cr/s890208-plo.htm

this MP has lived in israel and is familiar with everything there is to know about the zionist movement since he's been part of and is part of zionist organizations. he also had a family member who was killed by the nazis during the holocaust. he has studied the situation and has written about the situation.
i would think he's more qualified to speak about the situation than many of us, including you.

As mentioned, so what? Several folks here have lives that were touched by the Holocaust. Is their opinion on Gaza supposed to mesh with his automatically? If anyone is using the Holocaust to further a political agenda...it's this MP.

----------------------------------------------------

Well, Kyle, appreciate you being so open with me about this, but as we know, you have a warped perception of reality because you’re Jewish.

---Eric cartman: South Park

M.Dancer · January 28, 2009

you right. your memory is probably okay.
it's that you just don't know enough about the situation which prevents you from making a logical and rational argument.

I take it by your dodge attemot that you acknowledge that the peace accords which did not stop the sucide bombers are as irrelevant as arafat's word...

M.Dancer · January 28, 2009

this MP has lived in israel ......

Is this like your claiim he is a holocaust survivor?

He has never "lived" in Israel. He has visited israel and was alive there at the same time.

dub · January 28, 2009

I take it by your dodge attemot that you acknowledge that the peace accords which did not stop the sucide bombers are as irrelevant as arafat's word...

first of all, the first suicide attack mentioned above, happened in 1994, and not in 1993 when the peace accord happened.

furthermore, the point of all this is that israel has NOT taken any steps to decrease or AT LEAST freeze the settlement building in the last several decades, meaning that they're not interested in a real and just peace and all they do is talk and spin what is really happening.

it's the palestinians who have not had a real partner at the table since this conflict started. it's always been about israel unilaterally making decisions and when asked why they're going against resolutions and against international law and why they're not willing to take any steps, they raise their shoulders and falsely claim that they have no partner.

Edited January 28, 2009 by dub

M.Dancer · January 28, 2009

first of all, the first suicide attack mentioned above, happened in 1994, and not in 1993 when the peace accord happened.
furthermore, the point of all this is that israel has NOT taken any steps to decrease or AT LEAST freeze the settlement building several decades meaning that they're not interested in a real and just peace.

it's the palestinians who do not have a real partner at the table.

Why sit with terrorists at a table when it might have a suicide bomber on the other side?

The Facts:
List of suicide bombing attacks by Hamas in 1993:

"On April 16, 1993, at a roadside café at Mehola Junction, Hamas operative Tamam Nabulsi drove a van into a parked bus and detonated it. Two passengers on the bus were killed and five were injured. This was the first suicide terrorist attack in Israel by a Palestinian terrorist group." ( Who are the Palestinian Suicide Terrorists?, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Sept. 2003)

The Jerusalem Post reported the attack on April 18, 1993. The article noted that this was the first suicide bombing in Israeli territory. Hamas took credit for the attack.

An abortive suicide attack was reported in Gaza on September 13, 1993.

Sept. 26, 1993: Hamas member Ashraf Mahadi , died in the Gaza Strip, when his explosive-ridden car blew up (botched attempt)

Oct. 4, 1993: Kamal Bani Ohed, rammed explosive-laden car in Israeli bus near Ramallah and Beit El, 29 Israelis injured. Hamas claimed responsibility.

Nov. 2, 1993: A botched car-bomb attack near Sinjil; Hamas claimed credit

Dec. 13, 1993: Anwar Aziz, drove bomb-laden ambulance into a jeep-load of Israeli soldiers in Gaza Strip, wounding three.

Dec. 14, 1993: Ossama Hamid, Hamas member, Israelis killed him before he detonated the bomb. According to the Jerusalem Post, he was driving an ambulance.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=...;x_article=1400

Thank you for coming, don't forget your asshat on the way out.

dub · January 28, 2009

Why sit with terrorists at a table when it might have a suicide bomber on the other side?
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=...;x_article=1400

Thank you for coming, don't forget your asshat on the way out.

i guess i will have to repeat and also point you to something about this article from "Camera" which is not exactly known for having an unbiased look at the situation. but lets say the information is true about the attacks:

this doesn't change the fact that israel has not taken any steps to show that they're serious. the settlements have continued to increase and israel has not even frozen the settlements. this is even after the PLO accepted israel's right to exist. israel showed not even an ounce of interest in moving towards peace. they didn't even freeze the settlements.

you can continue to keep your asshat on your head.

