Israel clears... Israel

[dre]

So what do you refer to them as?

I refer to them as irrelevant to both your silly claim and to this conversation. If you dont understand why, then its impossible for anybody to ever explain it to you. Besides I already tried the last 5 times you trotted out this abysmal bit of intellectual dishonesty and logical fallacy.

Explaining basic logic to you is just too damn tedious... Its a little like trying to fill a 40 gallon drum with an eyedropper.

[DogOnPorch]

History does not begin when you say it does. Both the Mufti and Arafat (uncle & nephew) are relevant to today's situation.

Edited October 29, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[dre]

Well, since you're going to be pulling the 'war crimes' card here, thus suggesting that international law and the will of the UN are relevant, I expect you to be consistent, and not dismiss the UN as irrelevant, and disregard international law as unreasonable in future discussions.

I will certainly explain my justification of 'war crimes', just as soon as you acknowledge that international law is relevant and should be adhered to, since that is the premise of your argument.

If on the other hand, you don't feel that international law or the UN are relevant, then there is really no need for me to defend the position.

To be fair Morris isnt the only one that cites international law when its convenient and ignore it when its not. Its a common tactic for those that apologize for the illegal acts by both sides.

The problem of course is that only way a person with more than about 70 IQ can support the actions of either side in the middle east conflict is by being profoundly dishonest with both themselves and others. Which is why the Israel/Palestine topic generates many of the worst online discussions in the history of the internet.

[DogOnPorch]

To be fair Morris isnt the only one that cites international law when its convenient and ignore it when its not. Its a common tactic for those that apologize for the illegal acts by both sides.

The problem of course is that only way a person with more than about 70 IQ can support the actions of either side in the middle east conflict is by being profoundly dishonest with both themselves and others. Which is why the Israel/Palestine topic generates many of the worst online discussions in the history of the internet.

M.Dancer and I aren't the ones taking the magic marker to the lines of history you feel don't mesh-up with your view of the situation.

[dre]

M.Dancer and I aren't the ones taking the magic marker to the lines of history you feel don't mesh-up with your view of the situation.

Are you a complete and total idiot? Thats exactly what I just said...

[DogOnPorch]

Are you a complete and total idiot? Thats exactly what I just said...

You're the 'total idiot' denying historical facts.

[M.Dancer]

Well, since you're going to be pulling the 'war crimes' card here, thus suggesting that international law and the will of the UN are relevant, I expect you to be consistent, and not dismiss the UN as irrelevant, and disregard international law as unreasonable in future discussions.

I will certainly explain my justification of 'war crimes', just as soon as you acknowledge that international law is relevant and should be adhered to, since that is the premise of your argument.

If on the other hand, you don't feel that international law or the UN are relevant, then there is really no need for me to defend the position.

I am talking about the Geneva convention , not the UN or any other debating society.

So let me rephrase..why do you justify Hamas breaking the Geneva convention and endangering the lives of Palestinians? How can you have the audacity to criticise Israel for killing civilians when it is the crimes of Hamas that put them in danger in the first place?

[dre]

You're the 'total idiot' denying historical facts.

[DogOnPorch]

So what else do you deny happened? The Holocaust? WW2?

[DogOnPorch]

Oh that's right...you're the one who claims Arab anti-Semitism exists because of water.

[KeyStone]

I am talking about the Geneva convention , not the UN or any other debating society.

So let me rephrase..why do you justify Hamas breaking the Geneva convention and endangering the lives of Palestinians? How can you have the audacity to criticise Israel for killing civilians when it is the crimes of Hamas that put them in danger in the first place?

Let me see if I understand this.

Firstly, you seem to be cherry picking through international law, suggesting that the Geneva conventions are important, but perhaps some others aren't relevant. Would that be an accurate description?

Secondly, it seems that you don't deny that some innocent Palestinians are killed directly by Israelis.

But you blame the terrorists for the deaths of the innocents, not the people who actually killed them.

And your reasoning is that the terrorists broke the Geneva conventions, and therefore Israel has the right to kill innocent people in their pursuit of these terrorists? Is that about right?

