Israel's 10 year racist law anniversary

[bleeding heart]

What Indonesia did was not terrorism. It was brutality and murder, but unfortunately, not all that atypical among the third world dictators who were the norm back then (and not all that uncommon today). I'm not going to get into the morality or ethics involved in western states backing deplorable regimes like the Indonesians and many others except to say that whatever that was it was not terrorism. The West, collectively or individually, pursues relationships with nations regardless of how brutal those regimes are towards their people. And it tries to ensure those relationships are to its own advantage wherever possible. Thus it has interest in sometimes assisting other nations against mutual enemies.

Again, that is mere explanation, but in order to say that it still does not constitute terrorism. Terrorism is a specific action taken against innocent people to deliberately terrorize them or their governments into supporting or abandoning support for particular political aims and goals. Hijacking airliners is terrorism. What Hitler did to the Jews is not terrorism. And supporting regimes which are brutal against their people (most of the world until fairly recently) is also not terrorism.

It was certainly terrorism, of the "state terror" variety. Theirs was an institutional policy to terrorize the population, and therefore subdue recruitment to the resistance.

Rape was part of the policy, not just a gift to the rapists. Torture and dismemberment, and enforced starvation of large swaths of the populace.

Terrorism is the intentional targeting of civilians in order to achieve political ends.

Remember, the "War on terror" was not instituted by George W. Bush. It was instituted by Reagan. That he too was a terrorist supporter does not negate the truth of his pronouncements about the "evils of state terrorism."

Even if you believe, counter the very definition of terrorism, that it was not such, surely you agree that what the military and militias did was every bit as egregious as what you consider "terrorism"...and substantively worse than most, actually, if numbers of dead and suffering are the measurement.

Which they must be.

The rest of your post is so undefined as to be platitude, designed to acquit us of responsibility for what we have done.

Rather than use vague remarks about alliances with dictators--each of which is specific to itself, and different from the others--I am concentrating on what objectively was done.

For example, your reflex on this matter has caused you to speak about "mutual enemies"...so perhaps you can explain how the East Timorese were our "enemy"? They had nothing to us...they weren't even planning on joining the non-aligned nations, and were reaching out to the Western nations as their natural allies.

Of course, we preferred the fascist murderers over the democratic and independence-minded side of the equation. Quite dramatically in this case.

You deem them "enemy" because we played a part in killing them.

But that's entirely the fault of Indonesia and its coterie of gangster supporters--that's us. East Timor, in a relatively rare case, actually shares none of the blame.

Also, you unintentionally indict the involved Western nations more severely than I do, by conflating all alliances with autocrats as the same. But they're not the same, not even close.

For example, we could debate, and rationally, till the cows come home about support for men like Mubarak. But a strong case can be made that, even if he did use Western aid to repress his people, that was not the specific intent of the aid. I'm not justifying it; but it's different.

the reason Indonesia was sent arms, and the reason for the diplomatic activism, was precisely for the purpose of helping Suharto to do what he did.

That's a key point...and it's unjustifiable no matter how you paint it.

Except, as usual, to Commissars. And I doubt you yearn to be of their party.

Edited July 27, 2013 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

The problem I have is you're suggesting what the Indonesians did is terrorism. I don't agree. I don't think what Pol Pot did was terrorism either, or what Hitler did, or what Mao did or what Papa Doc Duvalier did.

The question is whether or not a foreign country has some moral responsibility to the citizens of another country which would cause it to do something which is not in its own best interests in order to help these foreign citizens. I know that our governments do a lot of international charity, but that's voluntary. Do nations have an actual moral duty to not act in the best interests of their own people by avoiding supporting a potential friend and ally because that friend and ally behaves with brutality towards their own people?

I'll ask you the same question I asked someone else:

If someone explicitly supports Hamas' terrorist behavior; supplies them with the weapons to carry it out, and then resupplies as needed; is fully aware of what it is doing; and uses propaganda and diplomatic machinations to ensure that no one interferes with Hamas's terrorist behavior...do you honestly not consider that to be outright support for murder, intentionally so? Do you not consider that other party to share in the blame of the consequent murders? I do.

Because that analogy, unlike most analogies, is actually quite precise.

That is just what happened.

What could you possibly gain from such apologetics, aside from holding on to cherished myths about the benign nature of Western power, a belief that is slightly more loony-tunes than the 9/11 truther movement?

