Israel's government is turning into a settlement

[DogOnPorch]

Brutes???

Allende,Lamumba,and,Mossadiq were brutes??

As opposed to Pinochet,Sese Seko,and,The Shah???

Nevermind the litany of other Fascist dictators the State Department propped up through the World Bank and the WACL...

I realize this was done out of political expediency,however,how dis any of this forward the stated cause of feedom and democracy?

Jack...you're being relative...the planet isn't run like that. In most of those sh*tholes it was a choice between a fascist and a commie...and your not allowed to pick commie.

[Bonam]

You seemed to forget the democracy part...

Different regimes, different buzzwords. The point is they perceived themselves as the good guys and the US as the bad guys, and advertised based on this perception. The USSR proclaimed themselves to be all that is right and good in the world no less than (and perhaps more than) the US did or does. The level of truth in such claims is up to the observer to judge.

Your point that the USSR was somehow more "honest" because they didn't proclaim to hold dear some ideals as the US does is completely without merit.

Of course,you think busting unions legislative is an excercise in "freedom"...

Keep your obsession with union busting to the relevant threads, thanks.

[Jack Weber]

Jack...you're being relative...the planet isn't run like that. In most of those sh*tholes it was a choice between a fascist and a commie...and your not allowed to pick commie.

I don't pick Commies...I despise them as much as I despise Fascists...

But just don't claim one is a superpower that is spreading "freedom" and "democracy" when the opposite was precisely the case...

And in most of those shiteholes,there were democratic options,but democracy was'nt speedy enough...Plus,it does'nt really assist the goals of the "empire"...

Fascists are easy to pay off..Give'em money,guns,and,free reign to kill any and all opposition (including democratic movements that get labled "Marxist" to justify the killing) and they're pretty happy...

[Jack Weber]

Different regimes, different buzzwords. The point is they perceived themselves as the good guys and the US as the bad guys, and advertised based on this perception. The USSR proclaimed themselves to be all that is right and good in the world no less than (and perhaps more than) the US did or does. The level of truth in such claims is up to the observer to judge.

Your point that the USSR was somehow more "honest" because they didn't proclaim to hold dear some ideals as the US does is completely without merit.

Keep your obsession with union busting to the relevant threads, thanks.

I'll bet the folks cosigned to labour camps in Siberia felt differently??

How 'bout the forced famines in the Ukraine??(amongst many other places)

Erich Honecker's "German Democratic Republic" replete with a concrete wall and the STASI??

Yeah...They were obviously spreading democracy and freedom...

And I'll keep pointing out your obsession with free market/faux freedom anywhere I please,kiddo... freedom

Edited February 22, 2011 by Jack Weber

[jbg]

Sure, ignore history, it's all irrelevant.

On this one I must part company with my normal agreement with your posts.

As DogOnPorch has so correctly pointed out the opposition to Israel's formation was led by a despicable crew of Jew and West-haters. The Mufti of Jerusalem, the forerunner to today's Palestinian Authority, was deeply aligned with the Nazis.

As far as the "who was in the Middle East first" argument, I don't buy it. The Hebrews and various other groups roamed the area during nomadic days. The Romans put an end to that. History has been full of human movements and exoduses, some forced, some voluntary. If everyone went back to their place of origin, the Great Rift Valley of Africa would be a very crowded place.

The Jews clearly needed a place from which to move away from Europe. Despite Europe's artsy beauty, of its architecture, paintings, sculpture and music, it was and is a xenophobic place prone to wars and persecutions. The very untenability of the Jews' position was shown during the years after the Jews were granted formal civil rights and formal equality. The Dreyfus Affair was but one of many episodes. In Germany, in 1888 when a new Kaiser took the throne, his first statement was to assure the Jews of their safety. Would that have been necessary if the Jews' status were truly that of equal Germans?

The U.S. in 1921 and Canada in 1935 slammed their doors to Jewish immigration, at a time when Europe was sliding from the fire to the frying pan. Palestine was largely a wasteland until the Turks began selling land to the incoming Zionist settlers. After the British took over, they wrestled with the problem of creating a modicum of justice for both Jews and Arabs. The New York Times article below, from the November 13, 1938 issue (link, PM me for PDF if you can't get it and want full article) highlights the dilemna. Excerpts below:

PALESTINE CASE IS REOPENED

British Have a Difficult Task to Adjust the Rival Claims of the Jews and Arabs

LONDON, Nov. 12.-While the Nazis this week were staging the most furious of a long series of pogroms, which will add tens of thousands to the stream of dispossessed refugees that Germany is casting upon other countries, publication in London of the latest report on Palestine showed the whole question of a Jewish national home there was again in the melting pot.