So, it's kind of like a cop chasing a bank robber on a high-speed chase. If a family of five dies as a result of the high-speed chase, it's the fault of the bank robber and the police don't have to assume any responsibility? Would you say that's a fair analogy? If not, what are the differences?

[dre]

I am talking about the Geneva convention , not the UN or any other debating society.

So let me rephrase..why do you justify Hamas breaking the Geneva convention and endangering the lives of Palestinians? How can you have the audacity to criticise Israel for killing civilians when it is the crimes of Hamas that put them in danger in the first place?

I am talking about the Geneva convention , not the UN or any other debating society.

You cant divorce those two things (the GC, and the UN) in that way. And the Geneva Conventions dont apply to Hamas. If you want the concepts in a multi lateral treaty to apply to entities that did not sign it then a UN Resolution is required.

The Geneva Conventions are multilateral, international treaties. This means that they bind only those nation-states that have signed, ratified, and deposited their ratification with the United Nations. When a country such as the United States or Iraq signs and ratifies the Geneva Conventions, it agrees that all of those individuals under its control — military and civilian leaders, as well as soldiers in the field, in the air, and on the sea — are bound by the Conventions’ mandates.

In other words the Geneva convention is only binding on Israel... its not binding on Hamas in a legal context. In any case, I think it SHOULD be applied by force on Hamas, the plo, and everyone else over there. Individuals responsible for attacks on civilians on Israeli proper should be arrested and frog-marched in front of a tribunal, as should Israeli leaders responsible for allowing civilian settlements to be built in the occupied territories. Id put international arrest warrants out for the whole lot of em... arrest, frog-march, repeat. Once enough of the unsubordinates are rotting in prisons maybe there might be some progress over there.

[dre]

--

Edited October 29, 2010 by dre

[dre]

So what else do you deny happened? The Holocaust? WW2?

[DogOnPorch]

Moon Landings, too?

[Jack Weber]

If you don't think NAZI sympathy is at least a portion of what is at the heart of Arab hatred of Jews then you are a fool...

Ba'Athism,is in part,based on National Socialist policies.Ba'Athist's in the '30's and '40's cheered on the policies of the NAZI's from afar.It was Ba'Athist countries that started the war with Israel in '48,and that ethos has coalesced around elements of Islam over the years.This is what provides some convenient cover for what we are really talking about in the Middle East...Namely,Islamofascism...

[KeyStone]

If you don't think NAZI sympathy is at least a portion of what is at the heart of Arab hatred of Jews then you are a fool...

Ba'Athism,is in part,based on National Socialist policies.Ba'Athist's in the '30's and '40's cheered on the policies of the NAZI's from afar.It was Ba'Athist countries that started the war with Israel in '48,and that ethos has coalesced around elements of Islam over the years.This is what provides some convenient cover for what we are really talking about in the Middle East...Namely,Islamofascism...

Wow, Elongated man couldn't make that much of a stretch.

So, there is some connection between the Nazis and the Baathists in the 30's and 40's and therefore it is Nazi sympathy that is the heart of Arab hatred of Jews? Yes, that makes sense - it has nothing go do with millions of people being displaced, or the thousands of dead Arabs lost over the past decades of fighting or the occupation.

You are talking about something that is eighty years old. I'm pretty sure that Germany, Japan and Italy all have slightly stronger ties to the Nazis. Do you apply the same hatred of Jews to them as well, still, such that all their actions are measured through an Islamofascist lens, or does this only apply to Arabs?

[dre]

If you don't think NAZI sympathy is at least a portion of what is at the heart of Arab hatred of Jews then you are a fool...

Ba'Athism,is in part,based on National Socialist policies.Ba'Athist's in the '30's and '40's cheered on the policies of the NAZI's from afar.It was Ba'Athist countries that started the war with Israel in '48,and that ethos has coalesced around elements of Islam over the years.This is what provides some convenient cover for what we are really talking about in the Middle East...Namely,Islamofascism...

[dre]

Wow, Elongated man couldn't make that much of a stretch.