Edited January 28, 2009 by dub

M.Dancer · January 28, 2009

they didn't even freeze the settlements.

On one hand, you have settlements (many of which have been closed) where women, children, fathers and mothers live...ad on the other side you have suicidal murderers trying desparately to target and kill women and children....

I wonder why there were no massed protests against the buncivilized and arbaric tactics of the palestinians. I guess hue and cry against a disproportinate response only applys Israel.

dub · January 28, 2009

On one hand, you have settlements (many of which have been closed) where women, children, fathers and mothers live...ad on the other side you have suicidal murderers trying desparately to target and kill women and children....
I wonder why there were no massed protests against the buncivilized and arbaric tactics of the palestinians. I guess hue and cry against a disproportinate response only applys Israel.

you're babbling and avoiding the point, again.

israel has not done anything (like to decrease or even freeze settlements) to indicate they want to be a partner in a real and just peace. they have continued to increase the settlements since the occupation started.

also, could you give me something else besides a link from CAMERA that shows that there was a suicide attack inside israel in 1993?

even this extremely biased site that calls the west bank and gaza and jerusalem, israel, does not mention the attack that CAMERA has mentioned. i'm sure you can understand my concern about information coming from the site CAMERA and wanting to be better informed.

M.Dancer · January 28, 2009

also, could you give me something else besides a link from CAMERA that shows that there was a suicide attack inside israel in 1993?

ho hum

http://www.ecaar.org/Newsletter/Nov04/saleh.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...-227546,00.html

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/

dub · January 28, 2009

ho hum
http://www.ecaar.org/Newsletter/Nov04/saleh.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...-227546,00.html

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/

right.

okay.

On Tuesday, April 16, it will be nine years--ages, it seems--since the first suicide bomb in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ripped through the parking lot of a roadside West Bank cafe.

inside a west bank cafe.

the attack did not happen in israel. attacks against the occupation and against the occupied have been happening inside the palestinian land for a while.

sorry to ruin this for you. better hold that hat tight on your head.

M.Dancer · January 29, 2009

right.
okay.

On Tuesday, April 16, it will be nine years--ages, it seems--since the first suicide bomb in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ripped through the parking lot of a roadside West Bank cafe.

inside a west bank cafe.

the attack did not happen in israel. attacks against the occupation and against the occupied have been happening inside the palestinian land for a while.

sorry to ruin this for you. better hold that hat tight on your head.

That would be splitting hairs..in your case, bum hairs...it doesn't matter if they attack an israeli embassy in beunos aries or a falalfel shop in tela aviv....it is simply a barberous murderous terrorist attack...and they began in 1993

JB Globe · January 29, 2009

Okay, and after you do that and they continue to fire rockets at you, then what?

Israel is still occupying Palestine.

bush_cheney2004 · January 29, 2009

Israel is still occupying Palestine.

Oh goody...I love chicken and egg arguments.

JB Globe · January 29, 2009

A delegation from Hamas just finished negotiations with Israel in Egypt, I believe it was.

No, Hamas negotiated with Egypt, which in turn negotiated with Israel, because Israel refuses to negotiate directly with Hamas.

Eventually, if they want peace, they're going to have to talk directly to each other and stop trying to divorce and using a best friend as the messenger, it's very unproductive.

End the occupation? It's an excellent idea, but when you do, and the rockets continue to fall, well, what next?

The head-for-an-eye comment is apt. The problem though, is not that Israel and Hamas have been trading blows for years. The problem is that Hamas has, in its founding charter, a section on the "elimination" of the Jews.

You're reading too much into rhetoric.

As I said earlier, although the actions of Hamas are reprehensible, they are not irrational, they know it's IMPOSSIBLE to wipe out Israel, but their PR people make those claims because a certain segment of the Palestinian population eats it up. Case in point - Ismail Haniyeh, the PM of Hamas in Gaza said last year he'd be willing to accept a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders. If he was totally committed to the destruction of Israel, he'd never make that concession, or consider getting into peace talks.

Fact is while one can point at Hamas as the force on the Palestinian side that is the driving force of militancy and confrontation, you only need to look at the settler movement on the Israeli side to see that Hamas has a counterpart of sorts in that their actions both provoke an aggressive response from the other side. With Hamas their actions translate into terrorism against Israelis, and with the settler movement their actions translate into colonization against Palestinians.