Edited July 27, 2013 by bleeding heart

[DogOnPorch]

I didn't address your deflective, utterly irrelevant fact, that's true. I mean, it's not as if the US, UK et al didn't supply weapons for the express purpose of aiding the invasion and mass killings...that's not a debatable point (in fact not even debated) and is public record.

Perhaps you find too high the personal cost of openly admitting what you already know--that leading Western powers, most certainly the United States, have colluded full-throatedly in murderous behaviour, completely unjustifiable...up to and including the patented Evil Of The Day: terrorism.

It's a weakness that undergirds your rather unpleasant apologetics...which in any other scenario, you rightly ridicule.

Once again your response contains the soft bigotry of lowered expectations. What evil American ordered Indonesians and East Timorese to start engaging in murderous behaviour since they're incapable on their own? Who taught them to make guns? The Dutch?? Terrorists!!

[bleeding heart]

Once again your response contains the soft bigotry of lowered expectations. What evil American ordered Indonesians and East Timorese to start engaging in murderous behaviour since they're incapable on their own? Who taught them to make guns? The Dutch?? Terrorists!!

You're repeating that which has already been responded to.

I said nothing about anyone ordering the Indonesians to do anything.

And I like the way you talk about the murderous behavior of the East Timorese.... as a deflection. After all, it's our leaders who were supporting murder, rape and starvation....the victims of this behavior? Slightly less supportive of it..

Perhaps you think they're equal partners in atrocities.

After all, in any conflict, bad things are done "by both sides."

So it must be equal.

And maybe you'd like to expand on this a little...discuss the way the resistance was as bad as the fascist invaders?

meh.

[Scotty]

I'll ask you the same question I asked someone else:

If someone explicitly supports Hamas' terrorist behavior; supplies them with the weapons to carry it out, and then resupplies as needed; is fully aware of what it is doing; and uses propaganda and diplomatic machinations to ensure that no one interferes with Hamas's terrorist behavior...do you honestly not consider that to be outright support for murder, intentionally so? Do you not consider that other party to share in the blame of the consequent murders? I do.

Yes, I'd say, to a certain extent. On the other hand, the west supports the PLO. Does that make the west complicit in all the brutalities committed by PLO police etc.? I think you have to look at the larger goals, and the difficulties of picking and choosing among world nations which, by and large, do not show anything like the respect for human rights we do. Can we shun them all? And if we do nothing to hold up a given government, what form of government would topple it? Something better, or something worse, both for its own people and ours? I believe the support for Indonesia's regime was wrong, but I still don't equate those who supported it with the deliberate planning of and carrying out of attacks against civilians. I also believe any support for China's regime is wrong, but then again, I do understand the arguments which say you can't influence them unless you're on the inside.

I think western governments tend to want to do the best both for their own people and others around the world. I don't think terrorists have the same goals.

[DogOnPorch]

You're repeating that which has already been responded to.

I said nothing about anyone ordering the Indonesians to do anything.

And I like the way you talk about the murderous behavior of the East Timorese.... as a deflection. After all, it's our leaders who were supporting murder, rape and starvation....the victims of this behavior? Slightly less supportive of it..

Perhaps you think they're equal partners in atrocities.

After all, in any conflict, bad things are done "by both sides."

So it must be equal.

And maybe you'd like to expand on this a little...discuss the way the resistance was as bad as the fascist invaders?

meh.

You too are repeating. Again, until you show me Americans/Australians actually blowing-up the market place, I'm not going to go with your description of the Invasion of East Timor as US/Australian terrorism. It might have some other interesting names...but not terrorism. Scotty brings up an excellent point re: the PLO. Certainly some of your and my tax dollars have gone there to support a confirmed terrorist group. Are you and I now terrorists?

Edited July 27, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[bleeding heart]

Yes, I'd say, to a certain extent. On the other hand, the west supports the PLO. Does that make the west complicit in all the brutalities committed by PLO police etc.?

Like I said, that's a fair question, and people can have rational discussions about it. Just as we can reasonably debate about alliances with various regimes.

This case is quite different. We weren't offering aid to a nation that was acting brutally; we were intentionally aiding the brutality itself, our leaders fully cognizant of what was happening.

That is, the purpose of the help we were giving was for the invasion.