One elaborate blue book has canceled out another. The Woodhead commission has killed the partition scheme of the Peel commission. The British Government, which had adopted the plan for separate States in Palestine, now rejects it, purposing to administer the mandate of the whole territory pending a general conference of Jews, Arabs and British. Thus the whole issue is back where it was before the Royal Commission studied it last year. Jews driven from Germany do not yet know to what extent they will be permitted to live in Palestine, where the Arabs forcibly are resisting their influx.

******************************

Work of the Jews

In Palestine Jews have created a modern community in a backward land, thus raising the standard of life for themselves as well as for Arabs, who now live far better than their fathers did.

But some Arabs bitterly resent this achievement, which hurts their .. pride, so they rebel all the more furiously because it is against what seems a more competent and more advanced race, particularly since it is backed by foreign capital provided by Jews in Europe and America.

To enforce fair play amid such racial bitterness, to permit Jewish immigration, according to the meaning of the Balfour declaration in favor of a Jewish national home in Palestine while safeguarding the Arabs' interests-as she is obliged to do-is a difficult, perhaps impossible, task for Britain. She assumed it chiefly because, for speaking the same language-even strategic reasons, she desired keep a grip on Palestine.

Latter material posted elsewhwere by me (link).

Thus, my point is that the Jews realistically had two choices; death, or Israel.

[Bonam]

I'll bet the folks cosigned to labour camps in Siberia felt differently??

How 'bout the forced famines in the Ukraine??(amongst many other places)

Erich Honecker's "German Democratic Republic" replete with a concrete wall and the STASI??

Yeah...They were obviously spreading democracy and freedom...

As you often do, you missed the point completely. Oh well, I tried. You may now return to your regularly scheduled nonsense.

[Jack Weber]

As you often do, you missed the point completely. Oh well, I tried. You may now return to your regularly scheduled nonsense.

I only follow your exceptional lead,kiddo...

[jbg]

I guess substantive posts are ignored in favor of juvenalia and ranting.

[Jack Weber]

I guess substantive posts are ignored in favor of juvenalia and ranting.

Whatever you say....

[DogOnPorch]

I don't pick Commies...I despise them as much as I despise Fascists...

Well you wouldn't...but in the world of realpolitik you might be faced with a one-or-the-other type of choice.

But just don't claim one is a superpower that is spreading "freedom" and "democracy" when the opposite was precisely the case...

The USA is selling the USA brand. I think you're more than aware that what's in the movie trailer isn't always indicative of the actual movie.

And in most of those shiteholes,there were democratic options,but democracy was'nt speedy enough...Plus,it does'nt really assist the goals of the "empire"...

Perhaps. But, the USA took the Cold War very seriously as did the Russians and Chinese. Waiting around for liberal democracy to kick-in wasn't really an option.

Fascists are easy to pay off..Give'em money,guns,and,free reign to kill any and all opposition (including democratic movements that get labled "Marxist" to justify the killing) and they're pretty happy...

Yesterday's Commie is now today's Fascist. Mubarak was the Soviet's pet no matter US pay-offs.

[Jack Weber]

Well you wouldn't...but in the world of realpolitik you might be faced with a one-or-the-other type of choice.

The USA is selling the USA brand. I think you're more than aware that what's in the movie trailer isn't always indicative of the actual movie.

Perhaps. But, the USA took the Cold War very seriously as did the Russians and Chinese. Waiting around for liberal democracy to kick-in wasn't really an option.

Yesterday's Commie is now today's Fascist. Mubarak was the Soviet's pet no matter US pay-offs.

I understand the expediency angle...It's the phony advertizing that's the problem!

The USA did sell the "USA brand"...Roberto D'Aubuisson,and the like,assisted in making sure of that...In other words,the trailer is'nt like the movie at all!!

By the way,the Soviet phony trailer applies to the Warsaw Pact,Ethipoia,Angola etc...

Mubarak was a disciple of Saddat,who was a disciple of Abdel Gamal Nasser...Nasser was a Pan-Arabist and a keen follower and disciple of European Fascist Nationalism (particularily NAZIsm)..

Sideing with the Soviets was simply "fun and games"..

[DogOnPorch]

Sure..."game" being the key word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wargaming

Edited February 22, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[Jack Weber]

Sure..."game" being the key word.

Sure...It's all a game to these folks because most of them never really have to suffer for their actions...