Edited January 29, 2009 by JB Globe

JB Globe · January 29, 2009

Oh goody...I love chicken and egg arguments.

Well I'm sorry to disappoint you then.

dub · January 29, 2009

That would be splitting hairs..in your case, bum hairs...it doesn't matter if they attack an israeli embassy in beunos aries or a falalfel shop in tela aviv....it is simply a barberous murderous terrorist attack...and they began in 1993

you think attacking the occupier inside the west bank is the same as attacking someone in their own country and i would be splitting hairs if i said they're different?

okay.

Argus · January 29, 2009

you think attacking the occupier inside the west bank is the same as attacking someone in their own country and i would be splitting hairs if i said they're different?
okay.

Attacking the "occupier" doesn't mean blowing up a cafe full of civilians.

M.Dancer · January 29, 2009

you think attacking the occupier inside the west bank is the same as attacking someone in their own country and i would be splitting hairs if i said they're different?
okay.

So you think women and children are legitimate targets?

Rue · January 29, 2009

Dub please let me make clear what I am getting at:

You stated:

"this MP has lived in israel and is familiar with everything there is to know about the zionist movement since he's been part of and is part of zionist organizations. he also had a family member who was killed by the nazis during the holocaust. he has studied the situation and has written about the situation."

All those things explain his direct interest in the issue but do not make them any more valid then those Israelis or Jews like me who have lived in Israel, are familiar with the Zionist movement and also had family memvers killed by the Nazis during the holocaust and have studied the situation and written about it as I and many other Jews and Israelis have.

More to the point he doesn't get automatic brownie points for virtue or morality then I would or anyone else with the above characteristics. Your comments imply the above gives him automatic superiority then others because of the above. No they do not. They may explain his EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT to certain issues which motivate his beliefs, but nothing else.

The validity of what he says like what I say or anyone else says comes from its contents and not who we are. I would suggest Logic, objective reasoning, corroborated indisputable evidence of facts and statements go into making a human's words credible and doing what you do, i.e., tossing their heritage about is not only patronizing and exploitative, but misses the point entirely and that is clear in the way you presumed he has somehow some moral superiority over me or non Jews who disagree with him.

You stated:

"i would think he's more qualified to speak about the situation than many of us, including you."

The above comment reflects the fact that you assumed I do not have the same qualities he has which I do. It also assumes they make him more qualified then someone who does not. Of course they don't. They may make him more emotionally involved but not necessarily more qualified.

Let me put it to you in even simpler terms to get my point across, I need not have cancer to treat it. The fact that I have cancer will not make me more qualified to treat it either.

You stated:

"so in some ways it doesn't matter that he's a jew but it does in the instance above? you need to stay consistent with your beliefs."

No its not me being inconsistent, its you. You are assigning him an inconsistent standard of credibility you don't apply to others. That is what is inconsistent. I am the one being consistent and that is precisely why I challenge you because your reasoning stereotypes credibility as being defined by one's religion or heritage. For me it is inconsistent to say its racist to do this, but then on the other hand its o.k. to use this racist standard if you agree with the person's opinions which you do.

Please. If this man instead of stating the opinions he does states the exact opposite would you be saying he must be listened to and has credibility and you can't question it? Of course not. You write such people off as "Zionists" and unfair Israelis or in my case Jews with a blind prejudice towards Israel right?

In regards to this comment;

"there is nothing wrong with criticizing injustice. just because he is a jew, it doesn't mean that he should blind himself with nationalism."

what you in fact have stated is;

"there is nothing wrong with criticizing Israel...."

of course not.

But you have also stated;

"...just because he is a Jew (its spelled with a capital J and here's a hint, you may wish to use the word "Jewish", Jew is one of those words that we Jewish people question now since it has been too often used in a derogatory context)it doesn't mean he should blind himself with nationalism".

The above comment is bullshit. Why does his being Jewish need you to lecture him on nationalism? That assumption that you can lecture Jews on nationalism is based on your stereotype that Jews simply because we are Jews are blind to nationalism. That Sir is a stereotype and why I am challenging it. You are in no position to lecture any Jew as to their vision of nationalism any different then you are to lecture a Muslim or Christian or anyone else.

You assume our being Jewish automatically brings with it beliefs as to nationalism and Zionism. That is based on your lack of understanding of how we identify with our collective identity and express it whether it be through universal sufferage like other ethnic groups or simply through culture or religious expression or perhaps art.