That's why Ford and Kissinger wanted the American part in it to be kept from the public. Much the same was true of the other nations involved.

That's why Congress was circumvented, so that the weapons transfers--technically illegal under US law, given their purpose--could continue unabated.

That's why, when they sent Special Forces to train the killers, they engaged in the doublespeak of claiming it was actually a training exercise for the Special Forces themselves...because aiding a murderous aggressor with military training was also illegal under US law.

The British engaged in similar machinations as they sent fighter aircraft to the Generals.

My analogy holds, your perspective on it doesn't. Many countries, including the US, have sent aid to the PLO, to Fatah, etc. But they are not sending aid for the purposes of Palestinian terrorism.

That's a gigantic difference.

and the difficulties of picking and choosing among world nations which, by and large, do not show anything like the respect for human rights we do. Can we shun them all?

In this case (far from the only one) we weren't showing any respect for human rights, whatsoever. We were opposed to human rights, in favour of larger policy goals...such as supporting an anti-communist (indeed, virtually fascist) government, in opposition to a hundred thousand..and possibly two hundred thousand victims.

I have yet to hear a single justification for it specifically, as opposed to vague remarks about Cold War alliances.

Such August figures as Paul Wolfowitz and Daniel Patrick Moynihan were actively engaged in allowing the Generals to continue their rampage. Various Presidents and Prime Ministers, well, it goes without saying.

And I'm not talking about "shun[ining] them," as that implies that we perhaps "looked away" while atrocities were occurring, as in Rwanda. But we didn't "look away"; we were directly involved, and looking straight on.

So that's another difference. For a legal analogy, it's the difference between negligence and first-degree murder. Which isn't insignificant.

with all due respect, all you've offered as rebuttal so far is that "the West doesn't behave this way."

And when it's demonstrated--including with official documents, such as declassified records (provided in my links in the earlier post)--that the West demonstrably does behave this way...you simply disagree, as if the documentary record is a matter of opinion.

I think western governments tend to want to do the best both for their own people and others around the world. I don't think terrorists have the same goals.

They clearly have exactly the same goals on that fundamental level....it's just that they're wrong, and that terrorism is a perverse and always illegitimate method for achieving political aims.

And supporting the murder of many tens of thousands of innocent civilians is just as illegitimate. It is not better, it is not more justifiable. I fail to see how what our terrorist enemies have engaged in is any worse than this.

It's of course hard to reconcile the fact that people who are not grinning, evil men could help subject people to such evils. I think the answer is in the basic lunacy of institutionalized evils.

But to deny that the Western nations have resorted to supporting (not allowing--supporting) murder and suffering on such an epic scale, without even a half-decent justification, is to remain ensconced in doctrinal myths about the noble West; and its incestuous sibling: hostility towards the harsher facts themselves.

It's as if the principles that we admire are more real than the objective facts on the ground. And that stance is worse than useless.

[bleeding heart]

You too are repeating. Again, until you show me Americans/Australians actually blowing-up the market place, I'm not going to go with your description of the Invasion of East Timor as US/Australian terrorism. It might have some other interesting names...but not terrorism. Scotty brings up an excellent point re: the PLO. Certainly some of your and my tax dollars have gone there to support a confirmed terrorist group. Are you and I now terrorists?

I have answered these points--including the PLO one directly--above.

But I find it interesting that you hold this stance: if someone gives Hamas militants some shiny new bombs, says, "do what you will with those": knows they are using the bombs to kill innocent Israeli citizens; and also helps keep the aid on the downlow, so that the press and the public doesn't get wind of it; and blocks any international condemnation of Hamas's terrorism....that you don't consider that "support for terrorism."

Well, of course you do.

It's just when Western states are among the culprits that you become suddenly sensitive to the documented facts.

[DogOnPorch]

I have answered these points--including the PLO one directly--above.

But I find it interesting that you hold this stance: if someone gives Hamas militants some shiny new bombs, says, "do what you will with those": knows they are using the bombs to kill innocent Israeli citizens; and also helps keep the aid on the downlow, so that the press and the public doesn't get wind of it; and blocks any international condemnation of Hamas's terrorism....that you don't consider that "support for terrorism."

Well, of course you do.

It's just when Western states are among the culprits that you become suddenly sensitive to the documented facts.