Unless your name is Mubarak..Or Allende,Lamumba...etc...

[DogOnPorch]

Sure...It's all a game to these folks because most of them never really have to suffer for their actions...

Unless your name is Mubarak..Or Allende,Lamumba...etc...

Hey you with the pretty face...welcome to the human race...

---ELO

[jbg]

Or Allende,Lamumba...etc...

The problem of pointing to the fate of Lamumba, Allende, Mossadegh, Ortega, etc. is that in these countries, there was no democratic alternative (well Chile is an exception and Nixon no doubt a scoundrel in his own right). Since nature abhors a vacuum, either the West ropes down these parts of the world, or someone else does. When "someone else" does things tend to get real ugly real fast.

[DogOnPorch]

As DogOnPorch has so correctly pointed out the opposition to Israel's formation was led by a despicable crew of Jew and West-haters. The Mufti of Jerusalem, the forerunner to today's Palestinian Authority, was deeply aligned with the Nazis.

Yes indeed. The Mufti was personal friends with both Himmler and Eichmann and a high ranking officer in the SS, himself. His most notorious deed was the policy reversal regarding treatment of Jews in Axis Minor countries such as Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. Instead of letting the Jews leave via ship or through Turkey as those countries had planed, the Mufti convinced Eichmann to have them all shipped to Poland and death. Some tolls list the number of dead at over 750,000 Jews.

Edited February 22, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[Jonsa]

Jonsa, my response goes for you as well:

really? what about the fact that shamir, the israeli prime minister whose terrorist organization assassinated british envoy lord moyne, and swedish united nations peace mediator count folke-bernadotte in the 1940's?

are you justifying israeli terrorism or are you against it? lets be clear on this.

I don't justify it. I merely say that as far as discussing the contemporary conflict it is not relevant. Its an irrefutable historic fact.

what about other israeli/jewish terrorist groups and organizations, like meir kahane and the jewish defense league? regarded as one of the most active terrorist organizations in the 80's? what about gush emunim underground? lets not forget israeli prime minister, menachem begin the leader of the irgun terrorist organization?

Yes, the JDL was a terrorist organization and Kach is outlawed in Israel. Again, I fail to see the point you are trying to make.

[Jonsa]

Sure, ignore history, it's all irrelevant.

Let's see, you want me to beleive that jewish terrorism in the 1930s and 40's is relevant to the contemporary issues of this conflict? I am not ignoring historical fact. I am saying that that this terrorism became irrelevant when Israel was created, the terrorist organizations were disbanded and absorbed by the IDF and a democratic political process was installed. A political system where the former politically motivated terrorists could participate.

Actually the CIA gets the credit for Father of International Terrorism.

I am just going by history I lived thru. I'd luv a specific reference if you have it.

[bud]

Let's see, you want me to beleive that jewish terrorism in the 1930s and 40's is relevant to the contemporary issues of this conflict?

it isn't? really jonsa?

many jewish/israeli groups used terrorism to drive not only the british out but also the native palestinians. many of those who were part of the terrorist groups ended up becoming part of the israeli government and the military. this is pretty much the same as some of the palestinian groups. arafat, a supporter of terrorism became the biggest figure in palestinian quest for independence. hamas, best known for its suicide attacks became a serious political party who was actually voted in democratically by the palestinians. they have for the most part abandoned their old habits due to natural political evolution and of course from outside forces.

so you don't really see the relevance and the similarity between israel's method of creation and what the palestinians are going through? and you only feel like mentioning one side of the coin and choose to try to convince us that israel should not be part of the debate?

don't you see the I am not ignoring historical fact. I am saying that that this terrorism became irrelevant when Israel was created, the terrorist organizations were disbanded and absorbed by the IDF and a democratic political process was installed. A political system where the former politically motivated terrorists could participate.

so the terrorist attacks by palestinians will be okay once a palestinian state is created?

[DogOnPorch]

it isn't? really jonsa?

many jewish/israeli groups used terrorism to drive not only the british out but also the native palestinians. many of those who were part of the terrorist groups ended up becoming part of the israeli government and the military. this is pretty much the same as some of the palestinian groups. arafat, a supporter of terrorism became the biggest figure in palestinian quest for independence. hamas, best known for its suicide attacks became a serious political party who was actually voted in democratically by the palestinians. they have for the most part abandoned their old habits due to natural political evolution and of course from outside forces.

so you don't really see the relevance and the similarity between israel's method of creation and what the palestinians are going through? and you only feel like mentioning one side of the coin and choose to try to convince us that israel should not be part of the debate?

so the terrorist attacks by palestinians will be okay once a palestinian state is created?