So, there is some connection between the Nazis and the Baathists in the 30's and 40's and therefore it is Nazi sympathy that is the heart of Arab hatred of Jews? Yes, that makes sense - it has nothing go do with millions of people being displaced, or the thousands of dead Arabs lost over the past decades of fighting or the occupation.

You are talking about something that is eighty years old. I'm pretty sure that Germany, Japan and Italy all have slightly stronger ties to the Nazis. Do you apply the same hatred of Jews to them as well, still, such that all their actions are measured through an Islamofascist lens, or does this only apply to Arabs?

The Nazis also invented a time machine, and went back to the beginning of the conflict to the late 1800's and early 1900's when the area was under Ottoman rule, and jews and arabs were already at each others throats.

Those wild and crazy Nazis

[jbg]

So democracy=good, non-democracy=bad. Therefore Israel=good.

Is that your logic? If not, please explain the relevance.

If peace is what you want it's necessary to have parties who have authority to negotiate.

Allow me to paraphrase. Palestinian militants should make it easy for the IDF to track them down and kill them after they launch rockets. If they do not, Israel should have the right to kill as many civilians as it needs to, as long as they are 'trying' to kill the terrorists.

Basically that's how it works. If war is fought between competing armies (think Battle of the Bulge or other WW II battles) civilians are a lot more likely to be spared than if war is fought by people who are dressed in civilian clothes, fight from civilian areas and melt into civilian populations. Fighting cowardly terrorists asymetrical warriors, you're implying, must result in loss to civilized countries?

Let's put that in a North American setting. Some black people killed a white woman. Therefore, the black people should identify themselves, so we can punish them. If they do not, we have the right to demolish an entire area where black people live. If innocent black people die in the process, it is the fault of the black killers.

That isn't remotely applicable to this situation.

So, you are suggesting that if People A have superior military to People B, People B should not have any rights or recourse if People A do not treat them fairly.

So you're saying inferior military capacity gives a right to murder at random?

Do you know that Israel and the US blocked a UN resolution to investigate the conditions in Palestine?

Do you know that Israel blocked all media during the most recent incursion into Palestine?

What options do you think they have when all normal channels of change are blocked by Israel?

Would you want the U.N. to run around "investigating" conditions in Nunavut?

As JFK said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable"

We know full well that Israel is mightier, but the Arab people have a proud, defiant spirit, and they will fight to the death against impossible odds rather than accept perceived injustice.

If you really want peace:

1) Make peaceful revolution possible.

2) Administer collective punishment and rewards in a transparent manner such that all of Palestine works against missile attacks

3) Stop allowing the extremists to undermine the peace process and stay the course.

So you're saying civilized countries need to tolerate revolutions?

Edited October 29, 2010 by jbg

[dre]

If peace is what you want it's necessary to have parties who have authority to negotiate.

Basically that's how it works. If war is fought between competing armies (think Battle of the Bulge or other WW II battles) civilians are a lot more likely to be spared than if war is fought by people who are dressed in civilian clothes, fight from civilian areas and melt into civilian populations. Fighting cowardly terrorists asymetrical warriors, you're implying, must result in loss to civilized countries?

That isn't remotely applicable to this situation.

So you're saying inferior military capacity gives a right to murder at random?

Would you want the U.N. to run around "investigating" conditions in Nunavut?

So you're saying civilized countries need to tolerate revolutions?

Would you want the U.N. to run around "investigating" conditions in Nunavut?

Huh? Nanavut is soveriegn Canadian soil...

So you're saying civilized countries need to tolerate revolutions?

A revolution is an uprising by a nations own citizens... not resistance by the the inhabitants of a foreign land youre trying to plunder and colonize.

[jbg]

Huh? Nanavut is soveriegn Canadian soil...

If the Palestinians don't smarten up Israel will indeed stretch from the Jordan to the Meditteranean.

A revolution is an uprising by a nations own citizens... not resistance by the the inhabitants of a foreign land youre trying to plunder and colonize.

Israel is hardly "plundering" either Gaza or the West Bank. There isn't much to plunder. And as for colonization, if the Arab governments had accepted land for peace instead of starting the 1973 War and subtlely supported terrorism the West Bank would have been in Arab hands by now. Maybe not Jerusalem but everything else.