There's a difference. Hamas is a listed terrorist group. It fires rockets blindly into civilian areas while hiding behind same. The United States is not a terrorist group. No amount of personal guilt on your part will make me see it otherwise. Sorry. You can smugly think yourself correct if you wish...it still won't change my POV. America helping dubious allies with support might be some other 'ism'...but it's just not terrorism. That's the realm of the fellow on the ground hacking your head off.

[bleeding heart]

There's a difference. Hamas is a listed terrorist group. It fires rockets blindly into civilian areas while hiding behind same. The United States is not a terrorist group. No amount of personal guilt on your part will make me see it otherwise. Sorry. You can smugly think yourself correct if you wish...it still won't change my POV. America helping dubious allies with support might be some other 'ism'...but it's just not terrorism. That's the realm of the fellow on the ground hacking your head off.

You're promiscuously twisting the analogy around. Hamas is the listed terror group: my hypothetical intentional aider and abettor is not a "listed terrorist group."

Suharto was a fascist or pseudo-fascist dictator; his aiders and abettors were not.

I'm not "smugly" thinking myself correct; I offer an array of documentation, up to and including declassified records...and you determined it better for your sensitive mental health to avoid even looking at it, and pretending I'm inventing it all.

And there was plenty of machete-hacking in the situation I describe. As you'd know, if you reigned in your reflexive sensitivity and looked soberly at the matter. And it's precisely your heroes, those who make you all dewy-eyed, who share direct responsibility for it.

I'm sure you don't design to be an outright apologist. It's just a peculiar blind spot you've got.

Edited July 27, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

I'm sure you don't design to be an outright apologist. It's just a peculiar blind spot you've got.

There is no "blind spot" from where I sit.

I can't think of one time the U.S. has wanted to kill civilians; when that's been the goal, and Americans have cheered it on. Every time the U.S./Israel et al is compared to terrorists I can't help but wonder at the reasoning behind it.

Edited July 27, 2013 by American Woman

[bleeding heart]

There is no "blind spot" from where I sit.

Then you haven't been following the discussion.

I can't think of one time the U.S. has wanted to kill civilians

I can't either, and never made the claim.

In the analysis which we're debating, I opine that the Western allies of Suharto's Indonesia (and not only the United States) simply didn't give a rat's *** about the killing (and torturing, and raping, and enforced starvation) of the East Timorese civilians.

This is evidenced by the fact that they knowingly, materially aided the behavior for 25 years, and blocked diplomatic resolutions.

It's not that they "wanted to kill civilians"...it's that they we were willing to accept it, and no big deal after all, so long as the fascists achieved their goals of taking over East Timor.

Every time the U.S./Israel et al is compared to terrorists I can't help but wonder at the reasoning behind it.

First of all, I didn't mention Israel.

Second, I have never--not once--called Israel terrorists. You should cite where I did so if you don't agree.

Third, I only pointed out the truism, that if somebody intentionally aids Hamas in murder...and goes so far as to diplomatically ensure it can continue the bloodshed without interference....everyone immediately recognizes this as "supporting terrorism."

Well, the analogy is precise....but too generous to us and to Indonesia, since what was done to the East Timorese was by far and away more devastating and horrific than anything Hamas could ever manage.

Finally, why insinuate?:

I can't help but wonder at the reasoning behind it

Go ahead, spell it out.

Edited July 27, 2013 by bleeding heart

[DogOnPorch]

There is no "blind spot" from where I sit.

I can't think of one time the U.S. has wanted to kill civilians; when that's been the goal, and Americans have cheered it on. Every time the U.S./Israel et al is compared to terrorists I can't help but wonder at the reasoning behind it.

The war on Timor was typical for the era. So-called anti-Communist vs Socialists...the US had a tendency to back the former in the face of Communist influence...or perceived Communist influence. Often without much forethought since they were (and are) playing a much greater game. Plus, Ford wasn't exactly one of the better Presidents. Bad things happened. But bad things are happening without America 'meddling' and they get blamed for that, too. Can't win...

[bleeding heart]

The war on Timor was typical for the era. So-called anti-Communist vs Socialists...the US had a tendency to back the former in the face of Communist influence...or perceived Communist influence. Often without much forethought since they were (and are) playing a much greater game. Plus, Ford wasn't exactly one of the better Presidents. Bad things happened. But bad things are happening without America 'meddling' and they get blamed for that, too. Can't win...