Amazing...you managed to not use the words Grand nor Mufti in your version of 'the facts'. He really is Santa Claus, apparently.

[GostHacked]

Let's see, you want me to beleive that jewish terrorism in the 1930s and 40's is relevant to the contemporary issues of this conflict? I am not ignoring historical fact. I am saying that that this terrorism became irrelevant when Israel was created, the terrorist organizations were disbanded and absorbed by the IDF and a democratic political process was installed. A political system where the former politically motivated terrorists could participate.

IT is relevant. It always has been relevant. If it is not, then once the Palestinians get their country, then everything they did before in terms of terrorism can be justified, as you are justifying jewish terrorism before Israel was created.

The problem here is that the Palestinians will never get a country of their own. Israel has systematically made sure that this is the case. They are occupiers plain and simple. The Jews may have the right to self determination, but now it is clearly at the expense of the Palestinian people. The jewish settlements in the occupied territories is still on going. Jerusalem annexed to say it is one belonging to Israel. And we wonder why terror attacks happen on Israel from Palestine.

I am just going by history I lived thru. I'd luv a specific reference if you have it.

To easy.

Iran-Contra Affair.

Current war in Afghanistan (to restore opium production for western pharmaceutical companies)

Not to mention the CIA funded the Muhajedeen, which spawned Al=Queda.

Both the CIA and MI5 funded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt which resulted in Sadat's Assassination.

[Jonsa]

it isn't? really jonsa?

many jewish/israeli groups used terrorism to drive not only the british out but also the native palestinians. many of those who were part of the terrorist groups ended up becoming part of the israeli government and the military. this is pretty much the same as some of the palestinian groups. arafat, a supporter of terrorism became the biggest figure in palestinian quest for independence. hamas, best known for its suicide attacks became a serious political party who was actually voted in democratically by the palestinians. they have for the most part abandoned their old habits due to natural political evolution and of course from outside forces.

so you don't really see the relevance and the similarity between israel's method of creation and what the palestinians are going through? and you only feel like mentioning one side of the coin and choose to try to convince us that israel should not be part of the debate?

Really.

Jewish terrorism in 1948 is not relevant today.

It would be pretty much the same for the palestinians if Arafat had actually stopped active support for terrorist activities, but he didn't. Educate yourself about Hamas. As a Islamist organization they have always had political, charitable and military wings.

Hamas has largely abondoned tactics that failed to work and got them nothing but disproportionate retaliation. (As an aside the day the IDF iced Yassin was a good day)

Now, you want to discuss whether the palestinians have the right to resist occupation? Okay, I happen to strongly agree that they do. The fact that they have suffered under corrupt and inept leadership, stupid strategies, pitifully celebrated incredibly "expensive" petty victories, been pawns of their arab/muslim brothers, have continually missed opportunities for the future by wallowing in the past, created a culture of hatred and adulation of death, those things ARE relevant.

Somehow you and your compadres what to establish some moral equivalence at best or at least excuse the more aggregious resistance/terrorist activities of the palestinians. I think this is also irrelevant to the real issues at hand.

And as long as people wish to engage in a debate over the actions of bygone generations, the focus can't be on the present.

so the terrorist attacks by palestinians will be okay once a palestinian state is created?

Please explain to me why you think "irrelevant" and "okay" are equivalent.

[Jonsa]

IT is relevant. It always has been relevant. If it is not, then once the Palestinians get their country, then everything they did before in terms of terrorism can be justified, as you are justifying jewish terrorism before Israel was created.

I don't have to justify jewish terrorism. Their goals were achieved and that fact in an of itself "justifies" their action. You know that whole "to the victor....." thing.

And on the day that palestinians claim victory with the establishment of their own country, you can bet that their "terrorists" will be lauded and their actions "justified". That's the way it works in this world.

The problem here is that the Palestinians will never get a country of their own. Israel has systematically made sure that this is the case. They are occupiers plain and simple. The Jews may have the right to self determination, but now it is clearly at the expense of the Palestinian people. The jewish settlements in the occupied territories is still on going. Jerusalem annexed to say it is one belonging to Israel. And we wonder why terror attacks happen on Israel from Palestine.

Well, I agree that Israel has been active in stymieing Palestinian national endeavours. But why just point to the Israelis in this regard? All of the arab world has contributed to the situation. Arafat and his gang of thugs and all the other gangs of thugs running around the territories have contributed to the situation. The UN has contributed to the situation. And sure as hell the palestinians have contributed mightly to sabatoging their own national aspirations.