I do not see you singling out any other race groups for your lecture and that is why I challenged it. You are bringing one's Jewish identity into your discussions criticizing Israeli policies and making assumptions about people as Jews that are quite frankly cliched stereotypes.

You are a classic example of someone who first looks to see whether you agree with someone's opinion, then work backwords to justify their opinion using whatever it is you think can be exploited. You would never engage in this same standard to say the same thing about Jews who support Israel which Sir would be the consistent thing to do, on the contrary you have set up a double standard and suggest Jews are automatially credible because they are Jewish when they critique Israel but not automatically credible when they are Jewish if they support Israel.

That Sir is as bullshit to me as stereotyping Muslims based on their perceived common political beliefs simply because they are Muslim or doing the same with any other ethnic or religious group.

Rue · January 29, 2009

in the movie schindler's list, there is a scene that i will never forget. it's a scene where a group of jews... germans...yelling at the jews to leave or to die. in one instance, a german child ran up to a jewish woman and pulled on her clothes and then kicked her....i've seen similar acts done by jewish settlers to the palestinians in the west bank. ..there is one footage i remember seeing why aren't you speaking against these things?

For the exact same reason you only speak out about the above but nothing else either.

I challenge your statement for these reasons;

1-you engage in the anti-semitic canard of invoking the memory of the holocaust for political partisan purposes, i.e. of suggesting the alleged offensive behaviour of Israeli settlers can be referred to in a manner which suggests all Jews and Israelis are to be held to a different standard then other human beings because their relatives may have been victims of the holocaust;

2-your comments are deliberately selective- i.e., they are referred to infer they are the only acts of idiocy or hatred in the Middle East, you remain silent of course on what we also know, that intolerance and hostility is shown in the Middle East by Jews against Jews, Jews against Muslims, Muslims against Jews, Muslims against Muslims, Muslims against non Muslims, Jews against non Jews, on and on;

3-your comments necessarily play on emotions to incite people to be angry and resent not just specific Israeli settlers but all Israelis and all Jews;

4-you base your conclusions not on first hand experience but "fim" footage, i.e., footage that may not show the full context of events that happened but like you selected only those incidents or visions the person taking the footage found necessary to promote their political views and biases as to the conflict.

Life is far different when you are physically at the site of the alleged conflict and can view its full context. The distance and proximity of where you sit and the medium from which you make your conclusions is necessarily distorted.

You are a classic case of someone who forms their opinion, then looks for things you think will then validate it. Its self-fullfilling. You see only that which you want to see.

For those of us who have lived in that part of the world and been on the West Bank, in Gaza, in Israel, in Syriam in Jordan, in Egypt, in Lebanon what we have seen are people of many categories engaging in intolerance.

That Sir is why I would suggest some of us unlike you do not define the Middle East in simplistic one sided black and white emotional tones. The only colour we remember is the colour of blood and the demon we saw was a human that had no distinct characteristics although I would if pushed say when I saw it at its most ugliest it often was male and had a beard but other then that unlike you I did not find it so easy to define and identify and I doubt very much you would either if you were there on the ground and took the time to see just some of the many shapes it takes.

I would also suggest if you saw the above up front with someone shooting at you you would know it did not happen in isolation but as part of a far greater complex chain reaction of violence where all sides to the conflict are suspect.

For some of us your attempt to manipulate emotion to incite hatred against Israelis means nothing just as it would mean nothing if you engaged in the same exercise against Palestinians.

We feel nothing when people like you try exploit anger and emotion to incite people to "side" with you.

You could just as easily burn a cross on a lawn or stand with a pitch fork and burning torch screaming for the death of the demon you think you see like some old black and white Frankenstein movie.

You scream out Frankenstein is evil. That is clear.

For me he is not the only ugly monster I see.

dub · January 29, 2009

So you think women and children are legitimate targets?

not at all dancer. just like i don't think targeting the gaza strip by shelling streets and buildings, knowing that women and children will be killed is legitimate.

however, you should know and perhaps even acknowledge that there is a big difference between targeting illegal settlements and settlers, who are on your land, created and funded by the occupying government and targeting people inside israel. especially when these settlers are known to attack the locals and their farms frequently. have you looked into the treatment of the palestinians by the settlers? probably not.

settler attacks on palestinians

Edited January 29, 2009 by dub