Sure, but that's ultimately trivial. "Anti-Americanism" is a problem when it comes to those disposed to visit violence upon people; it's a nothing of an irritant, at most, in other realms.

At any rate, you seem pretty cavalier about the whole thing....wrong bad guys, I guess.

Edited July 27, 2013 by bleeding heart

[DogOnPorch]

Sure, but that's ultimately trivial. "Anti-Americanism" is a problem when it comes to those disposed to visit violence upon people; it's a nothing of an irritant, at most, in other realms.

Like Syria? There's a damned if they do, damned if they don't, situation for America. What side should America support? Keep in mind if they choose none of the above they're also blamed for that. Let's see...a Russian toady who is in power only thanks to his Warsaw Pact smooching father? Or a diverse pack of hoods that are just as likely to cut your head off as say 'thanks for the shiny new weapons' ? Tough choice...it must be tempting on some levels to just say 'F--- it'.

[bleeding heart]

Like Syria? There's a damned if they do, damned if they don't, situation for America. What side should America support? Keep in mind if they choose none of the above they're also blamed for that. Let's see...a Russian toady who is in power only thanks to his Warsaw Pact smooching father? Or a diverse pack of hoods that are just as likely to cut your head off as say 'thanks for the shiny new weapons' ? Tough choice...it must be tempting on some levels to just say 'F--- it'.

Sure, I get what you're saying, about Syria currently, and about others previous.

My point ultimately is: so what?

The "damned if you do, damned if you don't" issue is not a serious problem. It's just the way the powerful are held to account...and in the process are sometimes criticized unfairly.

But it's not at bottom a major issue.

Edited July 27, 2013 by bleeding heart

[DogOnPorch]

Sure, I get what you're saying, about Syria currently, and about others previous.

My point ultimately is: so what?

The "damned if you do, damned if you don't" issue is not a serious problem. It's just the way the powerful are held to account...and in the process are sometimes criticized unfairly.

But it's not at bottom a major issue.

I suppose that's my point too. So what? Show me an American blowing-up the marketplace or I'm just a big 'meh' about the situation in Timor. As comedian Stan Freberg said in one of his skits...People are going to kill each other all the time. Why blame me??

Edited July 27, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[PhilosopherKing]

It's just when Western states are among the culprits that you become suddenly sensitive to the documented facts.

You would get more traction to say western nations have, in the past, provided aid and assistance to the culprits. It would be more accurate too.

But in any case you are comparing past actions to present actions. The US does not currently aid regimes which engage in that sort of behavior. No western nation does.

Russia continues to, of course. So does China. I don't see any great ringing denunciations of them for it on this site -- ever, but they continue to care nothing whatsoever for human rights abuses. Possibly because they commit so many abuses themselves.

But now that we've established how many nations either commit brutality and murder, or aid and assist them, we come back to Israel. And I believe the query was why we continue to get those ringing denunciations from the UN and keep getting topic after topic devoted to denouncing them here. While Israel is no paragon of virtue it doesn't begin to approach the brutality of Suharto, or for that matter, Russia or China today or the nations Russia and China support, such as Syria and Sudan. So what gives?

[Hudson Jones]

How many Afghani civilians have been killed by U.S. and its allies? How many in Iraq? How many have been killed by Israel in Gaza?

Shrugging off deaths of civilians by using "collateral damage" as the excuse doesn't change the fact that civilians are killed and that deaths could be avoided by not dropping bombs on them or shooting missiles into buildings.

Killing by bombs and missiles from airplanes, helicopters and tanks and then saying we regret their deaths doesn't make us any more civilized and moral.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Hudson Jones

[carepov]

I don't know--what percentage of the killings we're discussing did take place "post-cold-war," from, say, '90-99? It is a lot of people.

And I should add that the Cold War justifies precisely zero of what happened.

If anything, the point is the opposite of the one you seem to be faintly implying...because the Cold War had ended, even that laughable pretext went out the window in the East Timor situation.

A lot of people relative to what?

The main reason that I am talking about post-Cold War is that it ended 24 years ago, yes some things never change but in general there are new Western leaders and the world has greatly changed since.

I was not implying that the Cold War justified East Timor. The situation was deplorable and inexcusable. Also, a great deal of American involvement in Central/South America in the 80's was inexcusable state terrorism.