I also agree that the Israelis are occupiers of the WB and Gaza and Golan. I also agree that this occupation and subsequent "facts on the ground" annexation are at the expense of the palestinians.

So? You want to debate if jewish terrorist are relevant or perhaps if the Grand Mufti really was a Nazi (NOT). I'll grant its of historical relevance, but I'd rather debate the really relevant issues of the contemporary situation.

To easy.

Iran-Contra Affair.

Current war in Afghanistan (to restore opium production for western pharmaceutical companies)

Not to mention the CIA funded the Muhajedeen, which spawned Al=Queda.

Both the CIA and MI5 funded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt which resulted in Sadat's Assassination.

those examples are long after Arafat and his gang of thugs began international operations.

So He still be da daddy.

[jbg]

The problem here is that the Palestinians will never get a country of their own. Israel has systematically made sure that this is the case. They are occupiers plain and simple. The Jews may have the right to self determination, but now it is clearly at the expense of the Palestinian people. The jewish settlements in the occupied territories is still on going. Jerusalem annexed to say it is one belonging to Israel. And we wonder why terror attacks happen on Israel from Palestine.

Rather than repeat myself, I refer you to this thread (link) for my answer to you on this issue. I will add that the Palestinians have frittered away every opportunity to gain a state over the years and the Israelis, in fairness, could not be forced to wait indefinitely while the Palestinians alternatively vacillated and/or attacked them. The Arab countries and Palestinians refused to sit down at the bargaining table after the 1948 and 1967 debacles, as well as after 1973. They preferred to let war, terrorism and oil embargos do the talking.

[bud]

Really.

Jewish terrorism in 1948 is not relevant today.

i will tell you why it is.

because many of the pro-israeli supporters condemn the methods they themselves used in order to create their state. not only that, but jewish/israeli terrorism didn't stop after the 40's. as mentioned, one of the most active terrorist groups in the 80's was the jdl.

jewish/israeli terrorism has carried into 90's and into the new millennium. many acts committed by jewish settlers are considered terrorism. there has been numerous attacks by jewish settlers on palestinians and their properties.

It would be pretty much the same for the palestinians if Arafat had actually stopped active support for terrorist activities, but he didn't.

terrorism by these groups have mostly been a reaction to the brutal occupation which you have a hard time discussing. what you're also failing to bring up into the equation is the constant violations of international law. aka, war crimes committed by the israeli military.

Educate yourself about Hamas. As a Islamist organization they have always had political, charitable and military wings.

never said they didn't.

Now, you want to discuss whether the palestinians have the right to resist occupation? Okay, I happen to strongly agree that they do. The fact that they have suffered under corrupt and inept leadership, stupid strategies, pitifully celebrated incredibly "expensive" petty victories, been pawns of their arab/muslim brothers, have continually missed opportunities for the future by wallowing in the past, created a culture of hatred and adulation of death, those things ARE relevant.

uh oh.

again.

you have elected not to mention the 'major' reasons for the failure for their struggles. when you have the majority of the western governments (not the people, but the governments) politically, suffocating the palestinians plead for justice and standing silent when documented war crimes are being committed by the occupier, (like the gaza strip), then we should take that into account.

this is all relevant.

israel's inability to accept a fair and just palestinian state is the main problem here. everything else is an accessory.

Somehow you and your compadres what to establish some moral equivalence at best or at least excuse the more aggregious resistance/terrorist activities of the palestinians. I think this is also irrelevant to the real issues at hand.

all i asked when this topic started in this thread was for you to acknowledge the terrorism committed by jews and israelis. you chose to use arafat, who has been dead for many years and you chose to name him as the father of terrorism, yet you failed to mention the other side.

this is called misinformation.

And as long as people wish to engage in a debate over the actions of bygone generations, the focus can't be on the present.

first of all, you brought up the past and arafat, who you believe to be the father of terrorism. so why not stop changing what your message is. here is what you said:

Pro palestinians ignore that fact that the PLO was formed to destroy Israel, and that Arafat was a terrorist and gangster

perhaps you should try to focus a little more on what you're trying to debate and how you conveniently change your tune when i called you on your comment about the formation of PLO and the history of palestinian terrorism.

second, the occupation did not start today and in order to have a healthy and honest debate, all information should be taken into consideration. any information that has to do with the formation of israel is relevant to the topic.