[dre]

If the Palestinians don't smarten up Israel will indeed stretch from the Jordan to the Meditteranean.

Israel is hardly "plundering" either Gaza or the West Bank. There isn't much to plunder. And as for colonization, if the Arab governments had accepted land for peace instead of starting the 1973 War and subtlely supported terrorism the West Bank would have been in Arab hands by now. Maybe not Jerusalem but everything else.

Yeah it is plundering the west bank for water. And nothing that palestinians could have done in the last 50 years would have resulted in Israel ending the occupation. Theyre there because they want land and water, end of story.

[DogOnPorch]

The Nazis also invented a time machine, and went back to the beginning of the conflict to the late 1800's and early 1900's when the area was under Ottoman rule, and jews and arabs were already at each others throats.

Those wild and crazy Nazis

Shows what you know. The trouble started in 1919 after the Mufti declared himself leader of all Arabs in the Levant and stated his intention to wage war on the Jews and Zionism. The first big pogrom took place in March 1920. The British tried to temper the situation by making him Grand Mufti (1921) and eventually bringing forth the White Paper of 1939 which severly limited Jewish immigration to the Mandate as well as Jews ability to possess weapons. None of this reigned-in the Mufti who continued to aggitate both against the British and the Jews of the area. It is about this time that Haganah, Palmach, the Irgun, et al were formed.

His connection to Nazi Germany didn't occur until 1937 when the Mufti contacted the German consulate in Palestine seeking support from Nazi Germany re: the Jews. This triggered his meeting with his soon to be close friend Eichmann who recruited the Mufti into the Abwehr as a counterintelligence and sabotage agent in British Palestine. When the British discovered an arms shipment from Germany to the Mufti, he was forced to flee to Iraq where he fostered an attempted pro-Nazi revolt against the British there (1941). When that failed, he again fled; this time to Germany itself where he met Hitler and Himmler who made him in charge of the Nazi's Arab Bureau broadcasting to the Middle-East.

Himmler was so impressed by the Mufti that he recruited him into the SS and gave him the rank of Obergruppenfuhrer plus a large villa in Oybin in order to raise all Muslim SS divisions and their support units. Oybin was close to the action...so to speak. The 13th SS Handshar is the most infamous of these units, formed only for anti-partisan duties and implementing the Final Solution in the Balkans.

When it came to the Mufti's attention that his friend Eichmann intended to allow Axis minor powers in the Balkans to settle their Jewish 'problem' by deportation rather than death, he had the policy reversed. Instead Eichmann shipped the Jews in the Balkans to Poland for 'special treatment' in the death camps...Auschwitz-Birkenau in particular which recieved the bulk of the human cargo. The Mufti even went so far as to gas a load himself during one of his tours of the camps...though some sources claim he only watched through the peep-hole. Some 500-750 thousand Jews died because of this (1944). Another plan by Eichmann to exchange 5000 Jewish children for Axis POWs was also thwarted by the Mufti who also had them all murdered in the camps.

Briefly imprisoned after the war, the Mufti escaped from Allied hands...back to the Middle East along with numerous other Nazis who sought safe-haven from the noose. This allowed him to lead the call to war with Israel in 1948 with his 'secret army' plus the help of numerous other Arab nations in the area. After the failure in 1948, he lost some of his influences amongst fellow Arabs but still managed to assassinate his old rival Abdullah I of Jordan for trying to make peace with Israel (1951). He 'retired' 'round about 1964 when his nephew Yasser Arafat took over the helm. Died in 1974 of natural causes...long enough, at least, to see yet another failed attempt to drive Israel into the sea.

Edited October 30, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[dre]

Shows what you know. The trouble started in 1919 after the Mufti declared himself leader of all Arabs in the Levant and stated his intention to wage war on the Jews and Zionism.

Ummmm... that was about 25 years after the trouble started. But even if that was true it wouldnt support your silly assertion.

The simple reason youre yelping out "NAZI!, NAZI!" in a thread about Israel investigating itself is this...

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1