But monumentally higher than--for a salient example--Hamas. It's not even close. I am struggling to remember where you have downplayed their actions, or suggested that "the numbers [of Hamas terror victims] are very low...as a percentage of world population."

The principle difference between Western powers and terrorist groups like Hamas is that Hamas's capabilities are limited and that is why the death toll and terrorism is limited.

Even if that's true, and with all due respect, I'm frankly not sure that this point is in any way relevant to a single thing I've written in this thread...

My impression (which could be wrong) is that you are overly critical of the West and forgetting that, chances are, the alternatives to Western powers would include far more violations of human rights.

Incidentally (or not really...it is part of the point I was making) if we had colluded in the Rwandan genocide, or in the Serbian atrocities....most of us wouldn't know much about them either. And I believe I would be hearing the same objections from posters....as if I should better concentrate on the sins of enemies, or at least spend more bandwidth extolling our own virtues.

Of course we would hear a lot of nonsense from some posters. But no, the world has changed and if we had colluded in any genocide since the Cold War it would not be ignored like East Timor.

Edited July 29, 2013 by carepov

[carepov]

How many Afghani civilians have been killed by U.S. and its allies? How many in Iraq? How many have been killed by Israel in Gaza?

Shrugging off deaths of civilians by using "collateral damage" as the excuse doesn't change the fact that civilians are killed and that deaths could be avoided by not dropping bombs on them or shooting missiles into buildings.

Killing by bombs and missiles from airplanes, helicopters and tanks and then saying we regret their deaths doesn't make us any more civilized and moral.

How many Afghani civilians would have died without western involvement?

(hint: look at the historical record of Taleban rule)

How many would have died in Iraq under Hussein?

(hint: look at the Kurds...)

How many would have died if for example the Arab Spring occurred under Hussein?

(hint: look at the current war in Syria or past wars in Lebanon for possible outcomes)

How many Israelis would die if Hamas was allowed to obtain "greater" capabilities?

The fact that the West has the overwhelming power to kill at it's own discretion but restrains this power is the key difference between the West and terrorist groups - this makes us more moral. Our treatment of women, minorities and our greater respect for religious freedoms and other human rights are the key points that make us more civilized. I agree however that the West should exercise its power more prudently and humanely and should also respect International Laws.

[Rue]

All nations blow with the winds of self interest. All. No one nation is so morally pristine on this planet they can dare state they are without blood. That is the point. The point is as well that the thread starter only selects Israel out and defines its statehood as if it is the one and only cause of the entire world's ills including all conflicts in the Middle East.

I am with Dog in distinguishing the terrorism we are talking about in the Middle East. What we are talking about are violent attacks initiated against anyone, by self proclaimed "freedom fighters", i.e., armed cells of people who have no state mandate.

So to equate them as the same as a state mandated armed force engaging in war crimes is not accurate. They are not the same thing. Some on this forum deliberaely blur this distinction because it suits their personal political biases against certain countries and they feel they can equate Hamas and the United States Armed Forces or Israeli defence Force as being no different.

Western armed forces have engaged in military tactics that have harmed civilians. The question then is, was this harm deliberately planned or was it

unintended but inevitable when they fight terrorists who emerse themselves in civilian populations.

I disagree with those who try put Hamas on the same moral footing as the British or US in Iraq or Afghanistan or the IDF.

In the latter case these armed forces and nations have systems of law that hold their soldiers accountable and their governments are elected and accountable to the media and their elected assemblies.

In the former case, Hamas is not a democratic instution. Like all terror cells, it comes to power through the imposition of violence used as coercion.

The currrent Hamas cell likes to refer to itself as democractically elected but in fact how did it get elected? It sent its terrorists into the population and made it clear-don't vote for us and you will be sorry. Coercion was used in the form of burning tires around people's necks and late at night visits and the severe beating of opponents then dumped in public places with vital organs missing to serve as an example of what happens when you question Hamas.

Some Gaza citizens absolutely fed up with Arafat's coruption and lies did vote for Hamas or support it when it denounced violence and adhered to strict principles of Islamic charity which did not allow it to accept bribes for individuals. When Hamas was in fact run by the non terrorist cells it worked hand in hand with Israel unofficially through third party charities and an entire state was built in the Gaza including greenhourses, roads, schools, mosques, hospitals, government buildings and Gaza citizens went in to Israel to work.

Those were the cells Hamas citizens voted for. Then the violent cells from Syria poured in, grabbed control of Hamas, engaged in civil war against the PA and a violent one at that openly mutilating people as a warning, then went into the same neighbourhoods and ordered people to vote for it.

Hamas is not a genuine democractic institution any more than Hezbollah is. While the US, Britain and Israel follow the accepted rules of military law Hamas and Hezbollah do not.

While the British, Israelis, US or other Western armies may kill civilians its not deliberate. Hamas aims its weapons deliberately at civilians.

So to equate the two as the same I find unreasonable and reflecting a political bias that tries to legitimize terrorists by stating they are democractically elected governments who are accountable with governable sovereign stated armed forces. They are not.

They are criminals. They openly disobey the laws of the world and the domestic laws of all nations so let's stop equating them with democratic states.

As for Timor, some of you get your facts straight. Indonesia committed a war of illegal occupation of East Timor. Unlike Palestine, East Timor was a sovereign nation. Unlike Israel the Indonesian army committed war crimes the IDF has never been accused of let alone proven to have done.

Australia had to come in to East Timor. Had it not there would have been a genocide by the Indonesian army. Israel has never committed mass murder on Palestinians as Sudan has done to its Southern Christians or Iraq did with its Kurds, or Iran has done with its Bahaiis, or Syria has done with its Sunni Muslims, Assyrians, Druze. Israel has never engaged in war against its own people as did Hezbolla or the Iranian Guard.

The one massacre it was accused of was proven to be a fabricated lie.

Israel did engage in an aerial war in Lebanon many like me question. It did so because its leader at the time, a civilian, panicked and did not want to send in troops on the ground as the IDF told him to do so he thought he would keep it an air war shooting at the last known quadrants of each missile shot by Hezbollah at Israel. Hezbollah chose to fight its war from hospitals, schools, the balconies of innocent civilians know different then Hamas does.

Therein lies the moral difference. You can piss and pucker all you want Bleeding or anyone else trying to suggest the West are terrorists but they do not hide in civilian uniforms and use pregnant women, mentally retarded and deformed children to smuggle their weapons. They don't transport themselves in ambulances and use hospitals as military stock supply depots.

Are Western armies guilty of war crimes. Yes of course. But this thread's starter equates all Israelis as Nazis. His dispicable reference is designed to suggest the victims of the holocaust or who fleed the discrimination of Sharia law are Nazis because they chose to seek freedom.

This thread starter and now Bleeding Heart blur the line because its politically convenient for their disdain of the US or Israel.

I ask anyone. Who would you choose to live with as your neighbour the US or Hamas? Israel or Hamas?

To equate them at the same level, is tripe.

China, Russia, and Iran, you want to go live there and enjoy their freedoms, go. Be my guest.

[GostHacked]

I ask anyone. Who would you choose to live with as your neighbour the US or Hamas? Israel or Hamas?

The Jews willingly chose to live with the neighbors they currently have the moment Israel was created.

[Guest American Woman]

The Jews willingly chose to live with the neighbors they currently have the moment Israel was created.

It's not as if they had a choice in the way Rue is asking the question. It's a good question. Do you have an answer?

[GostHacked]

It's not as if they had a choice in the way Rue is asking the question. It's a good question. Do you have an answer?

There was a choice, but the 'ancient historical' ties to the area were part of the reason the Jews picked to live.

I did not have a choice of where I was born, but I do have a choice of where I want to live. By that argument people born in Israel can't change where they were born, but can change where they live. But that speaks to their leaders of days past which put them into this situation.

And no, I do not have an answer. The conflict has been going on 20-30 years longer than I have been alive. I am not sure I can even provide a solution. But a good start would be to abandon the illegal settlements.

I know the argument of a security void if the settlements are abandoned, but the settlements are also part of the problem that Israel has with negotiating peace. It's working against their own security. Purposely building illegal settlements in the occupied territories, now recognized as a sovereign nation is doing the opposite of what Israel wants. Putting Jewish populations in these areas is a threat to the Jews who end up moving there. Hard to blame a Palestinian for attacking the illegal settlements. But is this something that Israel wants in order to look like a victim of some sorts? Does not make any sense to me.